Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[sealybobo]

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

It's a though exercise.

 

[Taz]

Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not. That is up to government. Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not. If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

 

[Taz]

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

It's a though exercise.

So is spelling.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

 

[sealybobo]

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not. That is up to government. Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not. If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

So you don't believe in private property rights either?

 

[sealybobo]

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

So you don't believe in private property rights either?

Why do you say that? Did you know I don't own the first foot of my grass? I have to cut it but the city owns that. In case they need to put in a fire hydrant or sidewalk.

No American should own property on the border. There should be a foot or 10 feet where the government can do what is necessary.

Is that what you meant?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

So you don't believe in private property rights either?

Why do you say that? Did you know I don't own the first foot of my grass? I have to cut it but the city owns that. In case they need to put in a fire hydrant or sidewalk.

No American should own property on the border. There should be a foot or 10 feet where the government can do what is necessary.

Is that what you meant?

No, in post # 4140 you advocated jailing employers who hire "illegals" (that alone made me wonder whether you were an American... you know, presumption of innocence and all.) But, in all reality, Americans don't want hard jobs:

Few Americans take immigrants' jobs in Alabama

In addition to that, no only does out experiences mirror those in that story, but a couple of years ago I underwent major surgery. Then the county decided to jerk my chain over a property I owned. IF I had been physically able, I could have taken them to court and won.

But, I had to come up with a fantastic amount of money; I wasn't able to work and had a finite amount of money to work with. Like I keep saying, you cannot hire even a handyman with basic skills here that don't think he's worth what a surgeon makes.

Not having the money, I hired a few Mexican guys and I didn't give two hoots in Hell about their immigration status. It was either get the work done or forfeit the home to the government. Later, at a block party, the elderly and those on fixed incomes asked where I found that crew. People here sometimes have to choose between eating and keeping their property up (they charge us $1000 fine if your grass goes over 8 inches high.) The bottom line is you seem to think it's okay to jail people for maintaining their own private property using an invitee due to a federal law where the government has no actual constitutional authority.

I had to add this as I just found it and it was revealing and more up to date. Here's a quote from the article:

"Many farmers have had to rely on undocumented workers. Perhaps as much as 60-70 percent of the laborers working on farms and ranches across the country might not have the proper documentation, said Charles Connor, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and a former deputy secretary of agriculture.

But a crackdown on the border controls and an increase in deportations under both the Obama and Trump administrations have cut the labor pool further. Some farmers have responded by moving their operations to Mexico, where the workers are."

U.S. crops ready for picking, but farm workers in short supply

 

[OKTexas]

I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.

You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor. The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.

And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

I'm Agnostic.
I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.

.

.

AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run? Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour. The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.

I have answered your question at least six times on this thread. I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either. You got me mixed up. I'm not your push button monkey. So, you should quit lying and read the thread. Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?

.

At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect. It is actually post # 2806

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.

Semantics. All semantics. What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law. Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.

If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.

I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to be turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor. The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.

And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

I'm Agnostic.
I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.

.

.

AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run? Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour. The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.

I have answered your question at least six times on this thread. I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either. You got me mixed up. I'm not your push button monkey. So, you should quit lying and read the thread. Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.

.

Are you lying again? You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about. You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.

The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship. Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business. Period sir.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.

So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?

all won't stay. Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing. Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.

But if 1 billion Chinese want to stay, then what?

New Cities in more optimal locations. How many jobs do we want to manufacture?

 

[Taz]

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

 

[Taz]

Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not. That is up to government. Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not. If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

I’m a Libertarian, not GOP.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.

So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?

When you get spanked by danielpalos like that, maybe you should just sit back, read, and learn. That was so humiliating I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or keep laughing.

Because of his "naturalization" bullshit? Go eat another taco.

the right wing doesn't care about the law; they are just kettles whining about pots.

 

[Taz]

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.

 

[danielpalos]

Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

we don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.

 

[Taz]

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.

So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?

all won't stay. Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing. Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.

But if 1 billion Chinese want to stay, then what?

New Cities in more optimal locations. How many jobs do we want to manufacture?

If official, you’re an idiot.

 

[Taz]

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.

So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?

When you get spanked by danielpalos like that, maybe you should just sit back, read, and learn. That was so humiliating I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or keep laughing.

Because of his "naturalization" bullshit? Go eat another taco.

the right wing doesn't care about the law; they are just kettles whining about pots.

Do something useful and go make some tacos.

 

[Taz]

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

we don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.

Go eat a dog, you must be hungry.