• Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 02:30 PM
    But that only applies when they invade someone's private property. And the victim is only that private property owner and no one else.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 02:22 PM
    Whoever it is isn't likely to be any worse than King.
    6 replies | 132 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 02:17 PM
    Yes it is. The victim of trespassing is the owner of the property being trespassed, assuming it has a rightful owner. In illegal immigration, the person committing the crime may well be expressly invited onto whatever private property they enter. They might even rightfully own it themselves. They may never once set foot on any justly owned private property without the permission of its owners. Who is the victim then? It can't be someone who doesn't own any of the property the immigrant ever sets foot on. It can't be the ruling regime, who has no legitimate claim to the property it treats as its own. In fact, that regime, by dictating to me whom I may or may not allow onto my property, effectively becomes the trespasser. And I, as the rightful owner of the property onto which the regime trespasses, am the victim of its crimes.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 11:30 AM
    Exactly. And it sure wasn't because they wanted smaller government.
    31 replies | 586 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 10:13 AM
    Yes, and when he says, "I also am interested in the issue of privacy. And the question of who owns this data," he surely means that the entity that ought to own it is the federal government, and not these private companies.
    12 replies | 206 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 09:43 AM
    Up to this point you have reiterated the precise point I made. This recent coining of the special application of the word "illegal" to describe people, as though those who have previously illegally immigrated belong to this category of "illegal" while those who have previously done any other illegal things do not, is to twist its meaning nonsensically. It's those use this neologism who engage in word games, not those who resist it. Sometimes that is the punishment for that particular crime. Sometimes it isn't. Even granting for the sake of argument that some punishment were necessary, it would not need to be deportation. Nor does US law require that it must be deportation. Contrary to what you may have heard, it is not the case that anything short of deporting them equates to non-enforcement of the law. When you demand deportation it is not true that you are merely demanding that the law be enforced, but rather that it be enforced in one particular way as opposed to another. Notice how these various beliefs you hold are all mutually entwined with one another. The myth that people who entered the country illegally are still perpetually committing a crime for as long as they remain is inseparable from the insistence that the only just way to deal with them is deportation, since allowing them to stay here would according to this misconception mean allowing them to continue to commit a crime. Once you get disabused of your misconception about the law (and it is a misconception, as you will discover if you simply look into it, N.B. that despite the insistence of several here that I'm wrong, none have yet succeeding in finding the actual federal law that they're so certain exists), your insistence on deportation will soon diminish as well.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 08:56 AM
    Bye.
    31 replies | 586 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 08:17 AM
    Then you are flat out wrong, and insisting on continuing to be wrong by choice it seems. Illegal immigration plainly is a victimless crime. It's impossible not to see that. On the other hand, the immigration restriction that the regime engages in is a crime that has real victims, not only among those who illegally immigrate, but also among all of us, both when we try to hire them to work for us, and in much more ordinary burdens that we have simply gotten used to, like having to give our SSN's to employers when we apply for jobs and have those employers inform the government about our identities and employment with them, or being liable to get stopped and asked for our papers at checkpoints in the zones within many miles of our borders in which a very large percentage of Americans live.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2019, 07:28 AM
    The first thing you said is true, just as every single one of us is still guilty every day of every violation of every law we've committed in our lives. The second thing you say is false. People who entered the USA illegally are not, according to US law, "in an illegal status" on account of their having at some time in the past done that. Again, you are misusing the word "illegal" for something that is merely unlawful. And again, if you want to continue to deny that I'm right about this, please find the law that you think says what you keep saying. I get that it's very difficult for you to shift the paradigm you think of this in. You've been programmed to understand it the way you're describing it, and you never stopped to think critically about it and discover if it's really true. But when you get around to doing that, you'll discover that it is not, and hopefully no longer join in propounding the propaganda that led you to think it.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 03:01 PM
    Now, this brings up the intriguing possibility of why not cancel all of their junkets, not just during the shutdown, but every other time too.
    74 replies | 1216 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 02:56 PM
    Minarchists do not support immigration restriction. Whatever you are, the size of government you advocate is much larger than minarchy. The nation's founders were not minarchists. But, as far as they went in instituting a gargantuan centralized federal government, even they never dreamed of going so far as to empower the federal government to restrict immigration. And it only takes a bit of critical reflection to realize that this has nothing to do with their not believing in the regime's sovereignty.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 02:55 PM
    That certainly sounds like your answer to my question is "no." That's good. I agree. Having elections doesn't make the decisions of Congress equal to the decisions of the American people. Not even when those decisions pertain to subjects the alleged representatives talked about in their campaigns.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 02:46 PM
    If you believe that the laws passed by Congress are actually the same thing as group decisions of the American people themselves, you are mistaken. This is obvious to those who pay attention. Do you believe that the decision to bailout the banks in 2008 was a group decision of the American people?
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 02:12 PM
    Then you utterly misrepresented the facts. You were positively promoting the illusion to which you refer. You even argued that immigration laws were not minor statutes the violations of which we should tolerate precisely on the grounds that, according to you, they represented the will of the citizens. If, as you now admit, this is an illusion, then the severity of violating immigration laws that you mentioned must be an illusion too.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 02:11 PM
    Again, this is false. There is no law that they are continually violating simply by existing here. If you dispute this, please find the law that says that. The reason you assume there is such a law is that you have been subjected to propaganda which you have uncritically accepted as true. The truth is, it's only on the popular level where this mischaracterization of immigration law is propounded. Those who have actually studied immigration law don't talk about it the way you do. Now as for the rest of this... Of course. And likewise, all of us have violated laws before, and do with some frequency. If this is the basis for calling people "illegal," then that adjective is not a useful one, since, by this line of reasoning, we are all always illegals. This was the point I made above.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 02:09 PM
    It's surprising how ignorant immigration restrictionists are about the very laws that they supposedly support.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 01:56 PM
    I can't fix it. But I am obligated by the law of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to repudiate it. I will live under it, submit to it, and do what I can to improve or mitigate its evils if practical. But I will not approve of them. At any rate, the fact remains that, as I pointed out, illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with entering a country without the citizens' permission. And this is indisputable.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 01:55 PM
    At the moment of their entry, while they are actually in the process of doing this, this description might be accurate. But subsequent to that time, while they are no longer illegally entering, but rather simply existing within the borders after after having illegally entered at some point in the past, this description no longer applies. They would now be unlawful residents, meaning that there is no explicit positive legal declaration approving of their presence in the US. But there is nothing illegal about their merely being here, which would mean that there were some law that they were continually breaking by their presence here. The illegal act of theirs, much like running a stop sign, is the discrete act of a moment in time at which point they either crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas. When used in actual legal contexts, the distinction between illegal and unlawful is a meaningful and sometimes (such as this) important one. When used as an adjective describing people, and not actions, the term "undocumented" actually is the much more intellectually honest term. Calling them illegal is shear propaganda. This use of that word has arisen rather recently in the English language, and entirely at the behest of people pushing a statist agenda. It's a shame that so many people have so mindlessly allowed themselves to be programmed into following right along in this Orwellian change of the language.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 01:50 PM
    Immigration law as we know it has nothing to do with the permission of the citizens. If I, a citizen, choose to welcome someone from another country onto my property without the permission of the regime, then both I and that guest of mine are in violation of the illegitimate manmade statutes of US immigration laws. Immigration laws, as we know them, are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 12:50 PM
    That's really something that Mexico would honor someone for orchestrating the deal that, according to Trump, makes Mexico pay for the wall that he's begging Congress to fund.
    31 replies | 586 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 09:21 AM
    But the Republican voters you referred to did.
    31 replies | 586 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 09:13 AM
    I also got a kick out of the OP's equating Republican voters with libertarian voters. Republican voters were merely "at times brainwashed by the likes of George H W Bush." Just him? Riiiiiiight.
    31 replies | 586 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 08:35 AM
    Some of what you said may be true. But you'd have to be delusional or not paying any attention at all to believe this line. When has Trump ever shown the slightest interest or knowledge about America's roots? If he were ever to propose some plan and somebody else were to ask him about how it meshed with the principals of America's roots, Trump would fire that person for asking him what he would consider such a stupid question.
    31 replies | 586 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 08:27 AM
    Is this slang lingo or something?
    11 replies | 272 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 08:26 AM
    For whose greater good specifically? It's always for some people more than others. It's never a true common good.
    19 replies | 185 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 05:20 PM
    The problem with the way you use English, is that nobody knows. I'm not certain that you yourself do.
    92 replies | 675 view(s)
More Activity
About Superfluous Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,913
Posts Per Day
3.50
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 07:59 AM
Join Date
10-10-2016
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. BV2 BV2 is offline

    Member

    BV2
  2. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 104 1231151101 ... LastLast

01-19-2019


01-18-2019


01-17-2019



Page 1 of 104 1231151101 ... LastLast