Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 109

Thread: Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

  1. #1

    Exclamation Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

    And we know how well unbridled immigration worked out for them.


    Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9887501.html

    President Obama quite succinctly summed up the absurdity of the Republicans' issues with his immigration reform in Chicago yesterday, arguing that perhaps the only people who can legitimately be pissed off about illegal immigrants are Native Americans.

    Returning to his hometown to speak, the president tried to place his recent executive action, which saved five million immigrants from deportation, within a great American tradition of welcoming foreigners.

    "If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave there have been periods where the folks who were already here have said, 'Well I don't want those folks,'" he said. "Even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans."

    His orders were sufficient in upsetting the GOP, but he also faced criticism from immigration activists who feel they do not go far enough.

    Hecklers shouted "Not one more!" and "Stop deportations!" and "There is no justice!" during the speech, to which he replied at one point: "It doesn’t make much sense to yell at me right now."
    “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    And what about the peoples that preceded the native americans?

  4. #3
    Immigrants? Illegal aliens!

    Lawful US citizens don't want amnesty.

    But a small group of hyper-wealthy individuals and corporations do.

    More proof the US has become an oligarchy where the common man has no say in anything.
    Last edited by DFF; 11-28-2014 at 12:10 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    And what about the peoples that preceded the native americans?
    Dude, we stole it from the English.. and bought it from the French.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  6. #5
    I understand the constitutional issues, I understand the pragmatic issues, but how in the world can one MORALLY justify prohibitions to immigration?

    I don't comment on this issue much for a few reasons. In the first place, its controversial among libertarians. In the second place, I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. I don't comment that much on IP for similar reasons. (I DO comment on abortion despite the controversy because I believe it DOES matter in the grand scheme of things.) In the third place, the federal laws are probably (I'm not 100% sure) constitutional, and my goal is to get the government back to its constitutional limits before worrying that much about the exact details. In the fourth place, the pragmatic effects of allowing unrestricted immigration with the welfare state as is would likely be awful. But since you brought it up, I still have to ask. What's the principled argument for keeping borders sealed?

    Does this matter to me as much as ending the foreign wars, ending NSA spying, ending police abuse, ending the welfare state, ending the drug war, and so forth? No. But I still can't justify immigration restrictions on principle.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  7. #6
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    Dude, we stole it from the English.. and bought it from the French.
    I'm just saying that life on this planet is simply a series of one group conquering or leaving their 'property' to another group.

    http://rt.com/news/stone-age-america...eologists-445/

    Europeans may have been the first people to settle in America, possibly more than ten thousand years before anyone else set foot there.

    A series of European-style tools dating from twenty-six-thousand to nineteen-thousand years ago have been discovered in six separate locations along the east coast of the United States.

    Archaeologists previously thought that America was populated by migrants making their way from Siberia to Alaska, and then spreading through the rest of the continent.

    But the first of these Asian tribes started moving there about 15,500 years ago – and there is no evidence of human activity in Siberia or Alaska from before that time.

    Professors Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradford, the two archaeologists who made the discovery, suggest Europeans moved across the Atlantic during the peak of Ice Age.

    At the time, a vast tranche of ice covered the Atlantic. The Stone Age migrants would have been able to survive the journey by killing seals, hunting the now-extinct great auks (a sort of giant penguin) and fishing. The archaeologists suggest they may have even used boats for large parts of their travel.

    Further evidence of their thesis is a knife discovered in Virginia in 1971. Recent tests showed that it was made from French flint.

    The new hypothesis is unlikely to change what we know about the Indians who greeted the Europeans upon their arrival.

    The Siberian migrants came to America for longer and in greater numbers, and were either wiped out or absorbed by the European tribes.

    But it does explain the long-standing mystery of the genetic code and language of some Native American tribes that appear European, not Asian in origin.

    Further digs are planned deeper inland up to Texas this year, and will help historians and archaeologists understand just how far the original European colonization went.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I'm just saying that life on this planet is simply a series of one group conquering or leaving their 'property' to another group.

    http://rt.com/news/stone-age-america...eologists-445/
    Maybe. What does that have to do with morals?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Does this matter to me as much as ending the foreign wars, ending NSA spying, ending police abuse, ending the welfare state, ending the drug war, and so forth? No. But I still can't justify immigration restrictions on principle.
    None of this will be possible with a wave of immigration from cultures and political systems where this is the norm, along with a $#@! ton of corruption.

    I contend that part of the reason for all that is a fundamental shift over the last fifty years, deliberately carried out by government, to make that the norm.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I understand the constitutional issues, I understand the pragmatic issues, but how in the world can one MORALLY justify prohibitions to immigration?
    Good to know you're in favor of amnesty and against legal immigration.

    Heck, why not just take it a step further and dissolve the borders, and let everyone come here who wants to come.

    But why stop there? Lets eliminate the United States completely, turn over sovereignty to the United Nations, and have a New World Order.
    Last edited by DFF; 11-28-2014 at 12:16 AM.

  12. #10
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by DFF View Post
    Good to know you're in favor of amnesty and against legal immigration.

    Heck, why not just take it a step further and dissolve the borders, and let everyone come here who wants to come.

    But why stop there? Lets eliminate the United States period, turn over sovereignty to the United Nations, and have a New World Order.
    I don't think he's in favor of this.

  13. #11
    If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I don't think he's in favor of this.
    If you're in favor of amnesty, you're in favor of open borders. If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

    Obama, and all these other higher-ups, this what they want. It's the end-game

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by DFF View Post
    If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.
    Nonsense.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.
    Not necessarily. Ask the ranchers who own private property and have had to deal with drug cartels...who outgun them.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by DFF View Post
    Good to know you're in favor of amnesty and against legal immigration.

    Heck, why not just take it a step further and dissolve the borders, and let everyone come here who wants to come.

    But why stop there? Lets eliminate the United States completely, turn over sovereignty to the United Nations, and have a New World Order.
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I don't think he's in favor of this.
    I'm not. In fact, I didn't even take a position on "amnesty."

    On principle, I take the position that any public property that does exist should be freely accessible to anyone, but I also take the position that public property shouldn't exist at all. Basically, the ideal situation would be all property being privately owned. Private owners could let "immigrants" in or not, their choice. As an ideal, long term, I support abolishing national borders but that's not because I support one-world government, its because I don't support any government (in the statist sense... you can call private PDAs and arbitrators "government" if you want, but they wouldn't have borders). Given a choice between "removing borders" for the purpose of establishing a one-world government or the status quo, I will take the latter, easily, non-question.

    How this applies to "amnesty" I'm not really sure. I think I agree with Judge Napolitano that this was a power grab despite non-agreement with immigration laws on principles. Probably. I don't know all of the details, so I could be convinced that I am wrong. I do think Obama has the right to tell the DOJ not to pursue immigration law-breakers and I don't think he has a constitutional obligation to seek people to deport. I don't think he has a right to interfere with state-governments doing whatever they are going to do about immigration law-breakers, nor do I think he has any right to actually declare immigrants to be "legal."

    I'd be for a modified form of amnesty, passed by congress and signed by Obama, which would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country, but not collect welfare or vote. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I suspect nefarious motives on the part of Obama and the congress, they want to hand out more money and they want more votes. I can assure you a lack of any nefarious motives from me.

    Also, from a pragmatic POV, if we are going to have "countries" and governments who give themselves the right to rule over other people, closed borders seems like the worst thing all the way around. "love it or leave it" is bad enough when you actually can leave, albeit with difficulty. It will be even worse if "leave it" is taken off the table. If we wouldn't want that done to us, we probably shouldn't do it to others to.



    To sum up:

    My absolute ideal situation is the elimination, or at least drastic reduction of, government owned property. That would settle the issue right there.

    Barring that, my proposal would be to allow "amnesty" on condition that illegal immigrants not ever be allowed to collect welfare or vote. Not ever. No "path to citizenship". No deportations either. I do believe that if you are born here you should be considered a citizen. I respectfully disagree with Ron Paul on that point (as I do a few others.)

    I do not doubt that there are some "one world order" implications of Obama's amnesty plan. I think its VERY important to distinguish between the anarcho-capitalist version of "abolishing borders", and the NWO version. Comparing the two is like comparing anarcho-capitalism with anarchic chaos and the breaking down of law and all communitarian institutions. I don't "support" the current version. I'm opposed to deportations, and I don't like immigration restrictions.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DFF View Post
    If you're in favor of amnesty, you're in favor of open borders. If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

    Obama, and all these other higher-ups, this what they want. It's the end-game
    Are you suggesting that my views are the same as Obama's? Get real.

    The amnesty issue has seemed fishy to me from the beginning. That doesn't mean I think more government is the answer.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I don't think he's in favor of this.
    Ideally I support the first part (abolish the US)... not the other parts...
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by DFF View Post
    If you're in favor of amnesty, you're in favor of open borders. If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

    Obama, and all these other higher-ups, this what they want. It's the end-game
    Less government = more government. Right

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I understand the constitutional issues, I understand the pragmatic issues, but how in the world can one MORALLY justify prohibitions to immigration?

    I don't comment on this issue much for a few reasons. In the first place, its controversial among libertarians. In the second place, I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. I don't comment that much on IP for similar reasons. (I DO comment on abortion despite the controversy because I believe it DOES matter in the grand scheme of things.) In the third place, the federal laws are probably (I'm not 100% sure) constitutional, and my goal is to get the government back to its constitutional limits before worrying that much about the exact details. In the fourth place, the pragmatic effects of allowing unrestricted immigration with the welfare state as is would likely be awful. But since you brought it up, I still have to ask. What's the principled argument for keeping borders sealed?

    Does this matter to me as much as ending the foreign wars, ending NSA spying, ending police abuse, ending the welfare state, ending the drug war, and so forth? No. But I still can't justify immigration restrictions on principle.
    The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.

  23. #20
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by staerker View Post
    The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.
    I don't think the writers of the Bible ever envisioned the U.S. government utilizing immigrants for their ends. heh.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I don't think the writers of the Bible ever envisioned the U.S. government utilizing immigrants for their ends. heh.
    Under the assumption (that I am making when talking to a fellow Christian) that the Bible was written by servants of a timeless God, your objection sounds slightly silly. :P

    Regardless, the U.S. government could 'utilize' and pervert anything. It could defend the right to self defense, in an effort to increase it's power. It could protect the right to private property, in order to gain blind support from a select few. I will not stand in the way of either defense, and for sure will not stand against either.

    In the same way, the U.S. government can defend the right of self ownership, and voluntary movement. That has no bearing on it's legitimacy.

  25. #22
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    I think a nation has the right to restrict immigrants from entering, if it has social policies that help the poor. Of course that is socialism, as is, indeed, restricting immigration. A true free market economy has no need to restrict immigration.

    I was at my parent's house last night, watching the charlie brown mayflower special. Oh boy, did the natives screw up when they helped the white people. Their humanity and mercy was their undoing.

  26. #23
    The ancestors of the Native Americans were undocumented immigrants too.

  27. #24
    Maintaining the security of a nation’s borders is paramount in retaining the orthodox customs, expectations, and traditions of its citizens. Otherwise the birthright and heritage of its populace will be overran and sacked in the succeeding decades by the opposing social ideologies of immigrant’s en masse. That is to mean, people arriving in America from third-worlds lack understanding, care little about—or otherwise find themselves offended by—the expected rights and protections of their new acquaintances, such as: women as equals; keeping and bearing arms; age of consent; English as a primary language; healthcare as a privilege; “white entitlements”; collective bargaining units; higher pay with benefits; methods of taxation and abusive monetary inflation; competing theologies; freedom of thought, speech, and expression; anti-government opposition; racism; declared war upon their nation of origin; local history and governmental structure; etc.
    Last edited by Weston White; 11-28-2014 at 03:57 AM.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.
    I disagree. They would just find some unprotected corridors and keep waltzing in. this isn't some fantasy land where "if everyone was a proper libertarian the worlds problems would cease to exist" thing.

    Maybe if the incentives for them to come here were completely eliminated, we *might* see a decrease in immigration. I know a lot of Mexicans, many of them just wanted to get out of the $#@!hole they came from.
    Last edited by asurfaholic; 11-28-2014 at 06:26 AM.

  30. #26
    What the hell is wrong with enforcing laws on the books? My great grand parents came through Ellis Island and applied for citizenship like millions of others. They learned the language and American culture, but still spoke German in the home and celebrated their unique culture within their newfound German-American neighborhoods.

    Why can't this country - at least until things get "straightened out" (whatever that means) and a real law is passed (not diktat) - just say, "look, it's not perfect, but there are laws governing the legal immigration and we're going to enforce them. Please apply for citizenship or we'll send you back home."

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    Not necessarily. Ask the ranchers who own private property and have had to deal with drug cartels...who outgun them.
    Well isn't the fact that they are outgunned in part due to the U.S. government selling automatic weapons to drug cartels (fast and furious) and barring U.S. citizens from owning automatic weapons?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by staerker View Post
    The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.
    It's funny how Obama once ridiculed using the Bible as inspiration for national policy but he harps on one part of the Bible to support his agenda.

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    Furnish Cell phones with GPS tracking all along the borders with instructions that if they are in need of water, food, of help to call 911. The police can take it from there.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    Furnish Cell phones with GPS tracking all along the borders with instructions that if they are in need of water, food, of help to call 911. The police can take it from there.
    LOL
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. USA and the Native-Americans
    By ian_co in forum National Sovereignty
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-17-2010, 10:59 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-05-2009, 01:27 PM
  3. Native Americans
    By PaultheSaint in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 07:00 PM
  4. Native Americans
    By real_native70 in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 05:28 PM
  5. Message to Native Americans?
    By katao in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-09-2007, 10:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •