Does a nation-state have the right to limit or restrict immigration?

[timosman]

+1

Common sense. Something in rare supply around here these days.

Common sense isn't common.

[UWDude]

Wait a minute...am I arguing with eduardo?

More like Revolution3.0

[MallsRGood]

That would be ok with me as long as you personally were held responsible for any harm they did and any money they sucked from your fellow citizenry. That includes any use of public property for which we paid.

The consequence of them doing so would be for you to pay back all the money and stand in front of a firing squad if they harmed one of your fellow citizens.

You game?

Right, so how about...law?

You are aware that if citizen A causes harm to citizen B, A is liable to B?

Why need that vary based on the country of origin of the people in question?

How about just...law?

I know, I know, that's crazy...

Deys Messicuns N R Bad N Stuff...

[MallsRGood]

Precisely why I do not want a huge bloc of hostiles inside.

Are you under the impression that your "fellow citizens" will behave well when the free$#@! runs out?

...personally, I'd rather hang with beaners post SHTF than 'Muricans.

For beaners, it's just...Tuesday.

No reason is needed to limit or stop immigration.

No reason is needed to deport you to Antarctica.

You're dangerous, because a majority of the people living within an arbitrarily defined geographical area around you say you are.

Vaya con dios

[LibertyEagle]

Right, so how about...law?

You mean like IMMIGRATION LAW? Like that?

You are aware that if citizen A causes harm to citizen B, A is liable to B?

Uh huh and if you want to break our immigration laws and bring an illegal alien onto your property, you are responsible for their actions. Remember that principle about being responsible for your own damn actions? Yeah that one.

[Anti Federalist]

You've been advocating for governmental regulation of property throughout this entitle thread; that is what immigration control means.

I was referring to the specific example of environmental damage in the previous post.

...based on nothing more than your dislike of chalupas.

It's more based on the fact that I have watched, over the past month, millions of frothing fanatics take to the street, who, for all intents and purposes want me and my family dead, many of them from this pool of immigrants, migrants, refugees and other "wretched refuse".

That was a real opener to me, I don't think I've ever seen such an outpouring of hate and vitriol in my life.

If you thought state regulation of property rights was a cornerstone of libertarianism, I'm afraid you never understood libertarianism at all.

No, I thought the right to protect your property was.

I do not want this:



To become this:

[Anti Federalist]

More like Revolution3.0

Pretty sure I got a sock, just wish they'd be honest.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you under the impression that your "fellow citizens" will behave well when the free$#@! runs out?

...personally, I'd rather hang with beaners post SHTF than 'Muricans.

For beaners, it's just...Tuesday.

Then move to Mexico. If they will have you, that is.

No reason is needed to deport you to Antarctica.

You're dangerous, because a majority of the people living within an arbitrarily defined geographical area around you say you are.

He's a citizen of this country. He has no reason to leave.

Vaya con dios

You leaving?

[MallsRGood]

Nations should just let armies cross their borders, as long as the armies promise to be good. NAP!

Yea, boy



That's an army.

Ima scurred!

Aren't youa scurred?!

[UWDude]

Pretty sure I got a sock, just wish they'd be honest.

they can't be honest. Sock puppets to bypass bans are a bannable offense. revolution3.0 was banned, I think.
I think it's revolution3.0 because he posted at a frenetic pace, just like this sock.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you under the impression that your "fellow citizens" will behave well when the free$#@! runs out?

...personally, I'd rather hang with beaners post SHTF than 'Muricans.

For beaners, it's just...Tuesday.

That right there is the very worst indictment you could make, and proves my point.

No, I don't think because a lot of these people are not "my fellow citizens".

And yep, just another Tuesday: sloth, crime, corruption, government tyranny and waste.

Time for siesta.

No reason is needed to deport you to Antarctica.

You're dangerous, because a majority of the people living within an arbitrarily defined geographical area around you say you are.

Vaya con dios

Again, precisely why I'm concerned.

Gonna be enough to do dealing with "fellow citizens" and not have to worry about a "fifth column".

They think "democracy" grants the right to do just that.

[UWDude]

Yea, boy



That's an army.

Ima scurred!

Aren't youa scurred?!

But we are delving into philosophical now, about freedom of movement and such. So since all humans are free, are armies allowed to just march around wherever they want?

And BTW, the vast majority of immigrants from the seven banned nations are young, able bodied men, and many of them are ISIS sleeper agents, as ISIS said they would do. Furthermore, many of them are trained CIA stooges retreating from their loser wars, especially Syria. Many of them literally are soldiers and rebels who have nowhere else to go, working with elements of the CIA who still see their violent proclivities as an asset.

[Contumacious]

Trying to get this all included in one sentence...

Does a nation/state, have the right to restrict, limit or entirely shut down immigration or asylum into the nation/state based on any reason or no reason at all?

Not a real "hot button" issue for me, until now.

When I see who is aligned against this concept, my answer has gone from "meh" to a yes.

Firstly, the Trump EO was arbitary designed to provoke Iran.

It only bans shiite Muslims affiliated with Iran.

While those affiliated with Saudi Arabia - which has been helping the CIA in Syria is EXEMPTED. Even though all the 09/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.


Fedgov has no constitutional authority to interdict and deport.

That right was retained by the states.

.

[Anti Federalist]

Yea, boy



That's an army.

Ima scurred!

Aren't youa scurred?!

Nope...but this is an angry mob...which can be just as dangerous.

[MallsRGood]

I was referring to the specific example of environmental damage in the previous post.

...better call Al Gore.

There are lots of bolsheviks out there (of indeterminate gender, apparently), on whose sleeves you could wipe your enviro-tears.

It's more based on the fact that I have watched, over the past month, millions of frothing fanatics take to the street, who, for all intents and purposes want me and my family dead, many of them from this pool of immigrants, migrants, refugees and other "wretched refuse".

Well, gee whillickers, why do you think Teh Messicuns might be angry at GOPers at the moment?

...must be totally unprovoked.

Can't be like, a reaction to GOPers talking about mass kidnapping and deportation er nuttin...

..nawwwwww

That was a real opener to me, I don't think I've ever seen such an outpouring of hate and vitriol in my life.

You must be young. I've seen lots of retarded anger over the years. It's usually based in economic problem created by the giant leech sucking us all dry (i.e. the federal government), but with the anger cleverly redirected by agents of said leech (i.e. politicians) who set us (not me, of course) against one another for the purpose of distraction. But, yes, throw out the Messicuns, her der, nevermind that 50% looting tax rate.

I do not want this:



To become this:

Then stop supporting left-liberal clowns like Trump.

And stop allowing such idiots to sucker you into voting for them by "Teh Messicuns Dun Did It Her Derrrr."

[Christian Liberty]

My American history may be a tad fuzzy, but I'm fairly certain that they weren't done in by people trying to mow their lawns for $1.50/hour.

...to characterize their problem as one of immigration is silly.

They weren't immigrated-to-death; they were conquered, militarily.

You probably have a point when it comes to Mexican immigration, but I definitely don't think its true for Islamic. Islamic immigrants definitely want Sharia law in this country, or at least, a lot of them do. Which is consistent with their religion.

[nobody's_hero]

When I see who is aligned against this concept, my answer has gone from "meh" to a yes.

That's the rub for me as well.

[MallsRGood]

You mean like IMMIGRATION LAW? Like that?

Uh huh and if you want to break our immigration laws and bring an illegal alien onto your property, you are responsible for their actions. Remember that principle about being responsible for your own damn actions? Yeah that one.

Remember that principle about not initiating violence against innocent people? ...yea, that one.

[Contumacious]

You probably have a point when it comes to Mexican immigration, but I definitely don't think its true for Islamic. Islamic immigrants definitely want Sharia law in this country, or at least, a lot of them do. Which is consistent with their religion.

Sharia Law in this country?

Shirley , you jest.

.

[timosman]

That right was retained by the states.

The states have absolutely no resources to do that.

[MallsRGood]

Nope...but this is an angry mob...which can be just as dangerous.

And...?

There are lots of angry mobs.

Is that ^^^ going to actually affect anything in a meaningless way, or is it just FOXPORN?

I think you know the answer.

[TheTexan]

Duh. Only some kind of weird anarchist would think that government doesnt have a right to forcefully remove people from other people's lands

[TheTexan]

Yes I did , I wanted the Texan to be proud of me for voting .

I voted yes, but only as it pertains to Muslims

[Contumacious]

The states have absolutely no resources to do that.

Then the Constitution ought to be amended. But that is what was decided 1787.

[MallsRGood]

But we are delving into philosophical now, about freedom of movement and such. So since all humans are free, are armies allowed to just march around wherever they want?

Why, yes, of course...

And BTW, the vast majority of immigrants from the seven banned nations are young, able bodied men, and many of them are ISIS sleeper agents, as ISIS said they would do. Furthermore, many of them are trained CIA stooges retreating from their loser wars, especially Syria. Many of them literally are soldiers and rebels who have nowhere else to go, working with elements of the CIA who still see their violent proclivities as an asset.

Well, damn, you must be shaking in your pussy.

[timosman]

Sharia Law in this country?

Shirley , you jest.

.

Ha ha ha -rep

[timosman]

Why, yes, of course...




Well, damn, you must be shaking in your pussy.

ha ha ha -rep

[timosman]

Then the Constitution ought to be amended. But that is what was decided 1787.

All right genius. I think we are done here.

[UWDude]

Ima scurred too....

Knowing the history of the CIA and false flags, you should be.

[nobody's_hero]

How does that group make decisions?

Suppose 51% decide to kill and eat the other 49%?

Let 'em into the country until they reach 51% and you'll find out.