An army of illegal aliens is marching on America

[Raginfridus]

Oh come on!

I don't know Swordsmyth from Adam nor do I know any immigrants who are more productive than anybody else...

What I do know is if you weren't born-n-raised in the Ozarks you'll have a hard time making a go of it here. Immigrants from Ca. and NY are the same as those from Mx and China, they're all damn furiners who need to go back where they came from...

[Ender]

If I am force to pay for it, why can't I claim ownership?

Because the real owners will show up, take the property, & jail you if you don't pay.

FREEDOM!

[TheCount]

If I am force to pay for it, why can't I claim ownership?

Ask @Swordsmyth, that's his argument.

[Ender]

And in what way are any of us, currently AmeriKa, "united"?

In today's world, we are united by the federales who will incarcerate all those who don't obey their whims. Combine that with dumbed down education, the MIC, etc, and we are united as sheep sleeping in The Matrix.

[johnwk]

Talk about a terrible fallacy.

You don't privately own the USA. Therefore [bla, bla, bla]. . .

JWK





They are not “liberals”. They are part of a Fifth Column movement which has no intention to adhere to our written Constitution and its legislative intent which gives context to its text.

[johnwk]

Someone has to provoke dissent from your Fascist policies and agitate for Liberty amongst authoritarians such as yourself.

You are the one who wants to allow foreigners to ignore rights associated with property ownership and allow them to trespass on American soil. Why do you support fascism?

What you are saying is, people do not have an inalienable right to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area they inhabit.

Give it a freaken break.


JWK




”The deception of the appeal for a "convention of states" lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it's easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a "convention of states" in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016

[otherone]

If I am force to pay for it, why can't I claim ownership?

Ownership gives you the ability to sell it. Or destroy it.

[johnwk]

In today's world, we are united by the federales who will incarcerate all those who don't obey their whims. Combine that with dumbed down education, the MIC, etc, and we are united as sheep sleeping in The Matrix.

We are united by a contract called the Constitution of the United States of America. If you don't like the contract, pick your crap up and leave, or work to change it as allowed under Article V.


JWK




"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[Ender]

We are united by a contract called the Constitution of the United States of America. If you don't like the contract, pick your crap up and leave, or work to change it as allowed under Article V.


JWK




"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

When's the last time a Constitutional war was declared? Hmmm.... oh that's right- WWII.

And, how about unconstitutional gun control? MIC? Forced insurance? Forced medical? Forced "education"?

Oh, yeah, and licenses for things that are already legal/lawful.

Why don't you get over yourself and find out what's really going on with that contract.

[johnwk]

When's the last time a Constitutional war was declared? Hmmm.... oh that's right- WWII.

And, how about unconstitutional gun control? MIC? Forced insurance? Forced medical? Forced "education"?

Oh, yeah, and licenses for things that are already legal/lawful.

Why don't you get over yourself and find out what's really going on with that contract.

You falsely suggest I embrace the grievances you mention above in order to pretend the people do not have an inalienable right to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area they inhabit.

Your deflection is both absurd and adolescent!


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[Ender]

You falsely suggest I embrace the grievances you mention above in order to pretend the people do not have an inalienable right to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area they inhabit.

Your deflection is both absurd and adolescent!


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

Looking in the mirror, buddy?

If you had actually read what I was answering in the first quote you blew up over, you'd see I was clear stating that we are losing our foundation of freedom.

Also, that means we ALL have an inalienable right to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area we inhabit. That means I don't have to agree with you unless you're preaching socialism.

The answer is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN:

GET RID OF ENTITLEMENTS & THE WoD.

Everything will then everything will pretty much fix itself.

[Danke]

Ownership gives you the ability to sell it. Or destroy it.

I think I'd have to consult with the other joint owners to do that.

[johnwk]

Looking in the mirror, buddy?

If you had actually read what I was answering in the first quote you blew up over, you'd see I was clear stating that we are losing our foundation of freedom.

And one of those foundations of freedom is the right of people to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area they inhabit, e.g., the United States of America, part of which is establishing rules governing who may enter the geographical area called the United States of America.

Stop deflecting and posting nonsense.



JWK

[r3volution 3.0]

It appears that all anti-immigrant people are democratic socialists at heart, at least with respect to land ownership.

[dannno]

It appears that all anti-immigrant people are democratic socialists at heart, at least with respect to land ownership.

Uh, I think they are simply being observant that they essentially live in one..

[timosman]

It appears that all anti-immigrant people are democratic socialists at heart, at least with respect to land ownership.

You should consider choosing Master Projector for your next sock puppet name.

[Ender]

And one of those foundations of freedom is the right of people to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area they inhabit, e.g., the United States of America, part of which is establishing rules governing who may enter the geographical area called the United States of America.

Stop deflecting and posting nonsense.



JWK

That would be YOU.

[PierzStyx]

You are drunk.

Earth is a prison and I want to create a zone where that is less true, the CURRENT state of earth as a prison is the natural outcome of anarchy, the strong prey upon the weak and create tyranny.

So, lets get this straight. Earth is a prison and you're going to make everyone more free by making the USA even MORE of prison, by surrounding it with a literal wall, armed military guards who will shoot you for crossing the wall, and expanding the power of the government to cage millions of nonviolent people, seize the property, and kill them if necessary? That is what you define as "freedom." That is literally insane.

Also, the condition of the Earth isn't the natural results of anarchy. Rather, this is what the grand experimentation with Statism and centralized government has brought us. And your solution is to create MORE oppressive statism as a cure for the disease? That is like injecting yourself with HIV to cure AIDS.

[PierzStyx]

And one of those foundations of freedom is the right of people to contract with each other and establish common rules for a geographical area they inhabit, e.g., the United States of America, part of which is establishing rules governing who may enter the geographical area called the United States of America.

Stop deflecting and posting nonsense.



JWK

Wrong. You do not have the right to establish rules for the geographic area you inhabit. You have the right to establish rules for the geographic area you own. The difference? A homeless person may squat in an empty home but they do not own it. Therefore they have to move when they are told to do so by the owner of said home. But when you own your property you can say what does and doesn't happen upon it.

You do not own the USA. It is not your private property. Therefore you do not get to say who enters or leaves it.

[PierzStyx]

We are united by a contract called the Constitution of the United States of America. If you don't like the contract, pick your crap up and leave, or work to change it as allowed under Article V.


JWK

False on every account. No one can sign a contract for you. It doesn't matter what your ancestors signed. Their contract is not binding on you. Further, contracts have to be entered in willingly by all participants in order to be legitimate. If not then it is fraudulent and void.

The US Constitution violates all these characteristics of a contract. It is forced upon you against your will. You have no ability to consent to it or not. Nor have you even had the opportunity to do so. And history has shown that any time members of the Constitution try and leave the other members will gang up and murder upwards of a million people to prevent said leaving.

There is no way in which the US Constitution can be said to be a contract. There is no way it can even be said to be functional considering the level of violation the government commits on a daily basis, meaning if it were a contract it would be void ed by the actions of the government alone.

Finally, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration.

So you are wrong at every level.

[PierzStyx]

JWK

Thanks for admitting I was correct. And proving protecting the USA has nothing to do with your immigration policies.

[Swordsmyth]

So, lets get this straight. Earth is a prison and you're going to make everyone more free by making the USA even MORE of prison, by surrounding it with a literal wall, armed military guards who will shoot you for crossing the wall, and expanding the power of the government to cage millions of nonviolent people, seize the property, and kill them if necessary? That is what you define as "freedom." That is literally insane.

That isn't what I support, you don't get to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a NAZI and still keep your credibility.

Also, the condition of the Earth isn't the natural results of anarchy. Rather, this is what the grand experimentation with Statism and centralized government has brought us. And your solution is to create MORE oppressive statism as a cure for the disease? That is like injecting yourself with HIV to cure AIDS.

It is the natural result of anarchy, the power hungry fill the vacuum and the people follow them because they reduce the chaos or out of a hope to share in the spoils, the only alternative is to create a minarchy to keep them at bay.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
We are united by a contract called the Constitution of the United States of America. If you don't like the contract, pick your crap up and leave, or work to change it as allowed under Article V.


JWK

False on every account. No one can sign a contract for you. It doesn't matter what your ancestors signed. Their contract is not binding on you. Further, contracts have to be entered in willingly by all participants in order to be legitimate. If not then it is fraudulent and void.

The US Constitution violates all these characteristics of a contract. It is forced upon you against your will. You have no ability to consent to it or not. Nor have you even had the opportunity to do so. And history has shown that any time members of the Constitution try and leave the other members will gang up and murder upwards of a million people to prevent said leaving.

There is no way in which the US Constitution can be said to be a contract. There is no way it can even be said to be functional considering the level of violation the government commits on a daily basis, meaning if it were a contract it would be void ed by the actions of the government alone.

Finally, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration.

So you are wrong at every level.

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[Raginfridus]

Earth is a prison and I want to create a zone where that is less true, the CURRENT state of earth as a prison is the natural outcome of anarchy, the strong prey upon the weak and create tyranny.

All the makings of a cult leader... if only daddy didn't ground him to the basement.

[johnwk]

Thanks for admitting I was correct. And proving protecting the USA has nothing to do with your immigration policies.

What is irrefutable is, people have an inalienable right to contract with each other, and that includes adopting agreed upon rules over a geographical area [e.g., the United States of America] which people inhabit and own as individuals and in a collective manner for their common defense and general welfare. If you don't like it, pack your crap up and leave.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[Anti Federalist]

Who were you talking about, then? A current majority in power soon to become a hated minority and at risk from "demographic invaders" ... But not whites.

Native, locals, or, as Swordsmyth noted "cultural Americans".

What it would do, however, is make the soon-to-be minority's race-based politics crystal clear to their "invader" neighbors.

Then what?

And the demographic invaders are not using race, or more properly, ethnicity, to further their goals?

I'm rather tired of reading I need to be exterminated.

Might want to look to your left and right at the people who make up the coalition which shares your views on what the nation's immigration policy should be and decide whether you think that they are the types to weaken the police state... Or strengthen it.

The police state is already here, and very strong.

I'm not keen to turn into Venezuela Norte.

Which is what you will get, if we continue to allow poor, destitute communists who have not disavowed the philosophy that got them into the mess in the first place into the country, and then whip them into an ethnic hatefest against the natives.

[Anti Federalist]

LMFAO @ "demographic Invaders" What complete garbage.

I think that it wasn't the "ways alien" that were the problem there, more the murder, genocide, kidnapping of their children and taking of their lands.

Seeing a Mexican outside home depot is not equivalent to being murdered.

Your neighbor cooking tacos is not equivalent to "olfactory Invaders" conquering your home.

The Trail of Tears is not when you have to get up from the table to get a refill of your drink because the "flavor Invaders" made your food too spicy.

Oh, and you missed the point entirely, which is not surprising.

The indigenous natives of what was to become the United States, initially traded and prospered with Europeans.

The Wampanoag chief King Philip was the first to realize the danger of the foreign invaders, and launched what was to become known as King Philip's War in New England in 1675, when the English demanded the Indians turn in their guns as part of the earlier peace agreement signed by Philip's father, Massasoit.

It would turn out to be an extremely deadly and bloody conflict, in proportion to population, one of the worst seen on continental soil. (Some historians claim a casualty rate higher than the Civil War)

Broken treaties, genocides, roundups, reservations and all manner of horrors followed in the next two centuries.

The end result was the utter and total annihilation of native Indian tribal culture and peoples, reducing a once proud people to a polite form of government incarceration and second class citizenship status.

My family has been here since before Philip's war.

I'd like to maybe not toss all that history and hard work and blood and treasure onto the trash heap.

Tough to do, when you can't mount the slightest defense of your history, traditions (at this point it is critical to note that the very concept of individual liberty, of the individual being of more importance than the collective, is a "white" western European notion) and way of life, without being called a racist.

Which is, of course, the point of framing the debate in such a way.

[phill4paul]

Oh, and you missed the point entirely, which is not surprising.

The indigenous natives of what was to become the United States, initially traded and prospered with Europeans.

The Wampanoag chief King Philip was the first to realize the danger of the foreign invaders, and launched what was to become known as King Philip's War in New England in 1675, when the English demanded the Indians turn in their guns as part of the earlier peace agreement signed by Philip's father, Massasoit.

It would turn out to be an extremely deadly and bloody conflict, in proportion to population, one of the worst seen on continental soil. (Some historians claim a casualty rate higher than the Civil War)

Broken treaties, genocides, roundups, reservations and all manner of horrors followed in the next two centuries.

The end result was the utter and total annihilation of native Indian tribal culture and peoples, reducing a once proud people to a polite form of government incarceration and second class citizenship status.

My family has been here since before Philip's war.

I'd like to maybe not toss all that history and hard work and blood and treasure onto the trash heap.

Tough to do, when you can't mount the slightest defense of your history, traditions (at this point it is critical to note that the very concept of individual liberty, of the individual being of more importance than the collective, is a "white" western European notion) and way of life, without being called a racist.

Which is, of course, the point of framing the debate in such a way.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

[Anti Federalist]

Then why do I have to pay for it?

You know, I'd like to hear the answer to that as well.

If I have no stake in this operation, if I can make no claim to manage the real property of the territory know as the United States nor make any requirements on how the real property is used, then why the $#@! should I pay for it?

[Anti Federalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

Thanks.

I'll await a rebuttal in which I hope to be called a Nazi instead of a racist, just to change things up a bit.