New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why as a rule do we oppose immigration?

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
It may be a narrow point, but one we can agree on. The anti-immigrant lobby likes to harp on the "illegal" part of immigration, but Improper Entry is a civil misdemeanor NOT a criminal felony. We can only use the immigration laws to regulate people coming in and doing business. The citizenship end is different.

Anti-immigrants have this fantasy that they can deport all the undocumented foreigners and once they're out, the anti-immigrants fantasize about using their muscle to keep them out (despite the promise of politicians saying they will allow them to come back.)

Why bother deporting them if you're going to allow them to stay? Why not create a Guest Worker Program with no automatic path to citizenship, charge them a civil penalty, pay back taxes where appropriate and get on with their lives? It would be cheaper and we might even make money on the deal.
While I think we can agree the problem have been over-politicized, let's not forget it's still a problem. No one has a right to enter any nation illegally. Ever.

The problem is more complex than claiming to deport 11 million people.

I strongly believe it's easier to arrest a few employers and apartment landlords than it is to not only round up and deport 11 million people, but also keep them out. Building a wall in both expensive is stupid as General George S. Patton noted:

Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
You don't know me either. Keep your eyes on my shadow. He will teach you how to really screw with someone. Watch him and think what it would be like to have your own.
I've reached notoriety! :cool:

The wrong answer is building a bigger and more intrusive government that WILL use the laws to limit YOUR Rights. The dollar cost is more than the promised savings, but the cost to YOUR Liberty is irrevocable.
A right by its very nature is limiting. If you have a right you believe to have been limited beyond the scope of what the USC protects, you have the ability to challenge that law and have it changed. But when you exclaim your right has been limited due to your beliefs, then you will be mocked and laughed at for utter stupidity.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
It may be a narrow point, but one we can agree on. The anti-immigrant lobby likes to harp on the "illegal" part of immigration, but Improper Entry is a civil misdemeanor NOT a criminal felony. We can only use the immigration laws to regulate people coming in and doing business. The citizenship end is different.
A misdemeanor is a criminal offense, something you have been claiming that EWI is not. A second EWI is a a Criminal Felony. What is a civil misdemeanor (there is no such thing as a civil misdemeanor - SMFH)? It is in fact a Criminal Misdemeanor. For you having years of background in the legal field, you sure make numerous idiotic claims about actual law. Do you really not know the difference between civil law (me suing you) and criminal law (you being charged for a violation of the law)?

Anti-immigrants have this fantasy that they can deport all the undocumented foreigners and once they're out, the anti-immigrants fantasize about using their muscle to keep them out (despite the promise of politicians saying they will allow them to come back.)
They would have to apply to come back, it isn't an automatic re-entry just because.

Why bother deporting them if you're going to allow them to stay? Why not create a Guest Worker Program with no automatic path to citizenship, charge them a civil penalty, pay back taxes where appropriate and get on with their lives? It would be cheaper and we might even make money on the deal.
We already have numerous guest worker visas that have no automatic path to citizenship, your 6 years of immigration legal experience (or is it 4 years as you claimed in another thread on this forum, you've claimed both - LMFAO) should have already taught you that.

Do you really think they made/make enough to actually owe taxes? Or we would actually lose more money by paying them tax refunds and tax credits that they would then be eligible for. Why can't they get on with their lives back in their society?
 
Last edited:

TheResister

Council Member
I really don't understand why you need to write a long blow hard post to say I'm sorry Constitutional sheepdog you were correct I was wrong I misunderstood what you meant. That's all you had to say.
I'm sorry you were wrong, Constitutional Sheepdog. Our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) grants us Rights. No man can legitimately take those Rights no more than he can kill us (okay our fellow man has the capability to kill us.)

But, we all get the drift. IF someone infringes upon your unalienable Rights, it is our duty and obligation to help defend the Right.

I think where you and I really disagree is whether an individual has the Right to disobey an unconstitutional law. WHEN Uncle Scam comes for the guns, you and I will revisit this issue as a legal issue versus a political one. Rest assured, when that day comes you and I will discuss the principles behind legal precedent.
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
I'm sorry you were wrong, Constitutional Sheepdog. Our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) grants us Rights. No man can legitimately take those Rights no more than he can kill us (okay our fellow man has the capability to kill us.)

But, we all get the drift. IF someone infringes upon your unalienable Rights, it is our duty and obligation to help defend the Right.

I think where you and I really disagree is whether an individual has the Right to disobey an unconstitutional law. WHEN Uncle Scam comes for the guns, you and I will revisit this issue as a legal issue versus a political one. Rest assured, when that day comes you and I will discuss the principles behind legal precedent.
Agreed about unalienable rights. LWers often confuse the Constitution in how it limits our rights and limits citizens. That's a completely false interpretation. The main difference between Left and Right is that the Left believes the State rules the citizens and the Right believes individual citizens rule the State.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
I think where you and I really disagree is whether an individual has the Right to disobey an unconstitutional law. WHEN Uncle Scam comes for the guns, you and I will revisit this issue as a legal issue versus a political one. Rest assured, when that day comes you and I will discuss the principles behind legal precedent.
Just because you think or claim a law to be unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Again, you are relying on a quote you don't comprehend, nothing new for you. Uncle Sam isn't coming for anybody's guns. SMFH
 
IF I could buy into that portion of your argument that jobs aren't property,

I'm probably not the best advocate for capitalism since I believe in fair trade and have my own ideas about the evils of socialism and the failings of capitalism.

IF government gives you your daily bread, then you may as well accept socialism. T So, did you get your unalienable Rights from a government / God or are they bestowed upon you by a Creator as per the words found in the Declaration of Independence?
Walking Tall by Walking All Over People

Who gave the investors the unalienable right to own the products of other people's work? Is God the personification of Greed, our Lord and Master Hubris? We might as well allow the owners and bosses to have the right of sex on demand with their employees, "Because without owners, there will be no jobs and no one earning money, so the former employees would be forced to sell sex on the street anyway, as the only alternative to submitting to their bosses' legalized rape."

Businesses are a government. You can't sincerely be so self-righteous about the public sector and then let the private sector have its way with us.
 
If nobody could own a business, there would be no need for someone to open one in the United States. What would the incentive be?

I admit that the current situation is dire. A businessman opens his business, tries to pay slave wages and the taxpayer is left to make up the difference via welfare, taxpayer paid insurance / medical care, etc.

Unions open up and demand so much that the business is not profitable so they close shop and move across the border.

You don't own any part of the business just because you're a citizen. The owner does. As a citizen, you could force your county commission to deny business licenses to new businesses unless they were willing to pay a wage consistent with the cost of living in that area.
Making Certain Mortals Omnipotent and Omniscient

You're assuming that a business can't exist unless a single individual starts it and owns it, until he goes public and sells it like a slaveowner selling his slaves. But a group of workers can get together and start a business themselves. They would be the only stockholders and could not sell or transfer the stock, which would be passed on to new employees. So you pretend to disprove some alternative by arbitrarily defining what it must have to exist at all.

Outsourcing started only when unions started to decline in power; you can't deny that fact. Once the plutocratic parasites could get away with paying non-union wages, they extended that by paying Third World sweatshop wages. If they didn't own the laws supposedly granted only to the people, that action would have called for forfeiting their property. Your ideology puts the owners outside the jurisdiction of the law. So ownership by individuals rather than the body of workers must be outlawed.

Don't you dare lie again and call that "Socialism," which is government ownership, which itself is also of the absentee kind, just like Capitalism. Eliminate those whose Daddy's Money enables them to have forums to preach that false and self-serving alternative. Karl Marx was the trophy husband of a Patty Hearst type duchess and a born-rich snob himself, just as Engels and Lenin were. The Red leaders were bluebloods. Leftism today is one of their plots to be so obnoxious it will trick people into marching behind the Right Wing bluebloods.
 
I've reached notoriety! :cool:

A right by its very nature is limiting. If you have a right you believe to have been limited beyond the scope of what the USC protects, you have the ability to challenge that law and have it changed. But when you exclaim your right has been limited due to your beliefs, then you will be mocked and laughed at for utter stupidity.
Civil Rights for the Uncivilized Is a Contradiction

There are no natural rights, whether given by God, the Constitution, or some other imaginary higher power. All rights have to be earned; they are not even granted unearned until forfeited by some anti-social action. So we start with nothing and have to build on that; we don't start with something that we keep until forfeited.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
I'm sorry you were wrong, Constitutional Sheepdog. Our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) grants us Rights. No man can legitimately take those Rights no more than he can kill us (okay our fellow man has the capability to kill us.)

But, we all get the drift. IF someone infringes upon your unalienable Rights, it is our duty and obligation to help defend the Right.

I think where you and I really disagree is whether an individual has the Right to disobey an unconstitutional law. WHEN Uncle Scam comes for the guns, you and I will revisit this issue as a legal issue versus a political one. Rest assured, when that day comes you and I will discuss the principles behind legal precedent.
Dude I've never once said our rights are given by the government. Post it or shut the fu ck up.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Just because you think or claim a law to be unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Again, you are relying on a quote you don't comprehend, nothing new for you. Uncle Sam isn't coming for anybody's guns. SMFH
Clinton most assuredly will she has said it will be her goal. Every time there is a new gun control law it's one chip away at the second amendment. No one is coming for anything until it's no longer their.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Civil Rights for the Uncivilized Is a Contradiction

There are no natural rights, whether given by God, the Constitution, or some other imaginary higher power. All rights have to be earned; they are not even granted unearned until forfeited by some anti-social action. So we start with nothing and have to build on that; we don't start with something that we keep until forfeited.

While I wholly disagree with what you're saying, the real deal is that I would fight to the death for your Right to say it.

America was founded upon the principle that unalienable Rights emanate from a higher power. In order to believe such a proposition, the founders did not presume to have to prove it, they merely stated that the truth is self evident.

The anti-immigrant position is rooted in what you're describing and it fairly answers what the OP was after. The Declaration of Independence listed the reasons we separated from Great Britain and the Constitution codified those unalienable Rights into a Bill of Rights.

THAT is the de jure / lawful / constitutional law of the United States. But, the courts have usurped our Rights because many feel as you do. In the final analysis, since the Rights cannot exist in your world, you cannot invoke them when the government wants you to live under a yoke of tyranny. As we narrow the issues, we begin to see what is driving the anti-immigrant position.

Unfortunately, when you need your Rights, you are not going to be able to access them, having given all power to the government.
 

TheResister

Council Member
While I think we can agree the problem have been over-politicized, let's not forget it's still a problem. No one has a right to enter any nation illegally. Ever.

The problem is more complex than claiming to deport 11 million people.

I strongly believe it's easier to arrest a few employers and apartment landlords than it is to not only round up and deport 11 million people, but also keep them out. Building a wall in both expensive is stupid as General George S. Patton noted:

Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man
That is YOUR opinion. In order for the law to be able to pass constitutional muster, it must treat all citizens equally; it must not unnecessarily infringe upon the Liberties of the people as a whole; it cannot be employed for an illegal or immoral purpose.

The current laws would be over-turned as we have not modified them in over half a century. It doesn't matter where you or I stand on the issue; at some point the masses will be heard. It would be better to put forth a solution that appeases the left without giving up OUR Rights.

The hard line proposition you sign onto means that the principle can be used against you. We're talking RIGHTS and LIBERTIES. You cannot impose upon the Rights of another without jeopardizing YOUR Rights.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
That is YOUR opinion. In order for the law to be able to pass constitutional muster, it must treat all citizens equally; it must not unnecessarily infringe upon the Liberties of the people as a whole; it cannot be employed for an illegal or immoral purpose.

The current laws would be over-turned as we have not modified them in over half a century. It doesn't matter where you or I stand on the issue; at some point the masses will be heard. It would be better to put forth a solution that appeases the left without giving up OUR Rights.

The hard line proposition you sign onto means that the principle can be used against you. We're talking RIGHTS and LIBERTIES. You cannot impose upon the Rights of another without jeopardizing YOUR Rights.
Illegals are not citizens you are confusing the subject.
 

TheResister

Council Member
People know me I'm a regular here not one time have I ever said the government gives rights. NOT ONCE.I've been a member since 2012
Sir, you said there are no natural Rights. Call them whatever makes you comfortable, but your Rights come from somewhere. I didn't have to "earn" any right to live and neither did you. Under our system of jurisprudence, it was a given and anyone that tries to take that life is to be held accountable for a wrongdoing.
 
Top