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

Why as a rule do we oppose immigration?

Adam Somlec

Council Member
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I dint know of anyone opposed to immigration. Some are opposed to illegal immigration.
 
I am not opposed to immigration within reason. I am opposed to letting so many people in here that we become over populated. When I was a kid, California had around 18 million people and it was paradise. I am sure it was even better with 10 million. Today it is 37 million and believe me, it's not a better place to live now.
 
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.
Instability?
 
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.
You seem to be coming at this from the perspective of the left, which doesn't distinguish between immigration and illegal immigration. When you fail to make that distinction, your argument becomes invalid.
 

reason10

Governor
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.
Nobody is opposed to immigration. Those of us who have an education (read, NOT LIBERAL) are opposed to

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.


Do you understand the difference between

IMMIGRATION

and

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
?
 

Jen

Senator
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.
Who opposes immigration?
I don't know anyone.........left or right, talking head or regular person...........who opposes immigration.

It is ILLEGAL immigration that is and should be opposed. Do you know the meaning of "illegal"?
 

TheResister

Council Member
Who opposes immigration?
I don't know anyone.........left or right, talking head or regular person...........who opposes immigration.

It is ILLEGAL immigration that is and should be opposed. Do you know the meaning of "illegal"?
Jen,

I spent six years working in immigration law. Prior to that I was actually a guy that went to patrol the border and worked on the anti-immigrant side for many years. Having been on all sides of the issues, it seems that it might be the subject yours truly understands - and I can't say that about other subjects people have attacked me over.

Here is the REAL issue:

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When the Declaration of Independence was penned, there were no American citizens. Yet the Founding Fathers proclaimed that all men have unalienable Rights. An unalienable Right is not given by government; it is above the law; no mortal man can give you an unalienable Right; mortal man cannot take the Right.

The usual plan of attack by the anti-immigrant forces is to try and convince you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; however it is at the head of the United States Code Annotated... which happens to be the official laws of the United States. While it may not be a "law" like a court case, statute, or regulation, it is law. The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

Are you with me so far?

We discuss "illegal immigration" as if to imply people are criminals. In American jurisprudence, they are not. Improper Entry is a civil violation of federal law, but it is not a crime. Furthermore, the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum now accept that as legal fact, so it is NOT my personal opinion.

Yet, the anti-immigrant lobby is willing to spend upward of a TRILLION DOLLARS to build a gigantic wall around the U.S. when ALL of the politicians (especially Donald Trump) have no intention of prohibiting people from being in the United States. All we hear is the constant crowing about "illegal immigration." At best, the people are complaining because some people do not have human registration papers.

And so, it's not about immigrants being here, it's all about creating the ultimate POLICE STATE wherein people are put under surveillance, monitored (24 / 7 / 365), scrutinized, and their every movement evaluated and regulated by tyrants. People are in love with a POLICE STATE.

In case you're wondering about my personal agenda, it goes back to the 1980s when patriots were handing the feds one defeat after another. You see, the income tax could not be enforced as it was voluntary and the way you "volunteered," was to get a Socialist Surveillance Number... oooops. "Social(ist) Security Number." Then all the hoopla was created over so - called "illegal immigration" and Preamble Citizens were FORCED to get an SSN and National ID Card which gave the illegally adopted 16th Amendment new teeth.

We're urinating away our unalienable Rights and those pushing the nutty wall idea (while harping on so - called "illegal immigration") cannot articulate a coherent argument for the wall... which again is not intended to keep anyone out, but just to force them into having human registration papers. And that means the government wants to reduce YOU to statutory slavery because if the immigrant has to have papers, so do you.
 

Jen

Senator
Jen,

I spent six years working in immigration law. Prior to that I was actually a guy that went to patrol the border and worked on the anti-immigrant side for many years. Having been on all sides of the issues, it seems that it might be the subject yours truly understands - and I can't say that about other subjects people have attacked me over.

Here is the REAL issue:

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When the Declaration of Independence was penned, there were no American citizens. Yet the Founding Fathers proclaimed that all men have unalienable Rights. An unalienable Right is not given by government; it is above the law; no mortal man can give you an unalienable Right; mortal man cannot take the Right.

The usual plan of attack by the anti-immigrant forces is to try and convince you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; however it is at the head of the United States Code Annotated... which happens to be the official laws of the United States. While it may not be a "law" like a court case, statute, or regulation, it is law. The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

Are you with me so far?

We discuss "illegal immigration" as if to imply people are criminals. In American jurisprudence, they are not. Improper Entry is a civil violation of federal law, but it is not a crime. Furthermore, the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum now accept that as legal fact, so it is NOT my personal opinion.

Yet, the anti-immigrant lobby is willing to spend upward of a TRILLION DOLLARS to build a gigantic wall around the U.S. when ALL of the politicians (especially Donald Trump) have no intention of prohibiting people from being in the United States. All we hear is the constant crowing about "illegal immigration." At best, the people are complaining because some people do not have human registration papers.

And so, it's not about immigrants being here, it's all about creating the ultimate POLICE STATE wherein people are put under surveillance, monitored (24 / 7 / 365), scrutinized, and their every movement evaluated and regulated by tyrants. People are in love with a POLICE STATE.

In case you're wondering about my personal agenda, it goes back to the 1980s when patriots were handing the feds one defeat after another. You see, the income tax could not be enforced as it was voluntary and the way you "volunteered," was to get a Socialist Surveillance Number... oooops. "Social(ist) Security Number." Then all the hoopla was created over so - called "illegal immigration" and Preamble Citizens were FORCED to get an SSN and National ID Card which gave the illegally adopted 16th Amendment new teeth.

We're urinating away our unalienable Rights and those pushing the nutty wall idea (while harping on so - called "illegal immigration") cannot articulate a coherent argument for the wall... which again is not intended to keep anyone out, but just to force them into having human registration papers. And that means the government wants to reduce YOU to statutory slavery because if the immigrant has to have papers, so do you.
I agree with you up to a point.
We are a nation of laws. Anyone is welcome to come here, but they must abide by our laws. My inalienable rights do not supersede the law. If I feel my happiness will be attained if I drive 80 miles an hour in a 45mph zone, then I can't claim the "inalienable rights" when I am stopped and given a ticket.

Are you with me so far?

Our national laws say that if a person comes into this country without getting certain documents in order beforehand, that person is breaking our laws and............. should be deported. All the inalienable rights in the world don't make it okay to break laws.

When I lived in Europe I had a stack of documents that had to be ratified and verified. I had to pass a test that was not in English and get a driver's license so that I could drive there. It is not too much to ask of people who want to come to the USA to do the same.

I believe that we might need to retool our laws of admission to allow more people in, but not until we have documented those who snuck in. I don't want to put them in jail (many of them are criminals and are in jail anyway). I agree with Mr Trump's position of sending them out and then letting them come back through the door, the right way.

They will be happier and so will we. They won't have to constantly be looking over their shoulders to see if someone is about to turn them in. I grew up in San Antonio. I ate with illegal immigrants as a child. I taught them in San Antonio inner city when I was an adult. I know them as hardworking and industrious. What they deserve is to be here legally. BUT they have to do the work. It would be foolish for us and insulting to them to just hand out a blanket pardon as you seem to suggest.

That is my thought on the matter.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.
I'm also serious with this question, why do some people confuse illegal immigration with legal immigration?
 

TheResister

Council Member
I agree with you up to a point.
We are a nation of laws. Anyone is welcome to come here, but they must abide by our laws. My inalienable rights do not supersede the law. If I feel my happiness will be attained if I drive 80 miles an hour in a 45mph zone, then I can't claim the "inalienable rights" when I am stopped and given a ticket.

Are you with me so far?

Our national laws say that if a person comes into this country without getting certain documents in order beforehand, that person is breaking our laws and............. should be deported. All the inalienable rights in the world don't make it okay to break laws.

When I lived in Europe I had a stack of documents that had to be ratified and verified. I had to pass a test that was not in English and get a driver's license so that I could drive there. It is not too much to ask of people who want to come to the USA to do the same.

I believe that we might need to retool our laws of admission to allow more people in, but not until we have documented those who snuck in. I don't want to put them in jail (many of them are criminals and are in jail anyway). I agree with Mr Trump's position of sending them out and then letting them come back through the door, the right way.

They will be happier and so will we. They won't have to constantly be looking over their shoulders to see if someone is about to turn them in. I grew up in San Antonio. I ate with illegal immigrants as a child. I taught them in San Antonio inner city when I was an adult. I know them as hardworking and industrious. What they deserve is to be here legally. BUT they have to do the work. It would be foolish for us and insulting to them to just hand out a blanket pardon as you seem to suggest.

That is my thought on the matter.
While I appreciate your opinion, the facts remain. Liberty is an unalienable Right. Unalienable Rights are a bit different from inalienable rights. An explanation is in order:

"Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of Life and Liberty are Unalienable."

--Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."
-Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

You can not surrender, sell or transfer Unalienable Rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals, have Unalienable Rights by the "Declaration of Independence" charter document at the founding of this nation.

" Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights."
--Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights,-'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these Rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation."
--BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

If we value our Liberty and believe in the Constitution, then we have to abide by the intent of the Constitution. Statutes that contradict the Constitution are worthless and we do not have to abide by them.

Most of the laws regarding immigration and the registration of human beings did not originate until much later in our history. When our forefathers came here, they merely had to announce who they were and give some basic information to the authorities.

Today we have this ridiculous scheme that puts an arbitrary cap on the number of people that can enter the United States to work. The anti - immigrant lobby then gets all of this confused with the benefits of citizenship. They want to punish employers for giving jobs to immigrants when, in fact, the employer owns the job he / she creates AND is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. From a legal perspective, it don't make much sense to say that A can hire a foreigner, but B cannot due to some arbitrary cap that limits the unalienable Rights of the employer and his / her potential employee.

So, again, removing people only to allow them to reenter is a preposterous position when those people had a Right to accept jobs in the first place. We need to refocus our energy on limiting the privileges of citizenship and not expecting every person that comes here to become a citizen.

A public education, welfare, food stamps, etc. are benefits of citizenship and our real fight ought to be in changing the law so that these things are not rights (as per the rulings of our courts), but privileges of citizenship.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Jen,

I see you disagree with my post. Is that because you do not believe in Rights given by a Creator? Do you think the government gives you your Rights?
 
I am absolutely serious with my question. I'm really curious about those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain to me your position.
The Melting Pot Has Boiled Over

Immigration was beneficial only earlier in our history, when the country needed more workers to develop it. In our time, immigrants mostly take jobs away from Americans, which makes them a threat to the nation rather than needed help. Those who fill up shortages are not needed either; the shortages are caused by not offering paid education and other paid job-training. The parasites who push this insult to America must be overthrown by patriots. Terminal-stage Capitalism has committed capital treason.
 
I am not opposed to immigration within reason. I am opposed to letting so many people in here that we become over populated. When I was a kid, California had around 18 million people and it was paradise. I am sure it was even better with 10 million. Today it is 37 million and believe me, it's not a better place to live now.
Only Those Who Built It Can Build It Up

California would be livable if the increase was caused by a higher birthrate among native-born Americans. That would indicate that we are a nation that believes in having a future.
 

TheResister

Council Member
The Melting Pot Has Boiled Over

Immigration was beneficial only earlier in our history, when the country needed more workers to develop it. In our time, immigrants mostly take jobs away from Americans, which makes them a threat to the nation rather than needed help. Those who fill up shortages are not needed either; the shortages are caused by not offering paid education and other paid job-training. The parasites who push this insult to America must be overthrown by patriots. Terminal-stage Capitalism has committed capital treason.

Herein lies the problem with America in general. They do not understand their own country's economics nor do they understand the concept of unalienable Rights. Immigration is a mere symptom.

In a de jure / lawful constitutional Republic an employer owns the job he or she creates. They are under no legal or moral obligation to provide society with jobs. At the same time, the laws that tell employers that they cannot discriminate are equally wrong, for the same reason telling them they cannot hire foreigners is wrong. Society does not own the jobs; the employers that create them own them.

The real trick is how do you get an employer to hire the American first and NOT infringe upon the Rights of employers? It's easy:

Allow the employer to hire whomever they want. Now, to give the American a sporting chance, the government can give substantial tax incentives for hiring an all American workforce with additional incentives to take people off welfare, unemployment, etc. The more money that corporate America saves the government, the more the government is obligated to return the favor. Problem solved.
 

TheResister

Council Member
I'm also serious with this question, why do some people confuse illegal immigration with legal immigration?
I've been on a lot of discussion boards. Never met anyone that did not understand what you're saying... but, the bigger question is DO YOU understand the difference?

The law is not about legal or illegal. The United States Codes deals with improper entry. What most foreigners and those who do business with them understand is that for MILLIONS of them, there simply does not exist a proper method of entry. Furthermore, most of us understand that Liberty is a Right given to us by a Creator. We simply cannot use the immigration laws to deny to others the ability to come here and take a job willingly offered.

The real culprit here is the government mandating who employers must hire.. X number of blacks,Y number of women, S number of transgender people, a smattering of whites, etc., etc. You should be able to compete for every job on the basis of your fitness for the job. The employer should be able to hire the person they think most fit for the job. When the law does not allow them to do that; when the law is used as a means to appease one group or another, that law has no real standing. Remember the law:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 (p.442)
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
I've been on a lot of discussion boards. Never met anyone that did not understand what you're saying... but, the bigger question is DO YOU understand the difference?

The law is not about legal or illegal. The United States Codes deals with improper entry. What most foreigners and those who do business with them understand is that for MILLIONS of them, there simply does not exist a proper method of entry. Furthermore, most of us understand that Liberty is a Right given to us by a Creator. We simply cannot use the immigration laws to deny to others the ability to come here and take a job willingly offered.

The real culprit here is the government mandating who employers must hire.. X number of blacks,Y number of women, S number of transgender people, a smattering of whites, etc., etc. You should be able to compete for every job on the basis of your fitness for the job. The employer should be able to hire the person they think most fit for the job. When the law does not allow them to do that; when the law is used as a means to appease one group or another, that law has no real standing. Remember the law:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 (p.442)
Well fu ck wit if they do not come here legally they are illegal. Got it?
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Herein lies the problem with America in general. They do not understand their own country's economics nor do they understand the concept of unalienable Rights. Immigration is a mere symptom.

In a de jure / lawful constitutional Republic an employer owns the job he or she creates. They are under no legal or moral obligation to provide society with jobs. At the same time, the laws that tell employers that they cannot discriminate are equally wrong, for the same reason telling them they cannot hire foreigners is wrong. Society does not own the jobs; the employers that create them own them.

The real trick is how do you get an employer to hire the American first and NOT infringe upon the Rights of employers? It's easy:

Allow the employer to hire whomever they want. Now, to give the American a sporting chance, the government can give substantial tax incentives for hiring an all American workforce with additional incentives to take people off welfare, unemployment, etc. The more money that corporate America saves the government, the more the government is obligated to return the favor. Problem solved.
Not another fu cked up liberal.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
While I appreciate your opinion, the facts remain. Liberty is an unalienable Right. Unalienable Rights are a bit different from inalienable rights. An explanation is in order:

"Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of Life and Liberty are Unalienable."

--Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."
-Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

You can not surrender, sell or transfer Unalienable Rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals, have Unalienable Rights by the "Declaration of Independence" charter document at the founding of this nation.

" Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights."
--Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights,-'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these Rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation."
--BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

If we value our Liberty and believe in the Constitution, then we have to abide by the intent of the Constitution. Statutes that contradict the Constitution are worthless and we do not have to abide by them.

Most of the laws regarding immigration and the registration of human beings did not originate until much later in our history. When our forefathers came here, they merely had to announce who they were and give some basic information to the authorities.

Today we have this ridiculous scheme that puts an arbitrary cap on the number of people that can enter the United States to work. The anti - immigrant lobby then gets all of this confused with the benefits of citizenship. They want to punish employers for giving jobs to immigrants when, in fact, the employer owns the job he / she creates AND is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. From a legal perspective, it don't make much sense to say that A can hire a foreigner, but B cannot due to some arbitrary cap that limits the unalienable Rights of the employer and his / her potential employee.

So, again, removing people only to allow them to reenter is a preposterous position when those people had a Right to accept jobs in the first place. We need to refocus our energy on limiting the privileges of citizenship and not expecting every person that comes here to become a citizen.

A public education, welfare, food stamps, etc. are benefits of citizenship and our real fight ought to be in changing the law so that these things are not rights (as per the rulings of our courts), but privileges of citizenship.
Sorry son you cannot equate America's rights with illegal immigrants. Sorry, they are not entitled to them.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Sorry son you cannot equate America's rights with illegal immigrants. Sorry, they are not entitled to them.
Early in America's history people came from every corner of the world. And today, you still don't understand. While everyone had unalienable Rights, only whites were citizens. Those of you adamant about the issue wear blinders and cannot see - AND you're a hypocrite about it. Allow me a moment to prove it:

According to the Declaration of Independence, all men have unalienable Rights. As such, those Rights are above the law. Let's take a look at how the early courts viewed unalienable Rights:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself, or the state is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government... It is one of the "high powers" ... and is excepted out of the general powers of government. ...A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law making power." Cockrum v. State 24 texas 394, 402 (1859.)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is predicated upon the unalienable Right to Life; therefore, most gun laws have no legal standing IF we assert that they are unalienable Rights. Equally true then, that Liberty is above the law. so, NO SIR, I'm nobody's liberal. I'm simply guided by a simple principle:

The government did not create me and, as a result, has no jurisdiction over unalienable Rights. That is a world away from the benefits of citizenship - which are privileges. Now, the thinking of the anti - immigrant lobby is that every statute Congress passes is enforceable IF the anti-immigrant agrees with it. And if you don't agree, you are a liberal. What a freaking joke!

The downside to their argument is that unalienable Rights either come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR they are granted by government. The problem is, if the foreigner has no unalienable Rights, then
neither does the individual gun owner. Well, I suppose you could argue that some God came down and said that only legal Americans are entitled to their Life, Liberty and the right to pursue Happiness.

My critics have never shot one of these so - called "illegal aliens" because they realize that those people have a Right to Life. Well, they also have a Right to Liberty and a Right to the pursuit of Happiness. When Constitutional Sheepdog can tell you about all the so-called "illegal aliens" he's shot down, he can come here, crow and tell you how wrong I am. It's illegal to shoot those people because the same laws that protect YOUR Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness are the same ones protecting them. If not, Constitutional Sheepdog will be happy to describe in detail his exploits on the border and his kill count.

Does that make me a "liberal?" Well, I've spent a few decades trying to drum up support for passing laws that make welfare, Socialist Security, etc. benefits of citizenship instead of a right (as the current courts claim.) Where was Constitutional Sheepdog on that issue? While the anti-immigrant lobby has tried to force people into becoming citizens, I've fought it tooth and nail, not willing to add millions more to our welfare dole - and they call me the liberal!!!

While I've fought the illegal income tax and exposed the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, the anti -immigrant lobby has lobbied for an absolute POLICE STATE... and they call me a liberal. The anti-immigrant lobby backed warrantless searches, National ID, the so - called "Patriot Act" and Constitution Free Zones - ALL of which I have fought (including in the courts) and these mis-educated sheeple can only invoke an emotion laden term that does not fit me in any way, shape, fashion or form. Liberal? Aren't you the guys arguing against unalienable Rights both in words AND actions?
 
Top