"Illegals!!"

[TheTexan]

Adverse possession? Do you even know what that means? But okay. Let's go with the private property argument. If a private property owner hires an "illegal immigrant" to do work on his property then how can that possibly be trespassing?

Well there's a few things going on here.

First, unless they've seceded (as PAF has), they don't own their property. They own the right to use that property under the rules of the fee simple title. They can't unilaterally decide to bring illegals onto property that is not theirs. If they want it to be theirs, that requires an allodial title like PAF and then there are other conditions but primary condition is they need to have an intention to secede.

Second, if they have a legitimate claim to an allodial title on the land and have seceded then absolutely they can bring anyone they want onto specifically that land and only that land. Passage through any other land, such as roads, and any unseceded property such as the Walmart down the street, is restricted.

As far as the right to travel, to get to your allodial land, I think its generally fine to pass through on a direct route as long as they don't cause problems. But that doesn't give the people passing through (e.g. illegals) the right to just do what they want. It has to be a direct route, no shopping for groceries, no eating at restaurants, direct travel only to and from your allodial property.

So you're willing to tresspass on someone else's private property in the name of...property rights?

No, as I've said before and I'm happy to say again, I fully respect the property rights of anyone who has seceded. They are sovereign on their property.

But if they havent seceded, then they are not sovereign and do not have unilateral ownership or control over any property and can't really complain when people are removed from that property.

 

[nikcers]

Adverse possession? Do you even know what that means? But okay. Let's go with the private property argument. If a private property owner hires an "illegal immigrant" to do work on his property then how can that possibly be trespassing?


So you're willing to tresspass on someone else's private property in the name of...property rights?

In the name of national security you can't harbor invaders on US Sovereign territory.

Protecting property is the primary function of national security.

So in order to do national security you have to protect national security so you can have national security.

 

[Invisible Man]

First, unless they've seceded (as PAF has), they don't own their property. They own the right to use that property under the rules of the fee simple title. They can't unilaterally decide to bring illegals onto property that is not theirs.

Whose property is it?

 

[TheTexan]

Whose property is it?

Well, the allodial title for that land is held by an organization known as the United States, so the owners of the land are the people who have a beneficial interest in the assets of the United States. (e.g., tax payers)

However, considering that the person who owns the fee simple title for the land, can generally demonstrate a greater claim to that land than anyone else can claim, it's reasonable to expect that person should be able to secede with that land if they choose to, and claim the allodial title for themselves.

If they choose not to secede, then they are in effect agreeing to follow the covenants the property is bound to (e.g., the US constitution), and as a consequence, they don't have unilateral control over the property in which they reside. They're effectively renting that property from the government at that point.

 

[TheTexan]

I would also note, that in a healthy contractual relationship, it would be very expensive to upgrade a piece of property from a fee simple title to an allodial title.

Merely have a fee simple title would normally not be sufficient to justify taking that property with you in a secession.

I'm generally inclined to give a lot of lee-way in that regard however because of the US's extreme criminal history and gross negligence in shareholder record keeping.

 

[Invisible Man]

Well, the allodial title for that land is held by an organization known as the United States, so the owners of the land are the people who have a beneficial interest in the assets of the United States. (e.g., tax payers)

Based on this answer, illegal immigrants are themselves owners of the land if they pay taxes. Meanwhile, no government, whether that be a local, state, or federal government, can be the owner of this land, since these governments don't pay taxes.

But aside from that point, my next question is, what is the basis of your answer? I would both like to see the allodial title you refer to and also inquire as to its legitimacy and how it was attained.

 

[TheTexan]

Based on this answer, illegal immigrants are themselves owners of the land if they pay taxes.

Yes, but that does not automatically entitle them to be here.

Meanwhile, no government, whether that be a local, state, or federal government, can be the owner of this land, since these governments don't pay taxes.

Governments can't be owners because abstract entities can't own property. Only people can own property.

Has nothing to do with whether or not governments pay taxes.

But aside from that point, my next question is, what is the basis of your answer? I would both like to see the allodial title you refer to and also inquire as to its legitimacy and how it was attained.

Allodial title has historically been obtained through conquest. The legitimacy of that depends largely on whether or not possession through conquest is considered legitimate.

The illegitimacy of their title is one of the main reasons I'm fine with people claiming allodial title through secession even though they only have a fee simple title to back up such a claim. (see post #45)

 

[Invisible Man]

Yes, but that does not automatically entitle them to be here.

Based on the answer you gave, it does. Maybe there are other factors that you left unsaid, possibly factors that you would have a difficult time defending.

Governments can't be owners because abstract entities can't own property. Only people can own property.

I agree. So then, who are these owners? How does one go about identifying them, given that you are not standing by your previous claim that the owners are the tax payers?

Allodial title has historically been obtained through conquest. The legitimacy of that depends largely on whether or not possession through conquest is considered legitimate.

The illegitimacy of their title is one of the main reasons I'm fine with people claiming allodial title through secession even though they only have a fee simple title to back up such a claim. (see post #45)

Where can I read this allodial title that "the United States" has for my home?

Possession through conquest is not legitimate. But if it were, then possession through squatting would be equally legitimate, as would any form of possession of land in the US that illegal immigrants might have or that people welcoming illegal immigrants onto their land might have.

 

[TheTexan]

Based on the answer you gave, it does. Maybe there are other factors that you left unsaid, possibly factors that you would have a difficult time defending.

No, it doesn't. Fractional ownership in a property doesn't automatically give you a right to be on that property.

I have fractional ownership in Lockheed Martin but I don't have any right to be on their facilities.

I agree. So then, who are these owners? How does one go about identifying them, given that you are not standing by your previous claim that the owners are the tax payers?

Where am I not standing by my claim that the owners are the tax payers? I am standing by that claim.

How does one go about identifying them? The US has not kept adequate records of its shareholders, so there is no easy way to identify them, but any claimants are free to identify themselves and present their claim.

Where can I read this allodial title that "the United States" has for my home?

You can read it when the police knock down your door, the title is written somewhere on the bottom of their boot.

Possession through conquest is not legitimate. But if it were, then possession through squatting would be equally legitimate, as would any form of possession of land in the US that illegal immigrants might have or that people welcoming illegal immigrants onto their land might have.

That's not how it works. Just because this country has been conquered by criminals such as Abraham Lincoln and his ilk, that does not make it fair game for foreigners to just invade and take shits on the property because the land is in illegitimate adverse possession by the elites.

There are legitimate claimants to this land, and with that being the case, illegals have no legitimate right to come onto this property and "squat" for possession.

 

[jmdrake]

Well there's a few things going on here.

First, unless they've seceded (as PAF has), they don't own their property. They own the right to use that property under the rules of the fee simple title. They can't unilaterally decide to bring illegals onto property that is not theirs. If they want it to be theirs, that requires an allodial title like PAF and then there are other conditions but primary condition is they need to have an intention to secede.

Second, if they have a legitimate claim to an allodial title on the land and have seceded then absolutely they can bring anyone they want onto specifically that land and only that land. Passage through any other land, such as roads, and any unseceded property such as the Walmart down the street, is restricted.

As far as the right to travel, to get to your allodial land, I think its generally fine to pass through on a direct route as long as they don't cause problems. But that doesn't give the people passing through (e.g. illegals) the right to just do what they want. It has to be a direct route, no shopping for groceries, no eating at restaurants, direct travel only to and from your allodial property.




No, as I've said before and I'm happy to say again, I fully respect the property rights of anyone who has seceded. They are sovereign on their property.

But if they havent seceded, then they are not sovereign and do not have unilateral ownership or control over any property and can't really complain when people are removed from that property.

Ah. You're trolling. I see. Carry on!

 

[Invisible Man]

No, it doesn't. Fractional ownership in a property doesn't automatically give you a right to be on that property.

So you do concede that illegal immigrants who pay taxes have fractional ownership of all the allodial properties that the United States owns?

 

[TheTexan]

So you do concede that illegal immigrants who pay taxes have fractional ownership of all the allodial properties that the United States owns?

That's not something I need to concede, it's a feature of my argument that I've been saying all along if anyone has been paying attention.

Their fractional ownership is very small however compared to families who have been stolen from for generations.