Invasion USA

PAF said:
Occam's Banana said:
One has no more right to "travel freely" into or across improved land that one does not own [property rights] or for which one has not been granted a right-of-way, easement, or other such instrument [contract rights], any more than one has a right to "education" or "health care" or such. Whether the (improved) land in question is "public" or not is irrelevant. [1] Stated differently, one no more has a "natural right" to (the availability or use of) improved "public" land than one has a "natural right" to (the availability or use of) "public" schools.

It is no more a violation of one's rights to be barred from access to or use of improved but "publicly" owned land (or schools, etc.) than it is a violation of one's rights to be barred from access to or use of privately owned land (or schools, etc.) in the absence of any previously established contractual rights-of-way, easements, etc.



[1] Ideally, "public" (i.e. socially collectivized) land, schools, etc. would not exist at all. But they do - and their existence does not create or conjure up any "rights" that would not otherwise exist in their absence. Rights do not come into or go out of existence contingent upon whether something is "public" or not. Any notion that they do is pinko-commie nonsense (which is why "progressive" leftists are so enamored of "open borders").
Click to expand...

Approximately 47% of the land in the U.S. is untouched/undeveloped/unimproved. There are no businesses, homes, schools, farms, easements, roads, airports, military, etc.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I went out of my way to explicitly specify that I was referring to "improved" land (even going so far as to use that adjective at every opportunity - instead of just once, while leaving other occurrences to be inferred).

Under libertarian theory, immigrants (or any others) may "travel freely" into or across unimproved land (with which they may mix their labor and thereby acquire an ownership stake) - but that is not what they are presently doing (or want or intend to do). Rather, they are merely transiting to improved land ("public" or private), the entrance into or use of which they are not entitled merely to claim by "natural right". Without some already-existing property right (i.e., ownership stake) or contract rights (e.g., rights-of-way, easements, etc.), to deny them access to or use of improved land ("public" or private) is not a violation of their rights.

PAF said:
Pinko-commie nonsense, huh? lol
Click to expand...

Yes. lol

The notion that there is a right to "travel freely" that pops into existence just because some (improved) land is "public" is indeed pinko-commie nonsense - just like the notion that there is a right to "education" that pops into existence just because some schools are "public" is also pinko-commie nonsense (and for the same reasons).

PAF said:
Don't confuse "open borders" with the closed border that we have today. Of which where people are being funneled for processing. And I am forced to pay for. Any notion that immigrants by the thousands/millions simply walk across the border without processing is statist nonsense. I would just as soon they didn't get a "free" government card and instead fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

I made no reference at all to "the [...] border that we have today" (nor to whether that border is more properly considered to be "closed" or "open"). I was referring to the so-called "open borders" policies favored by progressive leftists, which - like so many (all ?) of their other favored policies - involve the conjuration of "positive" rights from out of nowhere (such as the right to "travel freely" on improved land merely because it is "public").
 
Last edited:
Occam's Banana said:
Which is precisely why I went out of my way to explicitly specify that I was referring to "improved" land (even going so far as to use that adjective at every opportunity - instead of just once, while leaving other occurrences to be inferred).

Under libertarian theory, immigrants (or any others) may "travel freely" into or across unimproved land (with which they may mix their labor and thereby acquire an ownership stake) - but that is not what they are presently doing (or want or intend to do). Rather, they are merely transiting to improved land ("public" or private), the entrance into or use of which they are not entitled merely to claim by "natural right". Without some already-existing property right (i.e., ownership stake) or contract rights (e.g., rights-of-way, easements, etc.), to deny them access to or use of improved land ("public" or private) is not a violation of their rights.



Yes. lol

The notion that there is a right to "travel freely" that pops into existence just because some (improved) land is "public" is indeed pinko-commie nonsense - just like the notion that there is a right to "education" that pops into existence just because some schools are "public" is also pinko-commie nonsense (and for the same reasons).



I made no reference at all to "the [...] border that we have today" (nor to whether that border is more properly considered to be "closed" or "open"). I was referring to the so-called "open borders" policies favored by progressive leftists, which - like so many (all ?) of their other favored policies - involve the conjuration of "positive" rights from out of nowhere (such as the right to "travel freely" on improved land merely because it is "public").
Click to expand...


I believe we both agree that any/all tax payer funding which invites and transports immigrants to here or anywhere should stop. As to me being "open borders", as long as it does not trespass onto private property, I support that position. Tax paid government roads, easements and thruways should be privatized, but in my view, as long as my tax money is being extorted to build the roads and structures, I get a slight dividend in how they are being used and yield to the side of freedom to travel across them. If the roads happen to crumble because of excess use, let them crumble, and make the solid case for more efficient privatized roads and other structures. Government should not be involved in owning and controlling property or human beings.
 
PAF said:
Government should not be involved in owning and controlling property or human beings.
Click to expand...

How is the Republic made one atom better by allowing this woman in (or anybody like her, from the same places), and allowing her to stay, and now boarding her for the rest of her life in an institution after destroying three highly intelligent and learned professionals?

She has been deemed mentally incompetent because she comes from a nation that has an average IQ of 67.

67.

Clinical mental retardation in the US is defined as an IQ lower than 70.

How, in your world, are the living standards improved for us and our fellow citizens by importing millions of, literal, retards, into the country?

https://x.com/NatCon2022/status/1807053809115386141

 
Last edited:
GQ63sUgWYAAMdiL
 
Biden Admin Flying Migrants Deported by Trump Back Into the US
Biden admin alarms immigration officials by reversing deportations of some Cameroonians

The Biden administration is flying previously deported Cameroonians whose asylum claims were determined to be invalid back into the United States, according to interviews with Immigration and Customs Enforcement staff and internal agency memos reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
...
But now some are arriving back in the United States under a program with little precedent, both current and former ICE officials say. All of the individuals deported under the previous administration were found not to have valid asylum claims in the United States.

The decision to fly back the previously deported Cameroonians is the latest instance of the Biden administration reversing its predecessor’s immigration initiatives. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden rolled back a number of former president Donald Trump’s border policies and paused southern border wall construction. Biden later ended a policy that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico before their court hearing, which critics blame for the sharp uptick in illegal border crossings.

"Gutting deportations isn't enough for the Biden administration, so now they're apparently bringing back previously deported illegal aliens," said former ICE official and director of investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies Jon Feere. "These are people who have already had their cases closed, one way or another, and they've been returned home."

Internal memos reviewed by the Free Beacon show an ICE official working with outside nonprofits to help relocate the Cameroonians.
...
More: https://freebeacon.com/biden-admini...ing-migrants-trump-deported-back-into-the-us/
Click to expand...
 
Anti Federalist said:
Open fucking treason.
Click to expand...

The only actual remedy given to us by the founders is impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. This will never happen while the President is engaging in illegal activity that half of the Congress supports. The law is for peons, not the ruling elite.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
How Zionist Influence in New York Gave Rise to Zohran Mamdani
Replies
13
Views
77
Snowball
Snowball
jmdrake
Trump invites Zorhan Mamdani to the White House
2 3
Replies
43
Views
343
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
jmdrake
NY Mayor Eric Adams pledges to work with Trump on public safety, infrastructure
Replies
0
Views
360
jmdrake
jmdrake
unknown
TX: Abbott threatens San Marcos over resolution condemning Izrael.
Replies
14
Views
98
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Anti Federalist
NYC's immigration woes
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
7K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top