Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Confusing an admonishment to the disciples to care for their fellow man as pertinent to a discussion of what constitutes rights is tantamount to a red herring.

Human rights, those rights granted to us by virtue of our humanity, trump civil rights. Failure to recognize the arbitrary nature of civil rights inevitably leads to an inflated sense of importance attached to the State, and passive acquiescence to its abuse(s) of power. You have fallen into this trap.

If you are going to call red herrings, then you need to quit talking about natural law, the scientific method our Founders utilized in throwing out the old order of Europe and replacing it with a new one. Natural law wasn't created by science, but allowed in by the Catholic Church because of Aristotle's works. Natural philosophers, elites who had to be members of the clergy, played the part of scientists during that time.
And our Founders were existential in their concerns when declaring a natural law. Human rights aren't existential.

 

[loveableteddybear]

I think what a lot of the open borders crowd ignores is that just like there are barely any native Americans left, making half of the U.S. population recent-immigrant is going to do the same thing in many parts of the country. No one here is saying they despise Mexicans. They just don't want the USA to become Mexico or any other country.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

If you are going to call red herrings, then you need to quit talking about natural law, the scientific method our Founders utilized in throwing out the old order of Europe and replacing it with a new one. Natural law wasn't created by science, but allowed in by the Catholic Church because of Aristotle's works. Natural philosophers, elites who had to be members of the clergy, played the part of scientists during that time.
And our Founders were existential in their concerns when declaring a natural law. Human rights aren't existential.

The principles of natural law and natural rights can be derived independently of the church, and are based entirely on a priori assumptions. The association fallacy is noted, and your argument dismissed as logically invalid.

As human rights only apply to humans they are dependent on the existence of humans, by definition. If you wish to minimize the importance of rights via claiming the fallacy of reification and appealing to science, then I'll simply point out that this negation includes morality and ethics; this, in turn, negates any point to this discussion and renders it a relativistic quagmire with no value to any given position - yours included.

If you think the "science" the Founders used lies in the social contract they created, thereby giving it legitimacy and acting as a means of reification, then allow me to be the first to point that you are, just like I said, acquiescing to all of the State's abuse(s) of power.

If, instead, you recognize the "social contract" merely enumerates what is already ours to begin with, then the people are empowered to restrain the State when it oversteps its bounds. If not, then you have no argument when the State decides to do anything.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think what a lot of the open borders crowd ignores is that just like there are barely any native Americans left, making half of the U.S. population recent-immigrant is going to do the same thing in many parts of the country. No one here is saying they despise Mexicans. They just don't want the USA to become Mexico or any other country.

But people don't see Mexicans as an asset. I think a city would rather sell the idea that they have African Americans living there. Asians are basically just whites on the scale, aren't they? I know it is dangerous to think this way as expressing what one feels is the truth is always frowned upon. Fortunately, we are in a Ron Paul forum protected by the prime directive of the Federation to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go misconjugate, grammatically speaking, where no sexist man has gone before.

 

[Danke]

But people don't see Mexicans as an asset. I think a city would rather sell the idea that they have African Americans living there. Asians are basically just whites on the scale, aren't they? I know it is dangerous to think this way as expressing what one feels is the truth is always frowned upon. Fortunately, we are in a Ron Paul forum protected by the prime directive of the Federation to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go misconjugate, grammatically speaking, where no sexist man has gone before.

Talk to the farmers in California.

And I'd like to see full amnesty for "Confederate." We are scheduled to go canoeing one of these days, and I don't want to have to vouch for him.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The principles of natural law and natural rights can be derived independently of the church, and are based entirely on a priori assumptions. The association fallacy is noted, and your argument dismissed as logically invalid.

As human rights only apply to humans they are dependent on the existence of humans, by definition. If you wish to minimize the importance of rights via claiming the fallacy of reification and appealing to science, then I'll simply point out that this negation includes morality and ethics; this, in turn, negates any point to this discussion and renders it a relativistic quagmire with no value to any given position - yours included.

If you think the "science" the Founders used lies in the social contract they created, thereby giving it legitimacy and acting as a means of reification, then allow me to be the first to point that you are, just like I said, acquiescing to all of the State's abuse(s) of power.

You see why it is necessary to first reduce down in any debate? In utilizing the American spectrum I have devised, while the king will always be considered educated and rational regardless (or else), the worthless prostitute will always be considered ignorant and insane also regardless. Okay. Let me attempt to reduce here. When speaking about a priori, are you referring to it in reference to the actual reduced conclusion of an experiment; or, are you referring to it in reference to the analysis provided along with the conclusion?

 

[BSWPaulsen]

You see why it is necessary to first reduce down in any debate? In utilizing the American spectrum I have devised, while the king will always be considered educated and rational regardless (or else), the worthless prostitute will always be considered ignorant and insane also regardless. Okay. Let me attempt to reduce here. When speaking about a priori, are you referring to it in reference to the actual reduced conclusion of an experiment; or, are you referring to it in reference to the analysis provided along with the conclusion?

A priori as it relates to self-evident propositions born of deductive reasoning, ie: self-ownership.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Talk to the farmers in California.

And I'd like to see full amnesty for "Confederate." We are scheduled to go canoeing one of these days, and I don't want to have to vouch for him.

Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans? I know it sounds funny to say. What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites? For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans? I know it sounds funny to say. What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites? For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?

California is doomed due to the Californians that think themselves fit to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and a "social contract" that enabled the State to do such a thing.

Blaming Mexicans for it is asinine.

 

[erowe1]

Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans? I know it sounds funny to say. What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites? For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?

You mean you're not black? I guess I always pictured you after the pattern of Uncle Remus.

 

[AuH20]

California is doomed due to the Californians that think themselves fit to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and a "social contract" that enabled the State to do such a thing.

Blaming Mexicans for it is asinine.

California is a magnet for Mexicans. I can't say I completely blame them.

 

[Danke]

Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans? I know it sounds funny to say. What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites? For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?

You are full of it. The crimes committed by "whites" do a lot more damage to the average American than some gang crime by "people of color" will ever do. I, along with my neighbors can easily defend against the threat of local violence.

A little harder against the well organized and funded mafia we call government.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

A priori as it relates to self-evident propositions born of deductive reasoning, ie: self-ownership.

Okay, as in self-ownership as opposed to having ones soul fully owned as a slave by a master? Deductive reasoning as it was developed by Aristotle? Self-evident as in reduced to an undeniable proposition as apposed to modern theoretical science? You see, you still haven't answered the question. Supposedly, our Founders sent to a king a conclusion within The Declaration of Independence which, to be a natural law, had to have within it both a conclusion and an analysis explaining the conclusion. So, what would have concern Immanuel Kant with The Declaration of Independence? The conclusion iself, or the analysis of the conclusion within it?

 

[Carson]

We have become a sick nation.

Controlling immigration is important.

Having a border is fundamental to establishing law and order.

We should be upholding our immigration laws.

More importantly we should be respecting other nations borders as independent countries.

More importantly than that is we should not only protect our Constitution inside of the country but stretch it out and cover others around the world like they are one of us when we react with others. Not have double standards of treatment. Like Ron Paul said, "Do unto others" wasn't it? I don't mean force others outside of our nation comply with our Constitution.

Anyone that thinks playing illegal aliens into the hands of the criminals in the government and business is doing them a favor is sadly mistaken, in my opinion. I remember when companies truly needed people they went through proper channels. I worked with people from all over the world. We worked side by side for the same wages and benefits. Sometimes they renewed their visa's. Sometimes they thought it time to go home. Back then I hoped they took a little bit of the way we did things home with them. I was young and learning an occupation and felt they had helped me and left a little behind. Now I'd be ashamed to be spreading what we've become.

The pendulum swung since that time. Over and over have the criminals wanted compromise. Over and over they have gotten it only to never deliver on their promises. As soon as one batch got amnesty they were replaced by others that were illegal and would work for less wages and benefits. The criminals that hired them found ways to shift the burden of their social services and health on to the remaining business that tried to operate above board.

In San Diego there used to be Safe Houses near the Community Hospital where pregnant women would come and hide out until time to deliver. Once they delivered a child on this side of the border that were able to set up a government sponsored stay at home business of raising babies. Now I hear they have a pill to induce labor so I imagine their are Safe Parking stalls at the hospitals.

Anyway their are lots of borders for lots of things when you think about it. How far are we all really willing to go.

Antigua: Land of the sun, sand, and super cheap downloads /// Comments

You know there are borders about everywhere and on about everything and more borders inside of those borders.

Really! Just where do you stand on lawlessness?


I find this uncompromisable coming from the Judge. Then again the quote is, "Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."".

Sounds reasonable if your doing it legal.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I see both sides of the argument as logical. I don't see a wrong answer, to be quite honest. Restoring prosperity will resolve most of it. Getting rid of the welfare state which motivates many of them to come here, is another. It's unnecessary to tackle the 'illegal' immigrants head on with threats of deportation, and government force, when the issue's are both truly related to the economy and system which enables it.

 

[AGRP]

Remind me if im ever dieing on the side of a desolate road to decline help from a driver if they dont have permission to live in the country.

 

[UMULAS]

Typical irrational answer.

We all have SS numbers, dude.

Get real.

Doesn't matter, don't change the subject.

Do you believe that the government has the right to watch and give National ID's?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You are full of it. The crimes committed by "whites" do a lot more damage to the average American than some gang crime by "people of color" will ever do. I, along with my neighbors can easily defend against the threat of local violence.

A little harder against the well organized and funded mafia we call government.

As the purpose of therapy is admitting the truth, seems part of the problem causing mental illness today is how we have to pay someone lots of money in order to be in therapy. When people are honest in public, therapeutically speaking, they are called crazy. It's all quite funny. Funny in how Plato once taught people how to generalize in order to gain control over tyranny. Now the best of the educated today criticize people for generalizing. Is it any wonder we are all so confused?

 

[UMULAS]

Bullshit if ILLEGAL ALIENS do, Umulas. They don't deserve anything but their asses kicked out of the country. We are a nation of laws and they chose to break it.

So when a national like ours such as half the population don't even pay income tax they can call it "'Murican right", but when illegal immigrants pay taxes more than the Average U.S. American and asks for welfare, it's all Rush Limbaugh here.


I know that illegals and legals pay taxes, how?

National tax ID's.

So in theory, the government already knows were immigrants and illegals are, but they don't do anything to "deport" them since they will loose revenue.

You don't want to deport people who actually work do you?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You mean you're not black? I guess I always pictured you after the pattern of Uncle Remus.

I am not black per se. I am only black in pen name as a fictional author and narrator I created. This allows me to write about things I wouldn't normally be able to write about. Just the other day after writing an article accusing blacks of being racists, I was attacked as a racist myself until I justified my comments being as I was a fictional author of color. But no wonder people pay little mind to my soulish and jazzy posts! I now see that they ignored me because they all thought I was a typical shallow African American! And here I thought it was because they thought I was just being my crazy self?