OH - Haitian migrants eating cats?

I'm not a pro-invader person, I'm just someone who understands the intent behind the Constitution. Illegal immigrants have no right to be here; that's the issue at hand. No one has an inborn right to live in any country because the security reasons are so great, they trump even liberty in such cases. As such, deporting people who crossed the border illegally isn't infringing on their human rights.

The Bill of Rights lays out what rights people have on the basis of just being people. All people, no matter where you are on this planet, have these rights (and the Bill of Rights isn't considered an exhaustive list):

- The freedom to say what they want, publish what they want, meet with whom they want, practice whatever religion they want, and petition the government.
- Bear arms, probably all arms including guns, knives, etc.
- To not have to house soldiers in your house during peacetime and have your privacy respected.
- To be safe from the government coming into your house and searching you, your property, or seizing your stuff. Basically, you have the right to privacy.
- To know they can't be locked up without due process and won't be charged multiple times for the same accusations. You also cannot be charged excessive bail and the state cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment. You can also demand a speedy trial and to demand a jury, which serves a far different purpose than most people realize.

That's a basic summary of what the Bill of Rights guarantees. The 9th Amendment makes it clear that this list isn't exhaustive, but the point is that these rights aren't given to you because you're American. These are natural rights, and the document is merely recognizing that the state recognizes them as such. In other words, the government cannot make laws surrounding these rights. That doesn't stop them from searching out loopholes, but the idea is that the government's primary job is to safeguard these rights, not regulate them.

Illegal aliens have these rights. However, they lack the right to be living within our borders without going through the proper channels.

By invading they forfeit all those rights.
 
Do you think they killed and then un-killed the other whites?




They killed them all and then spared them?


They pretended to spare some so that one day a wikipedia page could be written which would cast doubt on their massacre?





You are proposing that a majority of them be evicted alive and the rest be killed.

Will they be killed subjectively or objectively? Pretend killings, perhaps? Reluctant genocide.

Maybe at the end you can say "oops" and that will absolve you of your sins.




Everyone can see the lies. The stupid, evil lies.

Your nonsense is no longer worth replying to.
I already dealt with all of it.
 
More lies.
I said nothing about religion or race and I said they had right in their own countries.

I was going by the bite marks on your lip and tongue lol

So, if legislation to provide money to those orgs to bring them here is passed into law, and those orgs then use that money to bring them here, you don't consider that an invitation?

You, not me, is the one who believes in a "representative" form of government, I'm just trying to get clarification on the laws passed by your "representatives". Unless you're turning into an anarchist like me who believes that it [taxation] is all theft.
 
There's an easier path for him...

build-the-wall-around-my-house-i-hate-everyone-protester-sign.jpg


Should we tell him about it?
 
There's been a lot more than accusations, but you pretend otherwise.

I'm not pretending anything. So far nobody has produced anything but accusations. Even the 911 calls put forward in this thread don't say "Haitian" neither do the police reports. And even 911 calls are police reports are accusations. Seriously dude, you don't even know what the word "accusation" means. Meanwhile we have actual evidence of a Haitian without a license causing a fatal car crash. That's not an accusation. It's a proven fact. Had Trump talked about that and dropped the mic it would have been a much stronger argument.
 
I'm not pretending anything. So far nobody has produced anything but accusations. Even the 911 calls put forward in this thread don't say "Haitian" neither do the police reports. And even 911 calls are police reports are accusations. Seriously dude, you don't even know what the word "accusation" means. Meanwhile we have actual evidence of a Haitian without a license causing a fatal car crash. That's not an accusation. It's a proven fact. Had Trump talked about that and dropped the mic it would have been a much stronger argument.

Bullshit.

If Trump had talked about the bus accident instead, nobody would have remembered it, they wouldn't still be talking about it in the media, there would be zero memes, we certainly wouldn't have a 50 page thread about it here.

Trump has been using this strategy for 10 years, successfully, he has more support than he ever has.. and you keep talking shit on it the whole time.

Maybe Trump is smarter than you when it comes to PR and media strategy? I mean, he may be the smartest on the planet in that department, the Elon Musk of media strategy and PR, if you will.
 
Last edited:
Bull$#@!.

That's your OPINION! But that doesn't change the fact that there have been nothing but accusations in this thread as far as the cats are concerned.

If Trump had talked about the bus accident instead, nobody would have remembered it, they wouldn't still be talking about it in the media, there would be zero memes, we certainly wouldn't have a 50 page thread about it here.

Byllshyt! People have been talking about immigration all freaking year and you know it. The previous national story was the Venuzualen gangs taking over the apartment building.
 
Graham is an unamerican traitor, that's different from an invader, but expulsion is warranted for both.

You just used "unamerican" as an adjective again. I thought the Klan had turned that into a noun, the same way progs do when they want to divide people for the conquerors.
 
They made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Yeah, I can see how they made that Canadian reporter an offer he couldn't refuse. He got paid a wage to help spread more useless crap about dogs, cats and ducks.

I used to take my offspring to the the lakes and parks, and every time either one of us tried to approach a duck they scrammed out of there before I could even take a picture. How people are able to get into the water and "grab a duck by the neck" is way beyond me.
 
Invaders has a definition, traitors has a different definition.
Different principles apply to each.

Did you enter our country illegally?
No. And if I had entered the country illegally, I would give the same answer.

My view of due process is that if you want to punish me for entering the country illegally, you first have to prove I did that. It's not up to me to prove that I didn't as a prerequisite for exercising my rights as a person who is innocent of that crime.

And if it were up to me to prove that I didn't enter the country illegally, so as not to be punished for entering the country illegally, then logically it would have to be required for all of us to provide that preemptive proof, not just the guilty people.

Do you have a different view of due process than that?

Do you think that we are all obligated to prove that they never entered the county illegally in order not to be punished for doing so (e.g. by being prohibited from exercising our right to keep and bear arms)?
 
Yeah, I can see how they made that Canadian reporter an offer he couldn't refuse. He got paid a wage to help spread more useless crap about dogs, cats and ducks.

I used to take my offspring to the the lakes and parks, and every time either one of us tried to approach a duck they scrammed out of there before I could even take a picture. How people are able to get into the water and "grab a duck by the neck" is way beyond me.

Not the reporter.
 
Back
Top