Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government

[qh4dotcom]

Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.

Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.

[...] and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion

Article 4 Section 4 US constitution

 

[erowe1]

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".

As tempting as it is to nitpick at each line of this nonsense, it's probably better to step back and notice that you still haven't said what it is that you want to do that you think the anti-liberty libertarians oppose. Let's say immigration is so bad, what can you do to stop it that isn't also bad?

 

[James Madison]

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".

I agree with all of this.

 

[jabowery]

As tempting as it is to nitpick at each line of this nonsense, it's probably better to step back and notice that you still haven't said what it is that you want to do that you think the anti-liberty libertarians oppose. Let's say immigration is so bad, what can you do to stop it that isn't also bad?

Obviously there is nothing one can do to stop immigration that isn't bad. I mean even if all it cost was a Bazooka Joe cartoon collectible that would be BAD.

On the other thing, some of us -- called "PATriots" -- have, throughout history, been willing to sacrifice our very lives to preserve the territory bequeathed us by our fore-PATers who, themselves, held it by their very blood gushing from their veins.

 

[erowe1]

Obviously there is nothing one can do to stop immigration that isn't bad. I mean even if all it cost was a Bazooka Joe cartoon collectible that would be BAD.

On the other thing, some of us -- called "PATriots" -- have, throughout history, been willing to sacrifice our very lives to preserve the territory bequeathed us by our fore-PATers who, themselves, held it by their very blood gushing from their veins.

You're really trying hard to avoid saying what you're actually for.

 

[fisharmor]

Oh goody, I get to be the anti-constitutionalist pointing out what the constitution says, after all.

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter.

Yeah, only my "bullshit" is called "the dictionary".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalization
[h=2]nat·u·ral·ize[/h] [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-]

verb (used with object) 1. to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.

2. to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native.

3. to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use: to naturalize a French phrase.

4. to bring into conformity with nature.

5. to regard or explain as natural rather than supernatural: to naturalize miracles.


What combination of those plain English words have you tortured into meaning "we get to kick out the guys cutting our grass for a substandard wage"?
Naturalization means exactly "make citizens". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

Ok, so what are you getting at? Because it sounds to me like I'm saying I should stop being faithful to my wife. Because that's not the way males act in nature.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

So, you're saying that law and property, two things that every human being instinctively knows to exist, are artificial,
and attempting to beat up strangers that wander onto your yard, something that every human being instinctively knows to be sociopathic behavior, is natural?
I think you need to stop looking at the lower animals when trying to determine what is natural for humans, and start, you know, looking at humans.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

You need to check your history. Then you need to provide me evidence of immigration barriers prior to the 19th century. (You might want to stick with Japan.)

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

So, wait.....

when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers

So, which is it? Were immigration barriers higher prior to sufferage or lower? Because you've said both.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

Are these statements intended to be connected? Dueling existed in Europe and Asia for just as long as it did here.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

Or maybe we just realize that we never signed any contracts.
What you define as "civilization" is not what I define as civilization.
I would really like Osan to show up and give us his Empire speech at this point. What you call "civilization" is code for the exploitation of the many by the few.
Your "civilization" has a track record.
I'll take common law, protected property right, and freedom of travel over your "civilization". Or I would if I could, and I can't, because your "civilization" has made it impossible, and would murder me if I seriously tried to achieve it.

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature

Wow... and you even manage to finish it up with an assertion that without the state's "civilization" we'd be living in caves.
Bravo.

 

[SilentBull]

Not surprised at all, especially since there is no conservative media for those who refuse to learn the language and watch English TV. I think Fox News just recently came out with a Spanish channel.

 

[fisharmor]

[...] and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion

Article 4 Section 4 US constitution

So you contend that immigration is an invasion?
If that is the case (it's not, but let's pretend for your sake), how do you reconcile the fact that the federal government is tasked with explicitly allowing them in (naturalization) and at the same time keeping them out (protecting from invasion)?

Keep 'em coming, there's equal destruction for all the living document arguments here.

 

[jabowery]

Fisharmor, when I say the anti-liberty "libertarians" would last all of 3-picoseconds in the state of nature to which they are relegating us by corrupting the foundation of civilization, I mean that real libertarians -- people who understand in the blood, bone and marrow what it means to be a patriot, to have honor and to be an individual sovereign, would instantly challenge you to a natural duel and, being a coward to your very marrow, you would haughtily refuse with some bullsh*t justification from the Austrian school, whereupon you would be immediately killed for being the dishonorable coward that you are.

The remainder -- the honorable individual sovereigns -- would greatly enjoy each other's company in the absence of your despicable kind.

Who knows... we might even choose to rebuild civilization. However, given that it has produced vermin like yourself, it would probably be some time before the harsh lesson was forgotten.

 

[fisharmor]

Fisharmor, when I say the anti-liberty "libertarians" would last all of 3-picoseconds in the state of nature to which they are relegating us by corrupting the foundation of civilization, I mean that real libertarians -- people who understand in the blood, bone and marrow what it means to be a patriot, to have honor and to be an individual sovereign, would instantly challenge you to a natural duel and, being a coward to your very marrow, you would haughtily refuse with some bullsh*t justification from the Austrian school, whereupon you would be immediately killed for being the dishonorable coward that you are.

Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.

The remainder -- the honorable individual sovereigns -- would greatly enjoy each other's company in the absence of your despicable kind.

Who knows... we might even choose to rebuild civilization. However, given that it has produced vermin like yourself, it would probably be some time before the harsh lesson was forgotten.

Get a load of this guy!
Count the green bars, genius.

 

[jabowery]

Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.

Then you would have murdered President Andrew Jackson.

You must love central banking.

And green bars?

Check out these green bars, you piece of sh*t.

 

[fisharmor]

Check out these green bars, you piece of sh*t.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what it was in the intervening 22 years that robbed you of the ability to commit coherent thought to words, but I've been insensitive.

 

[erowe1]

Then you would have murdered President Andrew Jackson.

You must love central banking.

And green bars?

Check out these green bars, you piece of sh*t.

Hold on a sec. Have your references to Andrew Jackson really been made on the assumption that people here liked him? Seriously?

 

[BlackTerrel]

It's pretty clear that as election season passes there's a certain "element" that comes to these forums trying to draw people over to the darkside.

Please post a poll showing white/black/Hispanic who supported Iraq war? Guarantee you it won't look very favorably to white people...

 

[Southron]

Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.

Much easier said than done. I'll be convinced it can happen when blacks no longer vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Democrats have had a hold on the black vote since the 1930's.

Good luck with an even bigger language and cultural barrier when it comes to Hispanics.

 

[puppetmaster]

Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.




Get a load of this guy!
Count the green bars, genius.

I am kinda amused ...I like him.but he is harsh and nasty

No one wants to hear whom I feel should not be allowed to vote....

 

[jabowery]

I am kinda amused ...I like him.but he is harsh and nasty

The ninth circle of Dantes Inferno is reserved for those who betray the kind of trust that exists between individual sovereigns who voluntarily enter into mutual insurance company that holds territory against trespass -- which is the basis of all legitimate government.

These anti-liberty "libertarians" are going receive much harsher treatment than I'm giving them.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...

Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

No, it's not. He wants the border to be secured before there is any discussion about dealing with the illegals who are already here. You and I both know that they aren't going to secure the border, thus he won't vote for any sort of legalization.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So you contend that immigration is an invasion?

Yes. Illegally crossing our border, absolutely.

If that is the case (it's not, but let's pretend for your sake), how do you reconcile the fact that the federal government is tasked with explicitly allowing them in (naturalization) and at the same time keeping them out (protecting from invasion)?

Keep 'em coming, there's equal destruction for all the living document arguments here.

There is nothing to square.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what it was in the intervening 22 years that robbed you of the ability to commit coherent thought to words, but I've been insensitive.

I theorize that "jabowery" is a corruption of "Jabberwocky" ...