Sure. Immigrants from most Hispanic countries are not eligible for the Diversity Visa lottery. Other than a family-connection immigration, high-level ($1M plus) investor, or very high level employment, the Diversity Visa is about the only way to immigrate to this country. The average Mexican citizen that isn't filthy rich and doesn't have a parent or child who is an American citizen can't legally immigrate to America, no matter how many forms they fill out, no matter how many years they wait in line.
Should we Deport Her? College student never "broke the law" until now.
- Thread starter dannno
- Start date
Freedom from being invaded or forced to change, via the protective forces we maintain under our system of laws
Like I said before, but will expand on now ... Don't like the current laws, work to change them.
The bitching and calling others names because they disagree with another AND the current laws, just shows how ignorant some are of the system we live within, and are able to change.
Don't like the law and others opinions based on the laws, get off the thread, and work to change the laws.
Obviously they want to elect a dictator, but know they won't get the votes, unless bribery is used LOL
It was a general statement and not directed at anyone specific.
Your response just provided the opportunity.
Give me a break, so you're actually telling me there is a whole seperate immigration process put in place for people from "Hispanic Countries", show me one of these "Hispanic only" immigration forms, I'm sure the ACLU would have a field day with it.
BTW, the average citizen in ANY country, including America, is not filthy rich either.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Didn't read the entire thread, but both sides are missing the solution that fits everyone best-private ownership of all land. Land owners at the border will then have incentive to keep trespassers off. The militia would serve as backup in case of an invasion to serious for regular folks to handle.
PS-the name-calling that seems to be going on both sides of the argument isn't advancing the conversation.
PS-the name-calling that seems to be going on both sides of the argument isn't advancing the conversation.
The Binghamton Patriot
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 307
Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.
Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.
This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.
Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.
Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.
Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.
There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.
Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.
Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.
They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.
Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.
As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.
Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.
This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.
Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.
There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.
Here we go again, thanks Toby Keith. SIEG HEIL!!
Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.
Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.
LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.
And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?
Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!!
I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.
So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.
Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?
You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.
The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.
You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.
Peace
this is the rage you can incite in a transnationalist when you rip apart their logic
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
Well, in that particular case, because it was relevant?
Policies vary from nation to nation, and "Hispanic nations" wind up in a different pile than, say, Western European ones. Of course therein lies the rub. I think it has more to do with geography, political considerations, and financial backgrounds than any kind of cultural blacklisting. If the nation were so united against "Hispanic immigrants," then it seems unlikely that Cubans would be allowed to stay just because they land in Florida.
No, what I'm telling you is that there is a Diversity Visa Lottery program administered by CIS which gives out immigration visas on a random basis (limited number of visas issued per year), and that Mexicans (for example) are not allowed to participate in it.
Because someone asked me to explain the racist immigration policy.
Well, I guess we allow Cubans because most of them are pretty white. Conditions in the Dominican Republic are far worse than Cuba, but we're certainly not extending them the same advantage.
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
invasion said:
invader said:
It's obvious that those who use "invasion" terminology are tribalist.
Yes we are, and proud of it.
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
Sure we do. The Dominicans and Haitians just go to Puerto Rico.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
Invader
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
Those are all negative associations. Encroach comes from the Germanic term for crooked or crook, and in the context of immigration all definitions of encroach imply collective nefarious planning.
If we're going to assign collective values to groups, whites are the vast majority of the voting bloc in the US, and are the main contributor to the expansion in size and scope of the government, at all levels. Nazi Germany? White. Communist Russia? White. British Empire? White. Spanish conquistadors? White. American empire? White. Slave trade? White. Extermination of native Americans? White.
Save the world; deport whites.
fisharmor
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12,455
What part of making it illegal is unconstitutional to begin with are you having a problem comprehending?
Fair enough. You make a salient point (which I'll be lifting next time this comes up
) that in order for immigration to be considered an invasion, you have to consider all immigration an invasion, or you have to accommodate "legal invasion" in your worldview. Of course, if you do, you're back to the constitutionality of the federal government defining legal and illegal invasion...What you fail to comprehend is that this comes up every time this topic comes up and there is never a defense for the idea that defining legal vs. illegal immigration is constitutional.
You guys leave us little choice. There's no legal argument in favor of curtailing immigration.
Laws allow us to exercise liberty. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Gratuitous assertion is gratuitous. I gratuitously deny your assertion. You have no point.
So, keeping foreigners out is the same as making sure your kids get a decent night's sleep? I know hispanics get loud at weekend parties... is it because you don't want them keeping anyone up?
I HAD thought, by coming to this site, that by allowing government to arrogate to itself powers which the supreme law of the land explicitly forbids it, we have a problem... and that others here agreed with that. But I guess as long as that arrogated power is keeping out foreigners, that's ok, right?
Actually the dictionary.com definition of invade defines the word to mean that the person invading is an enemy, taking possession by force.
Even your definition unequivocally includes similar ideas :
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
I await, with baited breath, the reasoning behind the idea that cutting my grass for a substandard wage is equivalent to theft or destruction of my property.
Your head is in the sand, sir. There are as many doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other "advanced society" types cutting grass and hanging drywall as there are farm peons. They can't practice their trade here because of your unconstitutional immigration laws. Even if they could they'd need to jump through your cartel laws. So please, don't pretend you're righteous here. They can't get into your "advanced society" because advanced society doesn't want them. From where I'm standing, yeah, that actually does stink of racism.
I have no qualms whatsoever stating that I am not of a mind with Ron Paul on this issue. The constitutionality of immigration laws has not been tested, it was part of the progressive power grab, and on the surface (read: outside of lawyer bullshit) it's a 10th Amendment issue and therefore not the federal government's purview. As someone who places importance on the constitution, I think Ron Paul is wrong.
I do, and I already explained that your employing that word actually does make this about race. Or at the very least, tribes.
I actually am an anarchist and freely admit it. I am an anarchist for one, and only one reason:
People like you are NOT constitutionalists.
Last edited:
RickBelmont
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 87
Deport her, she is not a citizen of the United States and broke our laws, it is really that simple.
Similar threads
