'These People Aren’t Coming From Norway’: Refugees in a Minnesota City Face a Backlash

[Swordsmyth]

Good thing I live in Indiana and not Minnesota.

You are greatly blessed to live under the protection of [MENTION=27246]oyarde[/MENTION].

 

[Stratovarious]

Probably the "killing all" was shopped.

I would say so too.

The writing style is different , best I can tell, and the sign wouldn't make
any sense period, considering the bearer .

 

[eleganz]

ZippyJuan thinks Swedish rape stats are just technicalities.

When you're so deranged by Trump, even Rape is chill.

 

[oyarde]

Wow, an Uncle Emmanuel Watkins quote...owe ya a rep

I have been selling some spirits named after Uncle Emmanuel Watkins and they were great sellers .

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not a no-borders guy either. Neither were the nation's founders, who would never have agreed to such policies. Neither is Ron Paul. But agreeing with him that we should be allowed to re-enter the USA without having to prove to the regime that we belong here doesn't make someone a no-borders guy.

So a border where you would not have to confirm that you are citizen, is what kind of border, if not an open border, by every understanding of the phrase.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

So a border where you would not have to confirm that you are citizen, is what kind of border, if not an open border, by every understanding of the phrase.

citizens get an anal probe and their laptop stolen by the TSA

non-citizens get cash and free entry

 

[Zippyjuan]

ZippyJuan thinks Swedish rape stats are just technicalities.

When you're so deranged by Trump, even Rape is chill.

The Swedes say they are not the "rape capital". Fear mongers on the internet selling bigger government do. They need to protect you. Give up money and freedoms and they will save you from being raped by a foreigner. It sells and you are buying. You are more likely to be raped by somebody you know.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-43128350

Sex attack victims usually know attacker, says new study

More than 90% of rape and sexual assault victims know their attacker, a new study of almost 1,000 victims says.

Researchers from Glasgow University said it was a popular misconception that most attackers were strangers.

The study looked at the 991 women in Scotland who went through an advocacy programme, which ran for 18 months.

It found that despite many reforms to rape laws, women still suffered as a result of delays and the impersonal nature of the justice system.

The study also found:

Just 9% of perpetrators were strangers to the victim
23% of women were assaulted by a partner or ex-partner
24% were assaulted a family member
44% were assaulted by "another known person"
32% were reported to the police more than two years after the incident
More than 20% of the women took more than 10 years to report their ordeal to the police
22% had not reported their assaults to the police at all.

 

[Anti Globalist]

You are greatly blessed to live under the protection of @oyarde.

If only every state had someone like oyarde. This country would be so much better.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If only every state had someone like oyarde. This country would be so much better.

Very true.

 

[Danke]

If only every state had someone like oyarde. This country would be so much better.

I think they already do. You can usually find them drinking on reservations or Casinos.

 

[Superfluous Man]

So a border where you would not have to confirm that you are citizen, is what kind of border, if not an open border, by every understanding of the phrase.

"Open border" wasn't the phrase we were talking about. "No borders" was.

This is one of the things about immigration restrictionists. They can't conceive of things outside their small framework restricted to the world of the 20th-21st centuries with nation-states parceled out by the UN. To them if people and goods are allowed to cross a border freely, then they think that's no border and all. And they often take an additional step of saying it must mean no country at all. Of course it only takes one second of thought for any thoughtful person to realize that those conclusions don't follow from the premise.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"Open border" wasn't the phrase we were talking about. "No borders" was.

This is one of the things about immigration restrictionists. They can't conceive of things outside their small framework restricted to the world of the 20th-21st centuries with nation-states parceled out by the UN. To them if people and goods are allowed to cross a border freely, then they think that's no border and all. And they often take an additional step of saying it must mean no country at all. Of course it only takes one second of thought for any thoughtful person to realize that those conclusions don't follow from the premise.

Why was the Revenue Cutter Service established in the United States over a century before any such thing as the UN?

 

[Superfluous Man]

Why was the Revenue Cutter Service established in the United States over a century before any such thing as the UN?

You're right. I shouldn't have included "goods" with people in that statement. Take that word out, and allow that they considered slaves goods, and it still applies.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're right. I shouldn't have included "goods" with people in that statement. Take that word out, and allow that they considered slaves goods, and it still applies.

Jefferson said they had a right to exclude people from their territory and did:

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

"as we do persons infected with disease"

You have to secure the border in order to do that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're right. I shouldn't have included "goods" with people in that statement. Take that word out, and allow that they considered slaves goods, and it still applies.

From the very beginning, from before there was a United States, you were required to join a church, register your family name and everybody in your family and apply for "freeman" papers, when arriving the colonies.

The dates in May of 1634 and 1636 are chosen
because of some features of the migration process. Most passenger ships
did not leave England until spring, because of the bad weather in the
North Atlantic earlier in the year. Thus it would be impossible for a
passenger on one of these ships to have joined a church and then applied
for freemanship in time for the annual General Court of Election, which
in 1634 took place on 14 May and in 1636 on 25 May. Thus it is
assumed that all the men who appeared in the list of freemen on 25 May
1636 must have arrived in New England no later than 1635.

To say that there was in early America no idea of who was coming or going, no records kept and no control over who showed up, is just not historically accurate.

 

[Swordsmyth]

From the very beginning, from before there was a United States, you were required to join a church, register your family name and everybody in your family and apply for "freeman" papers, when arriving the colonies.


The dates in May of 1634 and 1636 are chosen
because of some features of the migration process. Most passenger ships
did not leave England until spring, because of the bad weather in the
North Atlantic earlier in the year. Thus it would be impossible for a
passenger on one of these ships to have joined a church and then applied
for freemanship in time for the annual General Court of Election, which
in 1634 took place on 14 May and in 1636 on 25 May. Thus it is
assumed that all the men who appeared in the list of freemen on 25 May
1636 must have arrived in New England no later than 1635.

To say that there was in early America no idea of who was coming or going, no records kept and no control over who showed up, is just not historically accurate.

You mean they didn't want a bunch of French moving in and voting to join the French empire?

 

[Anti Federalist]

You mean they didn't want a bunch of French moving in and voting to join the French empire?

Among other things, yes.

 

[Anti Federalist]