Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries in Oval Office meeting

Because the alternative is not allowing them, by way of doing unethical things to stop peaceful people from engaging in harmless activities.

You have the right to keep them off of your own privately owned property. But you have no right to keep them off of any property that is not rightfully yours, such as the workplace of an employer who wants to hire them.

You may not want to welcome them. But when others of us want to, it's none of your, or Trump's, business.

If you, as my neighbor, engage in behaviors I don't like I will try talking to you nicely..........Maybe twice if I like you.........If you continue with said behaviors I will escalate the situation without regard for 'the law'...

So many people believe that it's their prerogative to engage in behavior that affects others so long as it's 'legal' without repercussion...

Trick is to live in a community where the other people feel the same way, that way you're not left holding the bag when the offending person runs crying to 'the law'....

The cities are beyond hope at this point, there's no cohesiveness among neighbors and the government indoctrination centers continue the bleat tolerance and inclusiveness.

People of like mind create communities, diversity is the exact opposite of like-minded...
 
So many people believe that it's their prerogative to engage in behavior that affects others so long as it's 'legal' without repercussion...

If by "legal" you mean just, as in conforming with the one true law of ethical right and wrong that actually exists and is not just made up dictates of politicians with no legitimate right to rule anyone else, then yes, that is exactly correct.

You are morally obligated to allow me to engage in activity that indirectly affects you, such as hiring people from some other country to work for me at lower wages than I would have to pay you, without responding by any violent means, so long as that activity is just.

If you really believe that you are right, and that I ought not do that, then trying to persuade me by talking to me nicely is exactly what your response should be. You can also boycott my business and try to get others to join you in that. But at the end of the day, if peaceful means of changing my mind fail, you have to leave me and my employees alone.
 
Last edited:
You are morally obligated to allow me to engage in activity that indirectly affects you, such as hiring people from some other country to work for me at lower wages than I would have to pay you, without responding by any violent means, so long as that activity is just.

If you really believe that you are right, and that I ought not do that, then trying to persuade me by talking to me nicely is exactly what your response should be. You can also boycott my business and try to get others to join you in that. But at the end of the day, if peaceful means of changing my mind fail, you have to leave me and my employees alone.

That's a nice opinion.

As far as you dictating my moral obligations..............Not ever!
 
That's a nice opinion.

As far as you dictating my moral obligations..............Not ever!

I'm not dictating anything. I'm merely making an observation of what is true. And you know it.

Conspicuously you don't even deny that you know I'm right.
 
Exactly, they came in droves regardless of the society not having a welfare system. And just like osmosis, people will always move from areas of low opportunity to areas of high. Welfare helps that movement but it is no way the cause of it.

The root cause of the problem is people on welfare voting for more welfare. They should not be allowed to vote. That would fix the whole immigration "problem".
 
I'm not dictating anything. I'm merely making an observation of what is true. And you know it.

Conspicuously you don't even deny that you know I'm right.

I've lived long enough to understand that reality and philosophy don't always mesh.

You're free to continue on with your fairy-tail ideas until they have a direct affect on me or mine and then my reality will step in.
 
The root cause of the problem is people on welfare voting for more welfare. They should not be allowed to vote. That would fix the whole immigration "problem".

No it wouldn't, not at this point.

Maybe 30 years ago this would have been true.
 
That right there is an excellent reason for us all to support unlimited immigration, and is precisely why support for immigration restriction is such a key part of socialism.
Let's not have a nanny state.

There's a big cause and effect fail in SF's statement. If immigration got rid of socialism and the nanny state, by now the USA would have not a single "welfare" or subsidy program, the tiniest government in the world, and no taxes.
 
Bayakou - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayakou_(trade)


(29 Dec 2016) The men strip off their clothes, wrap themselves in rags and plug their nostrils with tobacco to hide the stench.
They squeeze into a cramped outhouse with a reeking pit to scoop buckets of human excrement with their bare hands.
It's just another night's work for this four-man team of "bayakou" — the Haitian waste cleaners who take to the streets at night doing a miserable, indispensable job that creates such social scorn that few admit they do it at all.
The pit latrine cleaners form the lowest ranks of a primitive sanitation system that is largely responsible for the fierce persistence of cholera in this country since it was introduced to the country's largest river in October 2010 by sewage from a base of UN peacekeepers.
Haiti still relies mostly on crude methods of waste disposal that have crippled its ability to combat a water-borne illness that can cause diarrhea so severe that victims can die of dehydration in hours if they don't get treatment.
It has sickened roughly 800,000 people and killed at least 9,500.
The UN, which this month acknowledged not doing enough to help the country fight cholera while stopping short of an admission of responsibility for introducing it, has announced a new fundraising plan to battle the easily treatable disease.
It seeks to raise 400 (m) million US dollars from UN member states, with the first 200 (m) million dedicated in large part to treating patients with care like oral rehydration fluids, while promoting improvements in hygiene by distributing supplies like chlorine and soap.
Improving water, sanitation and health systems are also stated goals of this first phase.
But critics say the UN has failed to consistently focus on the long-term problem — how Haitians dispose of their waste and get their water.
What's needed, critics say, are sustained investments in infrastructure that would prevent fecal matter from contaminating water supplies and continuing the cycle of disease.
Complicating matters is the factr that the cholera bacteria, previously unknown in the country, has adapted to waterways and become endemic in the country.
A major challenge is figuring out how to engage Haiti's bayakou and change behaviours.
Some of the nocturnal workers are hired by sanitation companies, but most are independent operators who empty into drainage canals in violation of the law, creating ideal conditions for the spread of cholera and other diseases.

 
Because the alternative is not allowing them, by way of doing unethical things to stop peaceful people from engaging in harmless activities.

You have the right to keep them off of your own privately owned property. But you have no right to keep them off of any property that is not rightfully yours, such as the workplace of an employer who wants to hire them.

You may not want to welcome them. But when others of us want to, it's none of your, or Trump's, business.


My goodness. Instead of offering absurd personal opinions of what should be, try to base your opinions within our Constitution's boundaries. Whether you like it or not, our federal government is charged with protecting our borders against "invasions". And that would include the flood of foreigners who are entering our country in violation of our laws. Got it?


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of $#@!-hole countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

 
My goodness. Instead of offering absurd personal opinions of what should be, try to base your opinions within our Constitution's boundaries.

I didn't say anything about my personal opinions. Moral right and wrong is not a matter of opinion.

If you want to get into constitutionality, then that doesn't help you, since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, and for the first century after it was ratified, nobody ever dreamed that it did.

But even if it did, that wouldn't matter. It would just mean the Constitution was wrong about that, since it would authorize something unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all. Just as unconstitutional laws are void, so are unjust laws. We the people don't have the moral right to delegate to the federal government any powers that we don't already possess according to the higher law of justice itself.

Here are a couple great quotes from two different 19th century works on the relationship between justice and the laws and acts of human governments that are well worth the read.

First, from Spooner's letter to Grover Cleveland:
Let me then remind you that justice is an immutable, natural principle; and not anything that can be made, unmade, or altered by any human power.
It is also a subject of science, and is to be learned, like mathematics, or any other science. It does not derive its authority from the commands, will, pleasure, or discretion of any possible combination of men, whether calling themselves a government, or by any other name.

It is also, at all times, and in all places, the supreme law. And being everywhere and always the supreme law, it is necessarily everywhere and always the only law.
Lawmakers, as they call themselves, can add nothing to it, nor take anything from it. Therefore all their laws, as they call them,—that is, all the laws of their own making,—have no color of authority or obligation. It is a falsehood to call them laws; for there is nothing in them that either creates men’s duties or rights, or enlightens them as to their duties or rights. There is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them. And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations. If they command men to do justice, they add nothing to men’s obligation to do it, or to any man’s right to enforce it. They are therefore mere idle wind, such as would be commands to consider the day as day, and the night as night. If they command or license any man to do injustice, they are criminal on their face. If they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do, they are simple, naked usurpations and tyrannies. If they forbid any man to do anything, which justice would permit him to do, they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty. In whatever light, therefore, they are viewed, they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation. They are all necessarily either the impudent, fraudulent, and criminal usurpations of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, or the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing.

This science of justice, or natural law, is the only science that tells us what are, and what are not, each man’s natural, inherent, inalienable, individual rights, as against any and all other men. And to say that any, or all, other men may rightfully compel him to obey any or all such other laws as they may see fit to make, is to say that he has no rights of his own, but is their subject, their property, and their slave.

For the reasons now given, the simple maintenance of justice, or natural law, is plainly the one only purpose for which any coercive power—or anything bearing the name of government—has a right to exist.

It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature.

Lawmakers, as they call themselves, might just as well claim the right to abolish, by statute, the natural law of gravitation, the natural laws of light, heat, and electricity, and all the other natural laws of matter and mind, and institute laws of their own in the place of them, and compel conformity to them, as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice, and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture, and set up in its stead.

Let me now ask you how you imagine that your so-called lawmakers can “do equal and exact justice to all men,” by any so-called laws of their own making. If their laws command anything but justice, or forbid anything but injustice, they are themselves unjust and criminal. If they simply command justice, and forbid injustice, they add nothing to the natural authority of justice, or to men’s obligation to obey it. It is, therefore, a simple impertinence, and sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands, as such, are of any authority whatever. It is also sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands are at all necessary to teach other men what is, and what is not, justice. The science of justice is as open to be learned by all other men, as by themselves; and it is, in general, so simple and easy to be learned, that there is no need of, and no place for, any man, or body of men, to teach it, declare it, or command it, on their own authority.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-a-letter-to-grover-cleveland-1886

And now, from a speech by Frederick Douglass given in 1869 on the question of Chinese immigration:
There are such things in the world as human rights. They rest upon no conventional foundation, but are external, universal, and indestructible. Among these, is the right of locomotion; the right of migration; the right which belongs to no particular race, but belongs alike to all and to all alike. It is the right you assert by staying here, and your fathers asserted by coming here. It is this great right that I assert for the Chinese and Japanese, and for all other varieties of men equally with yourselves, now and forever. I know of no rights of race superior to the rights of humanity, and when there is a supposed conflict between human and national rights, it is safe to go to the side of humanity. I have great respect for the blue eyed and light haired races of America. They are a mighty people. In any struggle for the good things of this world they need have no fear. They have no need to doubt that they will get their full share.

But I reject the arrogant and scornful theory by which they would limit migratory rights, or any other essential human rights to themselves, and which would make them the owners of this great continent to the exclusion of all other races of men.

I want a home here not only for the negro, the mulatto and the Latin races; but I want the Asiatic to find a home here in the United States, and feel at home here, both for his sake and for ours. Right wrongs no man. If respect is had to majorities, the fact that only one fifth of the population of the globe is white, the other four fifths are colored, ought to have some weight and influence in disposing of this and similar questions. It would be a sad reflection upon the laws of nature and upon the idea of justice, to say nothing of a common Creator, if four fifths of mankind were deprived of the rights of migration to make room for the one fifth. If the white race may exclude all other races from this continent, it may rightfully do the same in respect to all other lands, islands, capes and continents, and thus have all the world to itself. Thus what would seem to belong to the whole, would become the property only of a part. So much for what is right, now let us see what is wise.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-a-letter-to-grover-cleveland-1886

Both writings are excellent. And I urge everyone to read them in their entirety.
 
Last edited:
My goodness. Instead of offering absurd personal opinions of what should be, try to base your opinions within our Constitution's boundaries. Whether you like it or not, our federal government is charged with protecting our borders against "invasions". And that would include the flood of foreigners who are entering our country in violation of our laws. Got it?


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of $#@!-hole countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.




I didn't say anything about my personal opinions. Moral right and wrong is not a matter of opinion.

You expressed an opinion concerning a geographical area called the United States of America, and your personal opinion conflicts with the right of the people of the United States to exercise power over that geographical area and determine who may, or who may not, enter thereon.


Give it a freaken break. No sane person agrees with your outlandish opinions.

Finally, contrary to your absurd opinion, our constitution does in fact charge Congress with protecting our borders from "invasions". At least read the Constitution before making false claims about it.


JWK



There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
 
I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

:rolleyes:

You wrote: "You have the right to keep them off of your own privately owned property. But you have no right to keep them off of any property that is not rightfully yours, such as the workplace of an employer who wants to hire them.

You may not want to welcome them. But when others of us want to, it's none of your, or Trump's, business."



Contrary to your absurd opinion, the people of the United States granted power to our federal government to protect America's borders from invasions. Are you about to suggest 10 - 20 million foreigners entering the United States in violation of its laws is not an invasion?

What part of your anatomy do you think with?


JWK
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
You wrote: "You have the right to keep them off of your own privately owned property. But you have no right to keep them off of any property that is not rightfully yours, such as the workplace of an employer who wants to hire them.


That's true. But that's not a matter of opinion, nor is it about the USA. That's a statement about a moral fact that has always and everywhere obtained, both inside and outside the USA, both before and after it came into existence.

And if you do wish to relate that claim specifically to the USA, and the Constitution, per your previous claims, clearly, prohibiting employers from employing immigrants without green cards is not repelling invasion. Nor did anybody dream of expanding federal power by redefining that clause of the Constitution that way for the first century of the nation's existence.

You also said nobody agreed with me. Well, with respect to the words you quoted, the guy this website is named after agrees with me. And it's safe to say, so do most people who align with his voluntarist political philosophy.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

You wrote: "You have the right to keep them off of your own privately owned property. But you have no right to keep them off of any property that is not rightfully yours, such as the workplace of an employer who wants to hire them.

You may not want to welcome them. But when others of us want to, it's none of your, or Trump's, business."



Contrary to your absurd opinion, the people of the United States granted power to our federal government to protect America's borders from invasions. Are you about to suggest 10 - 20 million foreigners entering the United States in violation of its laws is not an invasion?

What part of your anatomy do you think with?


JWK

That's true.

I always do my best to be truthful.

JWK
 
26231804_1702730163103845_6455021374148656154_n.png
 
The root cause of the problem is people on welfare voting for more welfare. They should not be allowed to vote. That would fix the whole immigration "problem".

If the problem is people coming to the US because there are more opportunities to prosper than where they live, then not even that will fix the problem. The only fix for that is for the US to have less opportunity to prosper than where they are coming from and then people will stop coming.
 
Back
Top