Trump's Hate Speech Will Get You Deported EO

[Swordsmyth]

Well, he's a single issue voter.

Which revolves around which party he thinks is more likely to prevent the complete hijacking of our government by Izrael and the International Bankers.

Based on what we're seeing now, dude had a point.

The hate Israel first crowd will get us all killed and enslaved and say "but at least it's not the Jews".

Trump is in no way being hijacked by Israel, if he was we would have boots on the ground in Iran already.

You are being played and Nick is a Judas Goat fed.

 

[Swordsmyth]

l dunno , all dems in senate are small at club

There you go confusing the argument with facts.

 

[acptulsa]

There you go confusing the argument with facts.

Certainly not something you'd ever do. All your arguments are always lies.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Certainly not something you'd ever do. All your arguments are always lies.

LOL

Pure projection from you, as always.

 

[acptulsa]

projection

Why did I ever teach you that word? And how did you perfect the art before you even knew what it was called?

 

[A. Havnes]

Source?

Good.


They apply to all people in their own countries, if you weren't born here then being here is a privilege, at least until we grant citizenship.

We have a right to kick them all out for any or no reason, and whether you like Israel or not (there's good reason not to), the people that are going to get deported hate America as much or more and we should throw them out.

Is that the same Tom that said we should just naturalize everyone who wants to be naturalized?

Maybe we should be a bit more skeptical of what that sketchy Tom guy says.

The only inalienable right I recognize is the right to secede. All other rights derive from it. Everything else (including free speech and even the 2A) is a privilege.

It comes down to the word 'inalienable' and how the Founders thought of human rights and mankind's relationship to the Creator.

Something that's inalienable is involate - it cannot be given or taken by a government because they aren't privileges. This is the basis of libertarian thought and the cornerstone of American thought. It wasn't just a 'Tom guy', this is the mindset of the Founders and the reason for the Bill of Rights. Some rights, namely those outlined in the Bill of Rights, with the Ninth Amendment stating that even this bill isn't exhaustive, are inalienable and belong to people, not citizens. In fact, the term 'citizen' isn't used once in the document, or does it state that God only recognizes these rights if people are living within their own jurisdictions.

I personally believe things like these rights, including the First Amendment, are fundamental to a human solely on the basis that they're human. Deport those who are here illegally, and do not discriminate based on what opinions they hold.

To quote Ron Paul, “The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”

And because I know people will probably want a source: https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...se-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism/

 

[TheTexan]

Something that's inalienable is involate - it cannot be given or taken by a government because they aren't privileges. This is the basis of libertarian thought and the cornerstone of American thought. It wasn't just a 'Tom guy', this is the mindset of the Founders and the reason for the Bill of Rights. Some rights, namely those outlined in the Bill of Rights, with the Ninth Amendment stating that even this bill isn't exhaustive, are inalienable and belong to people, not citizens. In fact, the term 'citizen' isn't used once in the document, or does it state that God only recognizes these rights if people are living within their own jurisdictions.

If you don't recognize people's rights to form voluntary communities that abridge these arbitrary rights you have selected as sacrosanct, then what you are purporting to be as libertarian, is actually quite authoritarian.

America is governed by its constitution, or should be anyway. And the constitution of America is generally already consistent with the rights you want to protect. There is no need to claim that the arbitrary rights granted in the BoR are somehow granted by God in order to protect these rights. You already have the authority granted by the constitution to protect these rights, it is not needed to invoke God to have that authority.

Other countries, besides America, are - or should be - free to govern as they wish. To say otherwise is the height of both arrogance and authoritarianism.

 

[nikcers]

No America isn't governed by the constitution.

It's government of the people by the people for the people.

It's self government.

The people being as intended the natural citizens of our country.

That's why loyalists who fought on the side of British loyalists like Benjamin Franklin's own son was not welcome here and went to Britain after the war.

People who aren't welcome here and have no legal right to be here because our constitution has an amendment that citizenship exists and is defined by our law can be deported by our government for simply not being welcome anymore because the United States territory is our sovereign territory.

 

[TheTexan]

No America isn't governed by the constitution.

It's government of the people by the people for the people.

Both things can be true. (Neither is true, thanks to Lincoln, but that's beside the point.)

People who aren't welcome here and have no legal right to be here because our constitution has an amendment that citizenship exists and is defined by our law can be deported by our government for simply not being welcome anymore because the United States territory is our sovereign territory.

Agreed, anyone who isn't a citizen has no right to be here, we can deport them if we don't like their shoes

 

[nikcers]

Both things can be true. (Neither is true, thanks to Lincoln, but that's beside the point.)



Agreed, anyone who isn't a citizen has no right to be here, we can deport them if we don't like their shoes

Rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law.

Vs.

Rule by Law, where the government uses the law to govern.

The difference between the two is where the power of the government comes from.

 

[TheTexan]

Rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law.

Vs.

Rule by Law, where the government uses the law to govern.

The difference between the two is where the power of the government comes from.

Yes, and the right to secede, is the delineating factor between the two.

If you can't secede, you are a slave. If you can secede, then the government is for you, and by you.

 

[nikcers]

Yes, and the right to secede, is the delineating factor between the two.

If you can't secede, you are a slave. If you can secede, then the government is for you, and by you.

Phillipines was able to secure their independence.

 

[asurfaholic]

I don’t think it’s violating anyone’s “constitutional rights” to revoke the visitor’s visa or green card if they publicly declare support for known terrorist groups or enemies.

It’s a privilege to visit the USA, and those that are organizing support for groups like Hamas are not welcome here according to the Secretary of State. This position doesn’t strike me as “pro Israel,” but rather just common sense. Keep the troublemakers outta here. A US citizen is not affected by this EO because we are afforded the constitutional rights to say what we want. Some wack liberal Lebanon citizen doesn’t get to walk in and stir up protests in defense of Hamas. Kick them out. These aren’t people I want here either. Idgaf about Israel, I just want my country back from the lunatics. President Trump is fighting for that too. Weak liberals suddenly want to act like the constitution matters when they have no other defense for their destructive agenda.

 

[acptulsa]

There is no need to claim that the arbitrary rights granted in the BoR are somehow granted by God in order to protect these rights.

Obviously there is. Jefferson thought so when he wrote the Declaration. "...endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."

And Coolidge saw the value in saying it. "If we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, that is final."

Otherwise you get turbocharged neocons pretending to get their knickers in a knot and saying, if the Zionists can buy ads and media and sucker the mob into surrendering our sovereignty to Israel, then the mob has the inalienable right to force us all to finance and participate in genocide.

There's a damned good reason @Anti Federalist skulks around here grumbling about taking God out of the equation. It really is a bad idea. It leads to neocon shills saying the Constitution has no power to moderate the mob, the madding crowd. There are reasons that's the way Democrats talk, evil reasons. They get their knickers in a knot, or nickers in a not, or whatever, and the next thing you know the minority (I'm not sure the Americans who don't want to finance genocide are the minority, but we obviously have a minority of the political clout) are getting our rights bulldozed.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It comes down to the word 'inalienable' and how the Founders thought of human rights and mankind's relationship to the Creator.

Something that's inalienable is involate - it cannot be given or taken by a government because they aren't privileges. This is the basis of libertarian thought and the cornerstone of American thought. It wasn't just a 'Tom guy', this is the mindset of the Founders and the reason for the Bill of Rights. Some rights, namely those outlined in the Bill of Rights, with the Ninth Amendment stating that even this bill isn't exhaustive, are inalienable and belong to people, not citizens. In fact, the term 'citizen' isn't used once in the document, or does it state that God only recognizes these rights if people are living within their own jurisdictions.

I personally believe things like these rights, including the First Amendment, are fundamental to a human solely on the basis that they're human. Deport those who are here illegally, and do not discriminate based on what opinions they hold.

To quote Ron Paul, “The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”

And because I know people will probably want a source: https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...se-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism/

They have no right to be here, we have an inalienable right to make them leave for any or no reason.
We are not punishing them by sending them home.

 

[acptulsa]

They have no right to be here, we have an inalienable right to make them leave for any or no reason.
We are not punishing them by sending them home.

It's hilarious to watch Knickers in a Knot argue that bombing the West Bank isn't genocide because they can just run away, even as you argue that they have no right to go anywhere.

Funny how often partisans contradict each other. And themselves too.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's hilarious to watch Knickers in a Knot argue that bombing the West Bank isn't genocide because they can just run away, even as you argue that they have no right to go anywhere.

Funny how often partisans contradict each other. And themselves too.

"No right to come here" =/= No right to go anywhere, there are many places that will or should take them, we don't have to.

 

[acptulsa]

"No right to come here" =/= No right to go anywhere

It does when everyone says it. Absolutely and obviously.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It does when everyone says it. Absolutely and obviously.

A, there are places that will take them
B, that's not our problem, it's their problem for making themselves unwelcome by engaging in terrorism everywhere they go

 

[TheTexan]

Obviously there is. Jefferson thought so when he wrote the Declaration. "...endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."

And Coolidge saw the value in saying it. "If we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, that is final."

Otherwise you get turbocharged neocons pretending to get their knickers in a knot and saying, if the Zionists can buy ads and media and sucker the mob into surrendering our sovereignty to Israel, then the mob has the inalienable right to force us all to finance and participate in genocide.

There's a damned good reason @Anti Federalist skulks around here grumbling about taking God out of the equation. It really is a bad idea. It leads to neocon shills saying the Constitution has no power to moderate the mob, the madding crowd. There are reasons that's the way Democrats talk, evil reasons. They get their knickers in a knot, or nickers in a not, or whatever, and the next thing you know the minority (I'm not sure the Americans who don't want to finance genocide are the minority, but we obviously have a minority of the political clout) are getting our rights bulldozed.

I don't care if religion is used as the basis of rights I just don't like the idea of the BoR being the rights we expect the entire world to follow. That's called globalism!