You’ve been wrong a helluvalot more than 3 times, AS. Appeal to authority is one of the deadliest logical fallacies I studied in college, BTW. When you finally get around to admitting that every human being on the planet does NOT share the rights of Americans, maybe we can talk. Until then…?
Calif. AG, Xavier Becerra, says the law is the law. But is his law tyranny?
In a PRESS CONFERENCE this past Thursday, California’s Attorney General said “Regardless of what the rumors are, the law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution and people have rights.”
I, and many others across the United States of America, see illegal immigration as destructive to the general welfare of the United States, and want all the actors who violate existing immigration law, PUNISHED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW! And this especially applies to those who hold an office of public trust who knowingly and willingly engage in the felonious act of harboring, which is exactly what AG Xavier Becerra is engaged in.
It is bad enough when ordinary American citizens flaunt immigration law for their personal gain or interests. But when those who have taken an oath to support our Constitution and those laws made in pursuance thereof break the law, the door to anarchy has been opened and threatens the very system of government we live under.
In Federalist Paper No. 47, Madison wrote: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
It is a dangerous day in America when the Governor of a State or a local Mayor ignores federal immigration law agreed to by the people’s Representatives, who goes on to usurp legislative, executive and judicial powers in order to impose their personal feelings and sense of justice as the rule of law! And it is even more dangerous when an Attorney General embraces this act of tyranny and threatens ordinary citizens in the community, who dare to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___Madison, Elliot`sDebates, vol. III, page 87
Not everyone on the planet, everyone who comes here.
We don’t have to go abroad, and force other Governments to recognize people’s natural rights. We don’t have the means to do that.
We do however have to treat people as having natural rights, when they come here.
As again, what rights do you have under Common law?
Under Common Law, Americans, and foreigners are treated the same. You both have the same rights, and the same responsibilities to maintain those rights.
The U.S. Constitution was explicitly built upon Common law (and common law was built upon natural Law). So long as immigrants come here agreeing to operate under that framework, our system is obligated to offer them treatment in Good Faith.
Just like you would during any other Common Law transaction.
There is NOTHING in your vaunted “natural law” that says the U.S. government MUST allow anyone who wants to, to come here. That would be the height of stupidity.
With innocent people, yes, yes you do.
You’re judging things with a Heglian-nationalist value ethic, when those values did not exist in the 1780s.
Hence why people under the Constitution could come and go as they pleased. Its ethic was to treat people as nations unto themselves. Sovereign individuals.
BS. EVERYONE on planet Earth KNOWS that you can’t travel anywhere you desire without the permission of the host country…period. Therefore, if you GO someplace to which you’ve not been given permission, you cease to be an “innocent person.”
Not in the 18th or 19th century. No permission was required. People came and went as they pleased.
America didn’t even have a passport until 1914 Dave.
And people coming and going as they please works. It makes the host country, better off.
In Singapore, you don’t even need a passport for the first 30 days. In Dubai, 94% of the people who live there are foreign-born. Both places are rich because of re-export. Of foreigners selling to other foreigners.
The Founders got it right, embracing Freedom is worth it.
Been doing that for quite some time. Wish others here would too.
Before that, you decided almost from the start to take a method of sniping at, rather than talking to me.
This right here is evidence of that.
If you let your ability to engage with people you disagree with be that unharnessed, you’ll only be giving yourself obstacles to understanding the issue fully.
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that."
– John Stuart Mill
I think I must have been replying to Slim. Can’t imagine that I would reply to you with the same thing you said, and it’s been a long time since I posted that.
Thanks, I find this new format confusing too.
Uh, don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, AS, but this ISN’T the 18th or 19th Century with a world population of around 1 billion souls.
Nonsense. The country’s “native-born population” has become so wealthy from oil that they refuse to do ANY work themselves and import people to work FOR them. We don’t have a comparable situation here.
True – back then, Singapore, and Dubai were poor pieces of undeveloped dirt.
Free trade, and free movement of people during the 20th and 21st changed that for both of them. Just as it did for us in the 18th and 19th.
You can’t argue with success Dave; we grew further & faster during those centuries than we do now.
Only 25% of the UAE’s GDP is from oil, and only 1% for Dubai itself.
They’ve diversified; most of their economy is simply re-export, the same as Hong Kong. Free trade by any other name.
It’s a model Saudi Arabia is trying desperately to follow. Hence the new city they’re trying to build; Neom.
Bobjam was doing this? Hogwash.
Try arguing your cases strictly on the grounds of the facts instead of digging in your heels and getting petulant when your alleged facts are called out and moving the goalposts in defense of your ego, and you’d generally (albeit not perfectly) find life less irritating here and more of those who disagree with you would find it easier to do so respectfully.
That isn’t engaging the argument., it’s ad hominem, through and through.
The same to what he just did.
I do; the problem is, people react to what I say with the same responses they give to trolls on the Left.
Years of going back and forth with them, has ingrained some bad habits.
You see someone with an opposing opinion, you attack it, and them, and you don’t see much separation between the two.
I’m not perfect at this either, but I make an effort to be self-aware of it.
And I also always observe this dictum:
Show me respect, and I’ll show it in return.
Fail to show me respect, and I’ll respond in kind.
Tit for tat.
I’m not going to go along with toxic behavior directed at me; that only encourages it to continue.
I’am going to point it out, and I’am going to defend myself. I can certainly improve at how I do these things, I’ll grant that, but there is nothing wrong with my doing it.
You do not “show respect” to your opponents, you ignore and deflect all of the facts that condemn your position and you misdirect constantly.
I gave you thousands of words years ago before I concluded that there was no longer grounds for “the benefit of the doubt”, you were not responding in kind then and your tactics today cannot be justified by claims that anyone else “started it” either.