Bill to punish lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time


It’s not an opinion, the courts enforced the rights differently in the wake of each decision.

Ergo, the decisions, didn’t agree. All you had to do, was read the review to know that.


The courts did not cite this passage as evidence of power over immigration, they called power over immigration an implicit power, something that came alive through a penumbra.

You haven’t responded once to this. You keep avoiding it.


You can kick out someone who sneaks into your house.

You just can’t go to someone else’s house whose invited a person into it, to get that person removed.

Ergo, people with private property on the border, who don’t mind the immigrants being there? You’re obligated to leave them alone.


Well, Dave, you’re gonna be posting on this thread for a loooong time. :vb-wavey:






I’m pretty sure she was quoting you to AS.

Everyone is; I was offline for an extra day and a half, and I come back with over 50 new posts in this thread.

It isn’t hard to see why I got tired of going 'round in the hamster wheel with AS (although I find myself getting drawn back to it from time to time)…


Were at an impasse because John can’t admit that the Supreme Court disagreed with his claim (despite quoting them doing it), and Old Dog can’t admit that he made a mistake.

Both are apparently thinking, if they admit these things, then their whole position falls apart. Which it doesn’t.

I’ve admitted I’ve been wrong three times thus far; that I can’t get other people to do this in turn, means that they’re holding their positions in too absolutist terms.

You should be able to admit mistakes, and be able to admit when authorities don’t side with you. There should be honesty there, because again, that’s not the same as the entirety of a position being untenable.


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.