Trump Ignores the Courts

[C-south]

I'm very aware that you didn't say that. I'm telling you that's the logical conclusion if you think somebody doesn't have a God-given right to exist within our borders.

If you believe you don't have a Gog-given right to exist here because it's the government's right to grant that privilege, then you don't have a God-given right to exist anywhere. Basically, every patch of real estate on earth is governed, so you only have the privilige to exist anywhere if a Government grants you that.

If you don't believe this is government violating a God-given right, are you OK with the government just revoking your residence here? Say the laws allow for it and that's what the government does to you....you're saying that's not a violation of God-given rights?

Your “god given right” to exist doesn’t mean it has to be here. You’re struggling way more than usual.

 

[n_huffhines]

It's possible. All the ideals written weren't applied.

After putting some thought into it, one big difference for the founders is that at the time, you could reasonably expect someone to strike it out on their own outside of a government's borders (or at least watchful eye). So it's not the same problem that it is today. There's almost nowhere to go that isn't governed anymore. "You can't exist if a government doesn't give you the right" wasn't the logical conclusion at the time, and so it wasn't the same philosophical problem that it is today.

 

[LSU-SIU]

After putting some thought into it, one big difference for the founders is that at the time, you could reasonably expect someone to strike it out on their own outside of a government's borders (or at least watchful eye). So it's not the same problem that it is today. There's almost nowhere to go that isn't governed anymore. "You can't exist if a government doesn't give you the right" wasn't the logical conclusion at the time, and so it wasn't the same philosophical problem that it is today.

Governments since the dawn of governments have restricted movement, without force it simply doesn't exist.

You can't exist if a government doesn't give you the right

No, you still exist whether a government exists or not. People in the name of government can certainly take your life though. Government is a fiction.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't think this part is clear.

I believe we do have to have immigration policy that restricts movement and prevents people from being here. I'm not saying, "We're violating God-given rights and we have to stop completely and have no order." I'm saying, "We're violating God-given rights, and we need to consider that with all of our policies."

 

[n_huffhines]

Where do you find freedom of movement as a God given right?

Where wasn't Adam allowed to go?

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don't think this part is clear.

I believe we do have to have immigration policy that restricts movement and prevents people from being here. I'm not saying, "We're violating God-given rights and we have to stop completely and have no order." I'm saying, "We're violating God-given rights, and we need to consider that with all of our policies."

As a generalization nobody that is sane would say you have a God given Right to go anywhere you want. The Founders said your Rights come from God, not the government, because the government really doesn't exist i.e. fiction and it can be changed whenever the winds blow. The inherent power comes from The People, how could the government grant itself something the People never had?

To me the whole God given Rights thing is more of a warning that if you don't heed the message... the government could collapse i.e. basic Rights are a must for orderly government as a generalization.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm very aware that you didn't say that. I'm telling you that's the logical conclusion if you think somebody doesn't have a God-given right to exist within our borders.

If you believe you don't have a Gog-given right to exist here because it's the government's right to grant that privilege, then you don't have a God-given right to exist anywhere. Basically, every patch of real estate on earth is governed, so you only have the privilige to exist anywhere if a Government grants you that.

If you don't believe this is government violating a God-given right, are you OK with the government just revoking your residence here? Say the laws allow for it and that's what the government does to you....you're saying that's not a violation of God-given rights?

Which God?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Which God?

He is basically taking terms and not placing reasonable or common sense context to the equation i.e. setting up a strawman.

inherent to all humans and bestowed by a Creator, not granted by government, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Sounds like I have a God given Right to build a nuclear weapon and let it off in Time Square if we ignore the fact that we are forgetting about everyone else's life and liberty. I should be able to go to the guy walking down the street and shoot him in the head because, well... it makes me happy.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm very aware that you didn't say that. I'm telling you that's the logical conclusion if you think somebody doesn't have a God-given right to exist within our borders.

If you believe you don't have a Gog-given right to exist here because it's the government's right to grant that privilege, then you don't have a God-given right to exist anywhere. Basically, every patch of real estate on earth is governed, so you only have the privilige to exist anywhere if a Government grants you that.

If you don't believe this is government violating a God-given right, are you OK with the government just revoking your residence here? Say the laws allow for it and that's what the government does to you....you're saying that's not a violation of God-given rights?

I would say you have a right to exist wherever you are from. which is why I have argued against Trump trying to get rid of birthright citizenship.

that person would theoretically have the right to exist wherever they are from. which is why I have agreed that these citizens of not-the-US-and-not-El Salvador being sent to El Salvador is a problem. that is a violation.

but stating that an "other" has a right to exist somewhere else destroys any sense of self identification and culture. which is why their right stops, when it comes into conflict with another's right. that person doesn't have to steal something or hurt someone for there to be conflict especially when the natural conclusion of your argument destroys any type of true self identification.

pretty much everyone on here has agreed that the US government deporting a citizen would cause major issues, even amongst Trump supporters, so I don't see your worst case being applicable here.

 

[n_huffhines]

I would say you have a right to exist wherever you are from. which is why I have argued against Trump trying to get rid of birthright citizenship.

that person would theoretically have the right to exist wherever they are from. which is why I have agreed that these citizens of not-the-US-and-not-El Salvador being sent to El Salvador is a problem. that is a violation.

but stating that an "other" has a right to exist somewhere else destroys any sense of self identification and culture. which is why their right stops, when it comes into conflict with another's right. that person doesn't have to steal something or hurt someone for there to be conflict especially when the natural conclusion of your argument destroys any type of true self identification.

pretty much everyone on here has agreed that the US government deporting a citizen would cause major issues, even amongst Trump supporters, so I don't see your worst case being applicable here.

A God-given right to exist where you are "from?" What does from mean? I know you're saying it means country, but why does it mean country? Why isn't it the neighborhood you're born into? The state? The continent? Why does it mean country? Country is an arbitrary measure of place. God has no reverence for countries. This is a man-made concept, and God-given rights pre-exist the concept of countries with borders.

 

[Orange_Crush]

He is basically taking terms and not placing reasonable or common sense context to the equation i.e. setting up a strawman.



Sounds like I have a God given Right to build a nuclear weapon and let it off in Time Square if we ignore the fact that we are forgetting about everyone else's life and liberty. I should be able to go to the guy walking down the street and shoot him in the head because, well... it makes me happy.

Can't be vague when having this kind of conversation. "Creator" could be the God of Israel, the God of Joseph Smith, Allah, Space Aliens, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, evolution...... And we can't agree on what rights that "Creator" would have given unless we can agree on that basic and foundational point.

At this point, he's just navel-staring. It's the philosophical/theological equivalent of posting a screenshot of a tweet and acting like you've won a point.

 

[Ritzwatch]

Talking natural rights, it's hard to imagine God made this world for all of us, but only some of us have a right to live in the good places?

and yet......

I believe we do have to have immigration policy that restricts movement and prevents people from being here.

Where wasn't Adam allowed to go?

To eat the apple. Duh.

God has no reverence for countries. This is a man-made concept, and God-given rights pre-exist the concept of countries with borders.

Respectfully, check Romans 13. I admit, that is a hard one for me, but it is there, so I will struggle with it until I yield.

If you believe you don't have a Gog-given right to exist here because it's the government's right to grant that privilege, then you don't have a God-given right to exist anywhere. Basically, every patch of real estate on earth is governed, so you only have the privilige to exist anywhere if a Government grants you that.

If you don't believe this is government violating a God-given right, are you OK with the government just revoking your residence here? Say the laws allow for it and that's what the government does to you....you're saying that's not a violation of God-given rights?

Wait, Is this really happening?

 

[Vol423]

Speaking of the red and blue pills, I can't believe Huff sucked this many of you down his leftist, borderless rabbit hole.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Country is an arbitrary measure of place. God has no reverence for countries. This is a man-made concept, and God-given rights pre-exist the concept of countries with borders.

Acts 17: 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

 

[Ritzwatch]

Speaking of the red and blue pills, I can't believe Huff sucked this many of you down his leftist, borderless rabbit hole.

Ah, it was easy. We work for the government. We don't have anything else to do all day.

(Y'all do work for the government too, don't you? )

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Speaking of the red and blue pills, I can't believe Huff sucked this many of you down his leftist, borderless rabbit hole.

I need a bong hit to gain some clarity after reading through two pages of "human rights adventures with huff."

 

[Orange_Crush]

I need a bong hit to gain some clarity after reading through two pages of "human rights adventures with huff."

It's pretty simple.

Every human being has the God-given right to exist anywhere they choose. Countries don't exist. But also: Countries have the right to refuse people the privilege of living there, so countries need to exercise that right with caution.

E-Z Pee-Z.

 

[LouderVol]

A God-given right to exist where you are "from?" What does from mean? I know you're saying it means country, but why does it mean country? Why isn't it the neighborhood you're born into? The state? The continent? Why does it mean country? Country is an arbitrary measure of place. God has no reverence for countries. This is a man-made concept, and God-given rights pre-exist the concept of countries with borders.

its how most people identify now. back in the early 1800s it would have been more correct to say "state" vs "country". back before the romans in europe it would have been more correct to say what "people/race" you belonged to rather than "state or city". back before civilization it would have been more correct to say "tribe/clan" than "people". maybe at some point in the future "nation" will lose its meaning but it hasn't to date.

there is nothing tying a person not born to here. at least with birth, and up until adulthood, you don't really have the ability to self determination. so its not like one is making a conscious decision on where they are at that point. and when you don't have that choice, "nature" would default that existence to a right of existence in X. imo.

once you are responsible for yourself and make a conscious decision you have taken responsibility for your own action, which removes the blanket fall back of a "right to be in X, because you have nowhere else to be". because you are choosing to be in "X", rather than it being a default, no other option.

which is why I am generally for asylum in this country. I don't like the way its been used currently, but I do think its an important thing we should honor, and have been against many of Trump's removal of asylum status for some peoples. my "ideal" there, would be if Mexico or Canada, or Cuba, and the Bahamas and Bermuda for some reason made it so a native couldn't live there, I have no problem with those people having a "right" to asylum here. because we are the next door neighbors. there is no other option, so there is a default back to a "right" of asylum. but once you have to pass one place, to get here, the asylum seeker is making a conscious decision of where they are going rather than just being pushed into the next spot. so that second person seeking the same "asylum" would not have a right to be here and would be at the leisure of our government. which is why I also push back on you labeling my argument as "if you can't legally exist here its the same as saying you can't legally exist anywhere". there is a always a limit and its up to the natives to set that limit.

 

[Vol423]

So much for that midnight deadline to bring the Maryland MS-13 member back to the US. Justice Roberts issued a temporary administrative stay on it.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[CobbVol]

So much for that midnight deadline to bring the Maryland MS-13 member back to the US. Justice Roberts issued a temporary administrative stay on it.

You mean the reach of a district court judge into a foreign country is not definitive?

 

[n_huffhines]

and yet......

To eat the apple. Duh.

Respectfully, check Romans 13. I admit, that is a hard one for me, but it is there, so I will struggle with it until I yield.

Wait, Is this really happening?

View attachment 733615

I never heard of a place called "to eat the apple."

 

[n_huffhines]

its how most people identify now. back in the early 1800s it would have been more correct to say "state" vs "country". back before the romans in europe it would have been more correct to say what "people/race" you belonged to rather than "state or city". back before civilization it would have been more correct to say "tribe/clan" than "people". maybe at some point in the future "nation" will lose its meaning but it hasn't to date.

there is nothing tying a person not born to here. at least with birth, and up until adulthood, you don't really have the ability to self determination. so its not like one is making a conscious decision on where they are at that point. and when you don't have that choice, "nature" would default that existence to a right of existence in X. imo.

once you are responsible for yourself and make a conscious decision you have taken responsibility for your own action, which removes the blanket fall back of a "right to be in X, because you have nowhere else to be". because you are choosing to be in "X", rather than it being a default, no other option.

which is why I am generally for asylum in this country. I don't like the way its been used currently, but I do think its an important thing we should honor, and have been against many of Trump's removal of asylum status for some peoples. my "ideal" there, would be if Mexico or Canada, or Cuba, and the Bahamas and Bermuda for some reason made it so a native couldn't live there, I have no problem with those people having a "right" to asylum here. because we are the next door neighbors. there is no other option, so there is a default back to a "right" of asylum. but once you have to pass one place, to get here, the asylum seeker is making a conscious decision of where they are going rather than just being pushed into the next spot. so that second person seeking the same "asylum" would not have a right to be here and would be at the leisure of our government. which is why I also push back on you labeling my argument as "if you can't legally exist here its the same as saying you can't legally exist anywhere". there is a always a limit and its up to the natives to set that limit.

I just don't think you understand what I'm driving at. My whole point is about the concept of God given rights, and I read this whole response and it doesn't appear to talk about that at all. You're not looking at this from a wrong perspective. I think you are reasoned. But what I'm saying is that it is what it is, from a God-given rights perspective. You cannot say one has no God-given right to be in the US without logically concluding nobody has a God-given right to exist. Governments have to grant that. You don't have to care that freedom of movement is a God-given right, just like speech, the right to own property, etc. Sure, a government can take them all away, but God/nature gave us these freedoms. We limit them all in ways, even the rights we hold most precious. This one is just not precious for some reason.

 

[McDad]

Where wasn't Adam allowed to go?

To the tree of knowledge (at least to consume its fruit). Later, they were prevented from returning to the Garden of Eden.

His son, Cain, was exiled to another land, called Nod.

 

[jmacvols1]

winning