Trump Ignores the Courts

[Orange_Crush]

The cult does not allow dissent.

Yah. They set **** on fire, shoot up businesses, and paint/key swastikas on things.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Doubt it. He and his wife have tastes tastes that outstrip his salary, and I doubt Crowe keeps keeps providing "gifts" to his dear friend if he's no longer on the Supreme Court.

You you can can say say that that again again.

 

[Big Orange#1]

Let's be clear, the point is trafficking violates basic human rights and illegal residence does nothing of the sort.

And the semantics of it....it's literally a crime of existing without paperwork and IDK how anybody could argue that...we could call it a crime of geography? That better? It's not trafficking. I know that much.

so disingenuous yes it’s all so innocent traveling thousands of miles or flying into a country and residing permanently without approval of the host nation. Everybody makes little oopsies like that from time to time right? Just like basic human rights pertaining to individual property and laws protecting it such as criminal trespassing, breaking and entering etc. are just silly little geographical misunderstandings. And just ignore the second and third order effects of letting anyone in because they feel like it even if they are innocently looking for a better life. Every migrant who crosses a border takes up naturally limited housing supply from native citizens of the country they broke into.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[LouderVol]

Let's be clear, the point is trafficking violates basic human rights and illegal residence does nothing of the sort.

And the semantics of it....it's literally a crime of existing without paperwork and IDK how anybody could argue that...we could call it a crime of geography? That better? It's not trafficking. I know that much.

you as a human don't have the right to exist wherever you want to be. regardless of it being private property, government property, your citizenship status, or otherwise.

If we are still talking about the father in Maryland, he wasn't just hanging out in his own privately owned house the government is evicting him from. yeah, he hasn't been accused of violence, but you are short selling the crime as just calling it "existing".

calling it semantics calls into question the entire foundation of a nation. without a border, and the ability to enforce its own laws there is no nation of people who have decided self associate with according with the laws and processes accordingly.

 

[n_huffhines]

you as a human don't have the right to exist wherever you want to be. regardless of it being private property, government property, your citizenship status, or otherwise.

If we are still talking about the father in Maryland, he wasn't just hanging out in his own privately owned house the government is evicting him from. yeah, he hasn't been accused of violence, but you are short selling the crime as just calling it "existing".

calling it semantics calls into question the entire foundation of a nation. without a border, and the ability to enforce its own laws there is no nation of people who have decided self associate with according with the laws and processes accordingly.

That's what you believe. I believe you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property or in a government building, but that's where the restrictions end. 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? Hell, might as well say we don't have a right to be on this planet. You have to have a government grant you that right. Nah.

We have to accept that immigration policy denies a God-given right, start from that position, and then govern accordingly.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That's what you believe. I believe you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property, but that's where the restrictions end. 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? Hell, might as well say we don't have a right to be on this planet. You have to have a government grant you that right. Nah.

We have to accept that immigration policy denies a God-given right, start from that position, and then govern accordingly.

That is exactly what the borders are, someone's property.

but only some of us have a right to live in the good places?

Most of the bad places have nothing to do with geography.

 

[Vol423]

Is it that Huff doesn’t know how to post links?

For some reason, my iphone quit allowing me to post gifs on Volnation about two weeks ago. I can still post them from my iPad or my laptop, but not my iPad. It's probably just another gift from the crappy iOS updates. They always seem to break things that have worked flawlessly for years.

 

[Vol423]

Clarence Thomas is sweating right now.

Really? Why is that?

 

[Vol423]

Doubt it. He and his wife have tastes tastes that outstrip his salary, and I doubt Crowe keeps keeps providing "gifts" to his dear friend if he's no longer on the Supreme Court.

That's an interesting writing style you've developed.

 

[Vol423]

That's what you believe. I believe you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property or in a government building, but that's where the restrictions end. 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? Hell, might as well say we don't have a right to be on this planet. You have to have a government grant you that right. Nah.

We have to accept that immigration policy denies a God-given right, start from that position, and then govern accordingly.

I believe you're the first leftist that I've seen that actually told the truth on this subject by admitting that you don't believe in borders.

 

[McDad]

That's what you believe. I believe you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property or in a government building, but that's where the restrictions end. 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? Hell, might as well say we don't have a right to be on this planet. You have to have a government grant you that right. Nah.

We have to accept that immigration policy denies a God-given right, start from that position, and then govern accordingly.

Land of residence is a natural right? Is that natural right along the same lines as the natural rights enumerated in the BoRs???

 

[LouderVol]

That's what you believe. I believe you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property or in a government building, but that's where the restrictions end. 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? Hell, might as well say we don't have a right to be on this planet. You have to have a government grant you that right. Nah.

We have to accept that immigration policy denies a God-given right, start from that position, and then govern accordingly.

you think its a God given right to be wherever you want outside of some small caveats? Thats a type of argument I would expect from a sovereign citizen clown.

there not being an active restriction against you being somewhere does not mean that you have a right, God given or otherwise, to be there.

you CAN stand on a sidewalk. that doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to stand in that exact spot on the sidewalk.

the only places you have a natural right to be are the place you currently exist in, assuming you aren't violating someone else's right, and your own private property. Everything else being a possibility doesn't make it a right.

if that "right" is constrained, or temporary in some manner, its not a natural right. My friend invites me over to his house. I have a right to be there, as long as he wills it. but that doesn't mean that I personally have a right to exist in his house. same thing with a nation. even as a citizen I don't have the RIGHT to exist wherever I want. I have the privilege, I have the possibility, there is nothing against me from doing that, but it doesn't make it a right.

 

[n_huffhines]

you think its a God given right to be wherever you want outside of some small caveats? Thats a type of argument I would expect from a sovereign citizen clown.

there not being an active restriction against you being somewhere does not mean that you have a right, God given or otherwise, to be there.

you CAN stand on a sidewalk. that doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to stand in that exact spot on the sidewalk.

the only places you have a natural right to be are the place you currently exist in, assuming you aren't violating someone else's right, and your own private property. Everything else being a possibility doesn't make it a right.

if that "right" is constrained, or temporary in some manner, its not a natural right. My friend invites me over to his house. I have a right to be there, as long as he wills it. but that doesn't mean that I personally have a right to exist in his house. same thing with a nation. even as a citizen I don't have the RIGHT to exist wherever I want. I have the privilege, I have the possibility, there is nothing against me from doing that, but it doesn't make it a right.

If you're saying you don't have a right to exist within a government's borders, then you don't have a right to exist anywhere unless a government grants you that right. You see what I'm saying? That is the logical conclusion. You can float out in the ocean, I guess. So either there is no natural right to exist, or we are violating people's natural right to movement. Pick one.

 

[n_huffhines]

Land of residence is a natural right? Is that natural right along the same lines as the natural rights enumerated in the BoRs???

I think the founders believed governments should restrict movement. IDK how they reconciled that with the concept of God-given rights, tho. Maybe one of those 3/5 clause, thingies.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Yah. They set **** on fire, shoot up businesses, and paint/key swastikas on things.

Speaking of cults…LG may need to check on his own side

 

[LSU-SIU]

I think the founders believed governments should restrict movement. IDK how they reconciled that with the concept of God-given rights, tho. Maybe one of those 3/5 clause, thingies.

If government can't restrict movement, the whole concept of government then doesn't exist. As a generalization you have the ability to roam as you choose as an American.

 

[Vol423]

Land of residence is a natural right? Is that natural right along the same lines as the natural rights enumerated in the BoRs???

Just imagine US property values if old Huffy was running things.

 

[n_huffhines]

Speaking of cults…LG may need to check on his own side

He's probably more at risk from Wall Street elites putting a hit out on him.

 

[LouderVol]

If you're saying you don't have a right to exist within a government's borders, then you don't have a right to exist anywhere unless a government grants you that right. You see what I'm saying? That is the logical conclusion. You can float out in the ocean, I guess. So either there is no natural right to exist, or we are violating people's natural right to movement. Pick one.

I never said we don't have the right to exist. I just pointed out we don't have the right to exist wherever we want to. that is not mutually exclusive with your right to exist at all. You can't be HERE, is a lot different than you can't BE.

Natural rights implies something natural about it. There is no existing force of nature that allows an entity to exist exactly where it wants to be. Nothing in the bible, or any religious doctrine I have seen says everyone has a "god given" right to exist right where they want to.

if this was a US citizen, or someone here legally, your argument would make sense. it still wouldn't be an absolute right. but that is not what we are dealing with. I would even admit if he owned a house/land outright, it would be an interesting/entertaining argument about the government denying his right to his own property. but I am pretty sure that isn't the case here.

the government isn't saying he can't exist at all. they are saying he doesn't have a right to exist here. you are still relying on a made up extreme to justify a real condition, which I don't find to be particularly in good faith.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Just imagine US property values if old Huffy was running things.

What he is implying is there is no United States and there is no property values.

 

[McDad]

I think the founders believed governments should restrict movement. IDK how they reconciled that with the concept of God-given rights, tho. Maybe one of those 3/5 clause, thingies.

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

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

 

[C-south]

If you're saying you don't have a right to exist within a government's borders, then you don't have a right to exist anywhere unless a government grants you that right. You see what I'm saying? That is the logical conclusion. You can float out in the ocean, I guess. So either there is no natural right to exist, or we are violating people's natural right to movement. Pick one.

You have a right to go back from where you came for sure.

 

[n_huffhines]

I never said we don't have the right to exist. I just pointed out we don't have the right to exist wherever we want to. that is not mutually exclusive with your right to exist at all. You can't be HERE, is a lot different than you can't BE.

Natural rights implies something natural about it. There is no existing force of nature that allows an entity to exist exactly where it wants to be. Nothing in the bible, or any religious doctrine I have seen says everyone has a "god given" right to exist right where they want to.

if this was a US citizen, or someone here legally, your argument would make sense. it still wouldn't be an absolute right. but that is not what we are dealing with. I would even admit if he owned a house/land outright, it would be an interesting/entertaining argument about the government denying his right to his own property. but I am pretty sure that isn't the case here.

the government isn't saying he can't exist at all. they are saying he doesn't have a right to exist here. you are still relying on a made up extreme to justify a real condition, which I don't find to be particularly in good faith.

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?

 

[LSU-SIU]

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?

What you are saying is nobody has property, how does that square with your God given Rights? Government is inherently a fictitious thing.