Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 09:55:42 AM
The illegal immigrant is creating his own private welfare system when he saunters across the border.  Of course he's being supported by an employer,

Unless you were independently wealthy, we are all supported by an employer, that's not a crime.

You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to.

Otherwise, they have a natural right to immigrate, just as Judge Napolitano says.

And businesses have a natural tight to hire them.

Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 10:50:25 AM
Free mkt does not dictate the law, the mkt works within the boundaries of the law.

The law must respect & consider Natural Law, or it us illegitimate.

We ourselves are facing an illegitimate law right now, the affordable care act.

By law, the little sisters of the poor must buy contraception. They are breaking the law by not doing so.

They are in the right, because a higher law guards their right to refuse. Natural Law, which commands respect of liberty.

QuoteNo it's not "Wonky"!

Yes it is, you can't compensate for what I listed any other way. A mall is a more accurate depiction.

QuoteNatural law dictates I can take everything you own, simply because I can kick your ass.

Natural law would say an animal would defend itself if attacked, thus we all have a right to self defense.

Indeed, the founders called defense the first right for just this reason.

Animals also guard territory and their kills, so possessions and property are too natural.

Liberty is what animals have when not under attack or on another's territory, so it too is natural.


The Founders also mention natural law by name in the declaration, and cite the law as cause for why they rejected the arbitrary political law of parliament.

Were the Founders wrong then, since you don't believe in natural law as they did?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 09:41:04 PM
The law must respect & consider Natural Law, or it us illegitimate.

We ourselves are facing an illegitimate law right now, the affordable care act.

By law, the little sisters of the poor must buy contraception. They are breaking the law by not doing so.

They are in the right, because a higher law guards their right to refuse. Natural Law, which commands respect of liberty.

Yes it is, you can't compensate for what I listed any other way. A mall is a more accurate depiction.
Natural law would say an animal would defend itself if attacked, thus we all have a right to self defense.

Indeed, the founders called defense the first right for just this reason.

Animals also guard territory and their kills, so possessions and property are too natural.

Liberty is what animals have when not under attack or on another's territory, so it too is natural.


The Founders also mention natural law by name in the declaration, and cite the law as cause for why they rejected the arbitrary political law of parliament.

Were the Founders wrong then, since you don't believe in natural law as they did?

The Founders were absolutely correct basing our laws on natural Law with limitations.
It's your bastardization of Natural LAW, claiming illegals have every right to break the law, a law our Founders painstakingly implemented to protect the Rights of US citizens, not freakin illegals.

Playing sleight of hand again, I see, but that shit is getting old mighty fast!

Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 10:33:24 PM
The Founders were absolutely correct basing our laws on natural Law with limitations.

Those limitations weren't on immigration, not as we have implemented them. We had open borders then, and our solution for immigrant skewing of voting was to delay how long they had to live here before becoming citizens, not block them from coming here.

In the Founders' time, there was no such thing as an Illegal immigrant. That's a legal fabrication from across the last century or so.

Under the law as it was before 1914, every single illegal immigrant, would have been legal.

QuoteIt's your bastardization of Natural LAW, claiming illegals have every right to break the law,

The little Sisters of the Poor have the right to break the law, the ACA, because their right supersedes the law.

Legislative, or Civil Law is not correct simply because it is the law, you know this, and even if you didn't, Bill Whittle demonstrated in the first few second of that video, why this is the case. 

We do have the right to control immigration, but only if its an equal violation of Natural Law that is at stake.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 09:31:18 PM
Unless you were independently wealthy, we are all supported by an employer, that's not a crime.

You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to.

Otherwise, they have a natural right to immigrate, just as Judge Napolitano says.

And businesses have a natural tight to hire them.

"You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to."

Do you realize you just made a fool of yourself with the above post? Damn, don't you understand the definition of ILLEGAL?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 11:44:52 PM
Those limitations weren't on immigration, not as we have implemented them. We had open borders then, and our solution for immigrant skewing of voting was to delay how long they had to live here before becoming citizens, not block them from coming here.

In the Founders' time, there was no such thing as an Illegal immigrant. That's a legal fabrication from across the last century or so.

Under the law as it was before 1914, every single illegal immigrant, would have been legal.
The little Sisters of the Poor have the right to break the law, the ACA, because their right supersedes the law.

Legislative, or Civil Law is not correct simply because it is the law, you know this, and even if you didn't, Bill Whittle demonstrated in the first few second of that video, why this is the case. 

We do have the right to control immigration, but only if its an equal violation of Natural Law that is at stake.

You are a complete fool!

You can't have it both ways, Natural law had limitations placed on it to protect the Liberties of Americans first.
If one is willing to submit to a test of values, willing to learn the language and a shared commitment to the success of American idealism, then, and only then were they welcomed.

We have these laws in order to protect American culture. A massive influx of a foreign culture is detrimental to that of our own, hence the reason for quota limitations.

Our Founders believed that growing the numbers of like minded individuals that wanted to share our ideals, would strengthen the new Nation, and it "Did".
Under today's culture, the left has destroyed the idea of melting pot where all cultures discard their old political beliefs and accept American ideals, now it's called "Diversity", to which I say Bull Shit, enough is enough!

It's time to close the gate till the soup congeals, otherwise our culture is risk of becoming something detrimental to it's continued success. Though it already has.

What do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Tell me how our culture would survive? Using your logic, there should be no limitations, let the cards fall where they may and to Hell with the rights of those wanting to protect our culture over that of the individual.

Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 07:37:06 AM

You can't have it both ways, Natural law had limitations placed on it to protect the Liberties of Americans first.

History says differently.

When it speaks to "the people", the Constitution recognizes three categories; Citizens, Denizens, and Aliens. Denizens were Free Blacks, Native Americans, or anyone else that lived within the country that weren't recognized as citizens. Aliens were foreign nationals, like the Spanish in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Brits in the Ohio Valley or Canada, that wandered into America to do trade.

All of these categories had rights, no one was "more equal", Citizens just had the added privilege of voting.

Once Again, Judge Napolitano:

"Americans are not possessed of more natural rights than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.

So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.

If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose."

Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 07:37:06 AMIf one is willing to submit to a test of values, willing to learn the language and a shared commitment to the success of American idealism, then, and only then were they welcomed.

This is almost reasonable, sadly, this isn't our immigration system today.

Today, we have quotas, we have a bias based on national origin.

It would take someone from India nearly 70 years to enter into the country legally, over a 100 for certain South American nations. That's the same as saying "no".

And that's for people who meet one of the 4 requirements I listed earlier.

For others, there just isn't a line, we will not accept them. Their only ways to get here are either to break the law, or abuse asylum. We have given them no other option.

QuoteWe have these laws in order to protect American culture. A massive influx of a foreign culture is detrimental to that of our own, hence the reason for quota limitations.

Cynicism, the 19th century had us flooded with immigrants, our values remained intact.

This view point ignores our own history.

QuoteOur Founders believed that growing the numbers of like minded individuals that wanted to share our ideals, would strengthen the new Nation, and it "Did".

Uh, not so:

"Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious," - Benjamin Franklin

More than a few of the Founders were insecure about the German immigrants coming here. They still decided to keep the door open.

Notice how similiar their claims are to yours today. Notice equally, that history proved them wrong in the end.

Remember also, that them being wrong took time: in the turn of the 20th century, 700 German newspapers were in print here, and this was years after German immigration spiked in the 1870s. People held onto to things for over a generation, but assimilation ultimately set in. If not in the 1st generation, then in their children. 

QuoteWhat do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.

Try this: in the 1790s, our Population was 3 million. By the 1840s, it was 30 million. A 10 fold increase, think that was done by births alone?

Also: Once again, Chinese = most productive people on the planet.

Hong Kong? Singapore? Taiwan? You bet your ass I'd like more of the kind of culture that produces that effect here.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 23, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
History says differently.

When it speaks to "the people", the Constitution recognizes three categories; Citizens, Denizens, and Aliens. Denizens were Free Blacks, Native Americans, or anyone else that lived within the country that weren't recognized as citizens. Aliens were foreign nationals, like the Spanish in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Brits in the Ohio Valley or Canada, that wandered into America to do trade.

All of these categories had rights, no one was "more equal", Citizens just had the added privilege of voting.

Once Again, Judge Napolitano:

"Americans are not possessed of more natural rights than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.

So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.

If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose."

I don't give a damn what Nap says on any given issue, he is just another voice in the wilderness hearing his own echo.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways when claiming natural law and trampling the Rights of American citizens.

Now answer my question!

"What do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Tell me how our culture would survive?"

Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
Now answer my question!

"What do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Tell me how our culture would survive?"

20 million chinese would never immigrate here within a single year. Statements like that certainly deserve this thread's location in the "Nut House" as it were.

As a Biologist I must tell you that sub-species never migrate in such vast numbers unless there is some cataclysmic event that destroys all favorable habitat. For the Chinese, China and surrounding "future Chinese vassals" is their favorable habitat.

Quote from: Aristophanes on August 23, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
20 million chinese would never immigrate here within a single year. Statements like that certainly deserve this thread's location in the "Nut House" as it were.

As a Biologist I must tell you that sub-species never migrate in such vast numbers unless there is some cataclysmic event that destroys all favorable habitat. For the Chinese, China and surrounding "future Chinese vassals" is their favorable habitat.

Heh. Why didn't you just say, "No, Solar, I won't answer your question." Seven words, zero bullshit, mission accomplished.

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 23, 2014, 09:46:20 PM
Heh. Why didn't you just say, "No, Solar, I won't answer your question." Seven words, zero bullshit, mission accomplished.

300 million Americans.
220 million whites
80 million minorities, # of asians insignificant.

While your example is ridiculous and absurd, let us think for a moment what else would happen in such a world, and keep an open mind because, well, weird shit happens when you get to talking about that. Care to read a long-ass post? I'll try to keep it short.

20 million a year brings a total of 300 million chinese in just 15 years, reducing China's population considerably. In those 15 years lets say there are now 250 million whites and 120 million other minorities. And lets say that US immigration laws don't change, meaning that 99.99% of these immigrants will be illegal. Basically what happens, is that violence starts to occur, China intervenes and calls a peace accord with the UN. Eventually the US splits into Asian US on the west coast and european US on the east coast. Or aka Whites + Latinos vs Chinese. In this environment Florida would probably secede as well to form an independent Latino-American state, after much violence and a forced march into the government buildings. The only real alternative to this, assuming US solidarity, is mass-riots, and unlimited casualties in both deaths and property damage, until there is some sort of riot/rebellion/revolution/march that results in immigration reform or outright Chinese automatic citizenship. Basically, as with the laws of supply and demand, if there is a demand for a people "AKA Whites" to live in a place where another people live "AKA Native Americans", and the invader outnumbers the locals, the invader wins. What would happen is that the Chinese would become US citizens whether we wanted them to or not, and we would have to like it and to accept minority status. But all of this is an absurd and exaggerated notion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There, I "answered" your stupid and puerile question. I had to do something while baking Lasagna.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. Also keep in mind that China is across the sea. Where will they find the ships? At some point it would be declared an invasion and the US would form a blockade and start shooting boats out of the water, at which point China would probably threaten nuclear war, at which point we would either start WWIII over race, which would never happen and should never happen, OR we would be forced to take it in the ass .... and by that point we would probably have to concede citizenship to all invading chinese just because we caused an international incident and only would we do this to prevent a nuclear war .... and then everyone in office would be Chinese within a generation or two beyond the initial 15 years. And by that time everyone in this forum will be dead so really who cares?

PPS. At the root it is raw population movement, with one population invading a space and out-competing the local population by pure merit of numbers. But in the real world, if China were to do this, it would probably cost more in terms of Shippage Fuel for transportation than they could possibly stand to gain. Not to mention that it would be considerably awkward and dangerous for all parties during the take-over period.

What I am trying to say is that the numbers of immigrants we would normally get, by historical merit, would be exactly the number we would be able to cope with. Raw and irrational hatred and fear typically lead the immigrants to adopt local culture and assimilate, with small pockets retaining their cultural identity. And thus the US was spared, yet again .... honestly the idea that the US would simply "become" Mexico is purile, infantile, and absurd. Any costs you can come up with would disappear within 2 generations. And at least illegals are willing to work, unlike 3rd generation Welfare babies.

Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
I don't give a damn what Nap says on any given issue, he is just another voice in the wilderness hearing his own echo.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways when claiming natural law and trampling the Rights of American citizens.

The Founders had it "both ways" as you call it. They didn't see the contradiction. Open Borders. Millions of immigrants coming to outnumber the original colonists and their descendents.

German is the most common blood-nationality in the U.S., not English. You think that's a coincidence?

QuoteNow answer my question!

I did. We had A 10 fold increase in population in just 50 years by 1840. Most of that was immigration. How do you explain our survival? How do you explain the Founders being wrong about the Germans, even as they were right? There were those who did hold onto their language, who didn't assimilate?

The answer, should be the same to your question.

Quote from: Aristophanes on August 23, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
20 million chinese would never immigrate here within a single year. Statements like that certainly deserve this thread's location in the "Nut House" as it were.

As a Biologist I must tell you that sub-species never migrate in such vast numbers unless there is some cataclysmic event that destroys all favorable habitat. For the Chinese, China and surrounding "future Chinese vassals" is their favorable habitat.

First off. Bull Shit! No one can predict the future as to what disaster befalls the planet and causes massive immigration around the globe.
And second, who the Fuck asked you? I'm awaiting the child genius' answer..

Quote from: Solar on August 24, 2014, 07:29:51 AM
First off. Bull Shit! No one can predict the future as to what disaster befalls the planet and causes massive immigration around the globe.
And second, who the Fuck asked you? I'm awaiting the child genius' answer..

Solar, how old are you? Because I'm willing to guess that you are 27-37 age range, and your parents either bought you a house or gave you some sizable bank account or inheritance.

Either way your head is so far up your ass that your back up to where your neck would be .... I am just wondering why.