How does an illegal alien break the law? I'm Confused!
Watch a Hawaiian Demoduhcrat senator fail to wrap her special, uh, mind~cough! cough!~ around the simple fact that to be an illegal alien one has broken American law.
Me dino has listed "Politics" for the category because "Stupid" is not listed.
Me dino has listed "Politics" for the category because "Stupid" is not listed.
Thinking especially of the glass-ceiling crashing entitled Cackles The Evil Hag.
Guess that isn't done anymore.
Dumbocrat hypocrisy at its finest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQY8E...
Bray in triumph over your vast superiority.
Like I could care..
Do not blame me for your failure to make an argument that you can defend. This forum is based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Objectivism.
Thank you for your compliment but it is really undeserved. It is not my superiority that is the question but your choice to remain ignorant of that which is available to be known. I have spent the time needed to be where I am not whining.
I'm sure you do not meet the spirit of the forum.
I do look forward to making you cry more often.
"Give someone HIV and walk away scot-free. Give your customer a plastic straw in his drink and spend six years in jail. What the hell is wrong with the people in California?
Now, I realize that California will protect illegal alien criminals. But what if an illegal alien uses a plastic straw?
There’s a quandary."
The question posed is very reminiscent of the discussion Wesley Mouch was having with James Taggart, Orren Boyle, et al when discussing Directive 10-289.
thanks for your post, and for bringing to my attention 'dailywire.com' appears to be an excellent website for reading 21st century political truth.
First, a root cause of legitimate confusion is "Asylum". With good intentions but disastrous results is a law passed by Congress long ago giving people from all over the world a chance to claim Asylum in the USA to avoid persecution in their home countries. An unfortunate part of the law is that if someone can make it onto US land they can verbally ask for asylum and immediately have the right to stay until their case is decided. The court system backup is many years of waiting. Thus, the mayhem in our immigration system.
Second, the difference between a legitimate location where foreigners may enter the country at our borders and ask for asylum, such as ports of entry by vehicle AND everywhere else where it is NOT legitimate and therefore a crime is ignored by this Senator and the MSM and many other people.
Comparable examples that people do understand are an operating room at a hospital - everyone knows that you just can't walk in. Or someone's house, you have to go to the front door and ask.
This Senator obviously knows but is playing dumb to try to make the enforcement officials look mean spirited.
The general public's confusion, however, is real because of the stupid method of allowing people to petition for asylum.
Me dino is certain many libs looked past stupid playing dumb due to their grumbling that "undocumented alien" is now the politically correct replacement term for "illegal alien," which of course is their "proof" that the ICE official is a racist~all ICE agents being racists in the first place already a libtard given.
Hawaii never assimilated. They only became a state to get the goodies.
Same situation as would happen if Puerto Rico (or Mexico) became a state, except PR has no strategic value.
John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government stated so purely the concept of the natural rights of man. Too bad he has such a diseased mind that he could not overcome his fear of monarchy to a degree he tried to legitimize a divine being.
Man by his very definition is a creation of his DNA but the spirit that resides within that shell is another matter all together.
The spirit of man is endowed by his true creator with inalienable rights of which travel is most fundamental.
This fundamental right knows no bounds or borders. It is the freedom to venture wherever the spirit guides so long as that venture does not encroach upon the rights of another.
So illegal is what, a prohibition of another about something they cannot own. Then the real fight is not about travel but about being able to claim on the production of another something not earned.
Invasion of another's country is the domain of a government, like the US in it's short history has done since inception during the coup of 1887.
Historically, by birth or conquest by another nation. If Mexico conquers the USA, all the Mexicans in Mexico (and Los Angeles) can claim that right.Until that happens, Mexicans (and other's without jurisdiction), have no "rights" in the USA.
Conquest can only capture a government, not a country. That would just be the exchange of one tyrant for another.
I was born on the land but I'm not a citizen of either the fed or state but have full rights as a sovereign individual.
Poland was never captured, just the people had to face a new set of tyrants that are now gone but for how long? Actually now Poland has many new sets of tyrants including the US and the EU.
A citizen may have rights that a foreigner does not.
No one has more rights than another, no one!!! What you are trying to state are privileges where your pull determines who has what privileges, the sign of tyranny. I will go out feet first before I bow to slavery.
That you may be clear in your distinction between what you refer to as rights as opposed to privileges does not mean that others are.
I am thinking much more simplistically than you are, I believe.
A citizen is an agreed upon member of a country. A foreigner is a non-citizen. Simple as that.
In my opinion, foreigners do not have a Right to be in the USA. We, per agreed upon laws, allow them to enter and be here. It is a privilege that we have given them - it is not their Right.
This is equally true for me regarding other countries. I like being able to go to Italy, but I have no fundamental Right to go there.
I care not about the ignorance of others, I don't have to stoop to that level. If they lie on the ground, they must be doormats and deserve to be walked upon.
There is no "simplistically" when it comes to rights, you either know what they are or you don't have them. I leave belief systems to believers.
So by your logic of foreigners are non-citizens then are all non-citizens foreigners?
"CITIZEN. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing ll the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. "Citizens" are members of community inspired to common goal, who, in associated relations, submit themselves to rules of conduct for the promotion of general welfare and conservation of individual as well as collective rights. In re McIntosh, D.C.Wash., 12 F. Supp. 177." - Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.
Collective rights infer the rule of the mob, slave and master. I'm not a slave and have no master on this earth. By what right can you claim to be a god and determine who can or can not be where?
By the way the Chinese own a large part of California and other states not to mention some of the largest buildings in New York. Are you saying they have no right to the property they own?
We and them is a belief system better left to believers.
The main issue is that term illegal, a dictate of man not of nature or nature's god.
Some dreamers are anchor babies. Don't think I need to explain their purpose.
My heart goes out to the kids and to those who reached adulthood knowing only our culture.
I think humane concessions should be offered to innocents. But not their chains of grown relatives.
Everyone else who doesn't belong here, well, they don't belong here.
Can't obey US laws like a grownup should? Bye!
Anchor babies, is that babies with anchors around their necks? What do we do with them, chuck them in the lake to see if they are witches?
Who doesn't belong here? I'm sure the native Indians thought the same of you and your ancestors, so who is right?
As Hank Reardon said to his government stooge, "Someday your going to have to decide which side you are on." I say the same to you, you can;t have it both ways.
What laws are you talking about? Those arranged by some 57 demigods who declared they had a right to rule?
Did you even watch this? The law is here stated.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33850/...
Excuse me while I go around in circles acting like a stooge. Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo!
"LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which
phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705.
In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to
signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn;
as in the, phrases "to wage one's law," "to lose
one's law."
The term is also used in opposition to "fact."
Thus questions of law are to be decided by the
court, while it is the province of the jury to solve
questions of fact." - Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.
So which of these slave definitions are you referring to? I believe it would be the third, opposition to facts.
The article contains no law, just statutes and statutes are not law, just the prohibitions of man opposing real law in opposition to facts, real law.
No excuse for you, none at all. It's called ignorance which is a choice to ignore that which is. More than likely based on refusal to address that which one does not want to be true.
What law is stated?
Looks like Hawaii got even by becoming a state, me dino said, trying to make a ha ha.
Language is that which allows man to communicate in clear and concise meanings. To do otherwise is just plainly fraudulent, an attempt to obscure.
Relevance, you made a claim which you seem unable to prove so you use logical fallacies to deflect. Is that also your definition of Objectivism?
The two main concepts by the common law is trespass and trespass on the case wherein trespass is with violence and trespass on the case is without. However both require another to cause damage. The whole concept of common law is based on the commons wherein all provided by nature is within the commons. Only the labor of man separates property from the commons but that is not total as one of the fundamental rights is the right of travel which knows no bounds so long as one does not encroach upon what another has claimed by his labor.
You have no Right to enter my home, nor me yours.
So, if a group of people declare a group of homes and land to be theirs, then you have no Right to travel there. Unless you are willing to fight to overwhelm their mutual declaration by force and declare that area to be of "your" common area.
National Rights
A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation — a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens — has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
“Collectivized Rights”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
Experience is a horrible teacher but necessary when one refuses to learn history as you have pointed out in your quote, "it's form of government". There is but one form of government, circular. The stage of this circular form depends on the morality of the population. A republic degrades to a democracy to socialism to collectivism (fascism or communism are the rulers not the form).
But her philosophy of Objectivism is a very powerful philosophy one should integrate into their lives. One would also be wise to understand the maxim of law in regards to order followers.
As stated by John Locke in "Second Treatise on Government":
"God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state, yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial, to any particular men. The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his- i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it before it can do him any good for the support of his life."
So long as there is a path to travel then there is no right to enter private property. Where there are large tracts of land then passage is permitted so long as nothing is taken and the only thing left is footprints.
However that also instills rights, the right to defend what is yours. But before violence is used, the offender must first be asked to leave, if not then you have the right to arrest and have police transport to magistrate where you press charges for trespass.
But there are millions of acres that are of the commons not to mention the millions of miles of roads and right of ways to get there.
The Government acts as if it owns the land even if it is private.
I love the concept of the legal system and am very adapt in using it.
From your point of view, had there not been slavery in many parts of the world in the past, then we would all exist as god placed souls in DNA created bodies. In fact, had the past been different, few of us would ever have been born.
The timing of conceptions would have been different by the shuffling of the DNA genome. In a way one should recognize that the past happened in order to get the present. One should recognize that the past, which produces the present, happened and as rational beings we have the power to not allow the same to happen in the future if it was bad in some way.