Why is a Border Wall RACIST?

You would do it too. That was my first point. But, as I keep repeating over and over again, IF the privileges of citizenship were limited to citizens, it would impact a foreigner's decision to come here in the first place. You cannot create opportunities for the foreigner and then call them a criminal for taking advantage of them.

 

You should read entire threads and refrain from making comments until you have all the facts. I'm not on the side of the Ds nor the Rs on this issue. I'll reiterate a couple of points for you:

If I create a job, that job is MINE. I can, constitutionally, give it to whomever I freaking well please. No statute or edict of man can prohibit from me from giving the job I created (MY personal property) to the potential employee of my choice. Forcing employers to hire people you want them to is immoral and reprehensible.

Like it or not, private businesses start because some guy wants to make money. He does not do it to create jobs for the general public. That is reality.

OTOH, I understand where you're coming from. Employers hire people as cheaply as they can and they take advantage of them. I understand it more than you realize. Those abuses might better be solved by creating legislation with a Worker's Bill of Rights. Once you're employed, you take on a mortgage, buy a car, etc. You should be protected against the employer going back on their word when they hired you. you should have some minimal standards for the way you're treated, raises, etc.

Employers, landlords, and the person who does business with the people you disparagingly call "illegals" are entitled to disobey unconstitutional acts. The United States Supreme Court opined:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

So, tell me, in a de jure / legal constitutional Republic, how can you advocate telling an employer who they can and cannot hire? Only in socialist and communist countries are the jobs owned by the government. Unalienable Rights supersede your silly statutes trying to claim ownership of jobs in the private sector.

 

No sir, the most important law we have to protect is that of unalienable Rights. They cannot apply to some; they apply to all people equally. If the law demands we obey it and become slavish to it at a cost to the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure, it is to be opposed... by ALL of us. That is our heritage and that is our duty.

 

How can you advocate telling an employer how much they have to pay an employee?

 

By your other responses, I see that you identify with the left. You seem to have your mind made up due to how the MSM presented Weaver and the Branch Davidians. I don't look at it and say do I agree with them or approve of their lifestyle. Weaver and the Branch Davidians were both worlds apart in ideology, religion, etc.

Neither Weaver NOR the Branch Davidians deserved to be murdered by the government. And, with the Branch Davidians, not only did the National Guard participate, DELTA Forces provided support and advisors. You cannot apply the law based upon whether you agree or disagree with someone. It's not a left v. right issue; this is about right versus wrong.

 

Employers hiring illegals are creating the opportunities that entice them. The employers are guilty of breaking laws. That does not make the acts of the illegals legal. Your arguments have become "reductio ad absurdum."

 

Even truer socialists know a wall will never prevent Prohibition.

 

Nonsense. That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Our Forefathers didn't overthrow England and the world. They declared their independence from it, establishing a sovereign nation with its own rules. American rights are American rights. And our nation doesn't belong to the world. If people want to come here to embrace our founding principles, they have to do so in the order and fashion of our design and choosing. Not their own. It is our responsibility to manage our inheritance in a wise and orderly fashion. And that falls to no others dictates but to our own.

 

are there no Good Capitalists to be found in our Republic, who can make money with a legal monopoly?

 

The 2012 "autopsy" on the Romney campaign was predestined to conclude that the Republican problem with hispanics was a cause of Romney's loss. The people conducting it were and are amnesty shills among the consultant class. As someone had calculated, however, If Romney had gotten 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. However, increasing his percentage of the white vote by 4% would have meant victory in the vote total, by a comfortable margin. I have decided its prudent that we kick out however many illegal aliens we can find and kick out. If the majority of them are "brown people", then they are the lawbreakers who need to be removed. If they are Irish or German or Italian or British, those need to go also. Get them all out. They don't belong here and are harmful to Americans.

Its idiotic to say that the way to solve the illegal immigration problem is to, basically, open the borders and give everyone who wants to come a visa. That's the surest way imaginable to turn the US into a third world hell hole like the ones the illegal aliens coming now want to escape. And yes, I want to restrict all immigration. We have had more immigrants legally come into the US than all the other nations of the world combined. Like our forbears did in the 20's we need a pause to let those assimilate and become Americans before opening the doors again.

No label of "hate group" attached to any organization by the SPLC is valid. They are the ones who labeled the Family Research Center a hate group and caused a mental case to go the FRC's headquarters intending to shoot the place up and smear Chik fil A sandwiches in the faces of the dead victims. SPLC can't seem to find any Islamic "hate groups", although they have a number of "anti-muslim" hate groups. And true racist hispanic groups like MeCHa and La Raza are not so labled by SPLC, so .....

Your statement that identity politics is exclusively a game of the right is fatuous on its face. Alinskyite in the extreme. Its not the right that has demanded "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" for people of color and "diversity" officers and training. It is not the right that shouts down people like Milo Yiannopolis on college campuses for daring to have an alternative view of BLM or Gamergate. The right did not demand that feminist Christian Hoff Sommers (who denies various aspects of "rape culture" on campus) cancel her speech as offensive to women then try to shout down her appearances. It is not the right that tried to shut down Trump rallies in New Mexico and Arizona by blocking streets and doors and waved Mexican flags in the process. It is not the right that demands separate dorms and student union facilities for black students on campuses. It is not the right that pushes "disparate impact" theories in determining the effects of various laws or regulations on the basis that a set of stats is proof of racism, sexism or what ever kind of silly ism the left invents today, whether or not intent is a factor.

Don't beclown yourself with that kind of silly statement.

 

Why are you quoting me and then making stuff to argue with me about? What you said has NOTHING to do with what you quoted me on. What kind of B.S. is that?

 

You can always tell when insincere people don't have a case. They start making things up. In no sentence in that post will you find anywhere a reference to telling an employer how much to pay their employees.

How much an employee makes is between the employee and the employer. What happens AFTER an employee is hired can be a different story. I'll give you an example:

Where I work, I've been there four years. Now, after four years, the company circulates an amendment to your work agreement. Now they say you can be fired for turning down over-time. At the same time, the company is bringing in new employees at a rate greater than what current employees make. So, after four years, I have to work 45 hours to make what the people I'm training make in 40.I must now sign an agreement to that effect. That is called an adhesion contract and I'm not a big fan of them.

Without some form of statutory Rights, employers are free to abuse and exploit people. It is not fair; it is not ethical. Some of us gave up a job to move up in the world and accept this job. Then the employer expects us to move DOWN? No. We have mortgages and went into debt for cars, college for the kids, etc.

How much should an employer pay an employee? I have a good answer, but it has never been advocated anywhere before. But, you didn't get what you allege from a post asking that people be protected against abuse and exploitation.

 

No, no, no. I just wanted to make sure you were consistent. You stated your belief that under no circumstances should an employer be told who he can or can't hire. I just wanted to make sure that your belief also included that under no circumstances should an employer be told how much to pay an employee, and should not have to follow minimum wage laws. Now I know you are not consistent. Thank you.

 

ROFLMAO Breitbart? You're citing Breitbart?? Seriously? What's next, are you going to cite Joseph Goebbels? Relying on sources that are known liars and propaganda outlets does not strengthen your position.

And let's see what the rest of this stuff is. Hmmm, Liberty Counsel, an evangelical Christian litigation group that's been fighting a legal battle to make sure that gays do not have rights. And it's listed as a hate group itself. Yeah, that's real credible. Just like Assad saying the UNHRC is just out to get him.

Human Events is just complaining that SPLC listed Focus on the Family as a hate group for merely chronically lying about research to try to portray gays as pedophiles and unfit parents.

National Review, while by far the most credible source here, is simply criticizing the SPLC for over counting the number of hate groups and for not covering the extreme left. Which are reasonable criticisms, but do nothing to bring into question the SPLC's determination that a particular group is a hate group.

Conservapedia? Do I even need to bother?

So, as I said before, only the likes of the Klan and neo-Nazis try to go after SPLC like that. So congratulations on painting yourself with that vile brush. So are you done or do you want to dig yourself in deeper?

A job is not a piece of property, it's a transaction - the employer purchases the employee's labor. As a job is not property it cannot be the possession of the employer or anyone else. The government does have the authority to enact reasonable regulations on transactions and contracts. One of those reasonable regulations is to prevent the providers of a particular good or service from colluding to deny access to that good or service to a particular group. For example, do you disagree that there is a compelling public interest in preventing every store in a fifty mile radius from deciding they aren't going to sell food to a particular group?

Which is not to say that I think your concerns are without merit. I agree that it's not good for the government to be telling people who they must or must not do business with. But as with many other things of this nature, it's a balancing act between competing interests. One person's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of another person's nose. Which is fine when you're speaking literally, but when it becomes metaphorical where exactly the tip of a person's nose is can get kind of fuzzy.

Actually, I identify as myself. While my opinions do tend to fall more toward the left end of the spectrum, I reject the very idea of ideology or automatic conclusions. Like I said, it's been a while since I read up on either case, so I don't remember all the details. But even when it was fresh in my mind, my opinions were not set conclusions. I wasn't there. I haven't talked to anyone who was. I haven't seen all the evidence myself. I'm not in a position to reach a firm judgement either way, and I'm not likely to be. As I recall, both the Weavers and the Branch Davidians were involved in illicit weapons transactions. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) When someone commits a crime and then opens fire on police officers attempting to apprehend them, that makes it really hard to make a case for murder if the police shoot them. While law enforcement handled both situations very badly, as far as I can see characterizing it as government forces murdering innocent people minding their own business is just not in line with what happened.

I would also point out that when a police raid on a drug house full of black gang members turns into a deadly firefight (which has happened more than once) we don't hear any of this outrage from militia types. Like you said, you can't apply the law based on whether you like or dislike someone.

And as I previously said, having the military in a support and advisory role is a far different matter than having the military actually conducting operations.

That's funny, I could have sworn the founders said, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." Doesn't say anything there about "American" rights.

Do you seriously think that saying you want to deport Irish too is a defense against the charge of racism? Race is fluid. Latinos and Muslims were generally considered white until recently. When my great great grandparents arrived in the US from Ireland they were called "White Negroes" and therefore not "really" white. "White" just means "us" and "non-white" just means "people we don't like." It's all racism, no matter which groups you want to target.

So letting immigrants into the US will turn the US into a third world hell hole? Oh really? And how does that work? Because third world hell holes are the way they are because those countries are full of inferior people incapable of being part of a civilized society? That's not just racism, that's white supremacy. And incidentally, calling the entire third world a hell hole is also a form of racism (and is out of touch with reality.)

Whether you like it or not, saying that gay people don't deserve rights is a form of hate. Deal with it.

Your little rant there is exhibit A of right wing identity politics. Exaggerated stories taken out of context woven together with innuendo and paranoia to make you think all those evil minorities are coming to get you. Race relations is not a zero sum game. How does it harm you if minorities can live their lives with dignity and respect and opportunity?

 

I'm sorry that I don't fit into your perfectly little box of labels. And you have no scruples to continually attempt to put words into my mouth. It shows how desperate you are to fit some label on me for your own purposes.

Do you, as an employer, have a Right to hire whomever you want in a de jure / lawful Republic? Yes

Should you be have to follow minimum wage laws? Why should the federal government set minimum wage laws in the first place? Allowing the government to set minimum wage laws is antithetical to the principles of a free market. Wages are determined locally by things such as supply and demand, the local population, how far products and services have to travel to the consumer / buyer.

I'm not seeing the inconsistency you do... then again, you'd do ANYTHING to misrepresent my position. You've shown a consistency to LIE about me and that only says one thing: YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO DISCUSS.

 

You have too much to respond to in a single post. Let's hit the high spots:

1) I would submit that a job IS property. When people sit down and write a book, a song, or come up with an idea for a movie, it is intellectual property. A person has a Right to it and any profits thereof. Yet it don't fit YOUR personal definition of property

2) I think that stores should be able to sell to whomever they choose. We just had that issue when a baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, citing religious objections. The baker lost their business rather than violate the dictates of their conscience. the baker should not have had to choose.

I'll tell you what. Some day I'm going to a left wing baker and request a cake with a swastika on it just to see if the left believes the stuff they spew

3) I too reject this notion of ideology based on automatic conclusions. For that I owe you an apology because it's been done to me - even on this thread. It whizzes you off when a person does it on purpose just to further their own agenda. So, I know how that must have felt. I apologize

4) Neither Randy Weaver NOR the Branch Davidians were engaged in illicit weapons. Weaver sawed a shotgun off as a favor - a friend of a friend deal. The guy getting his barrel cut down was a fed. IMO, Weaver would have won the court case because he did not cut the barrel too short. The feds measured the barrel while it was IN the receiver of the firearm. There was a threaded portion that was screwed into the receiver, but you had to disassemble the firearm in order to prove that point.

All of that would have been addressed in court, but the locals played games with Weaver. They did not contact him with respect to when he was supposed to show up and then issued a warrant for him. Next, the LEOs showed up and tried to ambush Weaver without identifying themselves. They shot Weaver's son in the back and shot his wife in the face as she held her child in her arms.

I spoke to Weaver personally when the LEOs had me in their cross-hairs. They tried the same freaking thing. They got me in court, then sent papers by mail telling to appear and they sent the papers to an address I've never even been to, much less used. They were surprised as all Hades when I showed up.

You should brush up on how the government operates - they will get you whether you are from the left or the right... or maybe on neither side

5) Being co - founder of the largest, oldest and most continuous militia in the United States, I can tell you that the self appointed militia types aren't out there defending all people, but watch me on the immigration issue. Nobody is paying me to tell the truth. If a black guy is getting screwed, bet your rear end, I'll be the first to show up and make sure his Rights are upheld... even if I disagree with him 100 percent

6) Finally, you quoted the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." And you say: " Doesn't say anything there about "American" rights

RESPONSE: If I had a quarter for every time I've quoted that part of the Declaration of Independence here, I could retire. EVERYBODY has unalienable Rights. Yep, even undocumented foreigners that lack human registration papers have unalienable Rights. Government don't give us those Rights and the early courts ruled that unalienable Rights are above the law. However, the privileges of citizenship are quite different and they are not automatic for anyone and foreigners can be excluded from the privileges of citizenship.

 

Breitbart must be a very credible news source. I just went to the FBI website and no (*)(*)(*)(*), they removed the link to the SPLC hate map from their website. It no longer there !

Check it out for yourself. -> https://www.fbi.gov/

I just can't figure out why MoveOn, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc. didn't report this story ?

 

You're the first person I've talked to who's self identified as a member of the militia movement, and I have to say you've completely defied my expectations. It's a pleasant surprise, and I really am surprised that we seem to agree on quite a few things, at least in broad terms.

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know a job doesn't fit the legal definition of property either, so... (shrugs) Agree to disagree?

In principle, sure, people should be able to do business or not with whoever they please. However, in practice.... Let me make a comparison with something you were talking about earlier: the idea of employee rights and employers sometimes abusing and exploiting people. In theory, market forces should prevent that sort of abuse because if one employer treats their workers badly, then other employers would be able to hire away their workforce by offering better terms of employment. In practice, of course, it often doesn't work out that way for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that there is often a business culture that regards certain kinds of exploitation as normal and therefore all the employers will do similar things, even if there isn't active collusion between them. And anyone who protests it will often be labeled as a troublemaker and effectively be blacklisted by all the employers.

The same sort of thing can and does happen with businesses refusing to serve certain groups of people. Even though in theory the market should take care of such things since if one business refuses to serve a particular group, another business ought to come in and take advantage of the unmet demand. In practice, you can have a culture develop in an area where all the businesses refuse to serve certain groups. This sort of thing has resulted in the past in certain groups of people being completely denied access to things like jobs, education, financial services, housing, and so on. Do you honestly have no problem with that sort of thing? Even in the extreme case I mentioned earlier of a community trying to literally starve a group by everyone refusing to sell them food?

Isn't one of the fundamental purposes of government to enforce the rule of law so that the strong shall not prey on the weak? Predation can take forms other than physical violence.

3) I too reject this notion of ideology based on automatic conclusions. For that I owe you an apology because it's been done to me - even on this thread. It whizzes you off when a person does it on purpose just to further their own agenda. So, I know how that must have felt. I apologize​

​

Thank you, apology accepted. ^_^

I'm very aware that police can and sometimes do abuse their authority in a variety of ways. There was an incident a little while ago of my local state police allegedly severely beating a mentally ill man for not pulling over and then the district attorney's office using procedural tricks to keep the man in custody until after the statute of limitations had run out. I'm not sure I completely buy the story as it was told to me, but it's certainly very plausible and there's dash cam footage of the beating that I have a really hard time imaging any sort of justification for. So I can believe that Randy Weaver may well have been badly treated by the police in the run up to the confrontation and the killings. But even so, you don't open fire on police. You just don't. That's an act of rebellion (in the literal sense) which is really an all or nothing proposition. If the police mistreat you, you hire a lawyer, you go to court, you contact your representatives in Congress and local government, you make a fuss in the media, you protest, you engage in civil disobedience. You don't start shooting at cops.

Given what you've just said about the subject, I'd like to ask your perspective on Black Lives Matter and incidents like the Walter Scott shooting or even going back to the MOVE bombing of 1985 in Philadelphia.

 

There is no easy answer to your question about businesses hiring or serving whomever they choose. Either way, the situation becomes abusive. We've created this situation today wherein the most discriminated against class of people are whites. And it gets worse if you're white and identify as Christian.

You've witnessed minor things you can visibly see like Christians that work in government buildings being told they cannot wear a cross as part of their jewelry (separation of church and state you know) versus Jews who show up wearing their yarmulke or more likely, Muslims wearing a hijab. We see things like companies that are predominantly to all black (especially where I live) when twenty five years ago the whites were 85 percent of the county's population. You think those people had a right to displace the whites? If so, the conditions you mention might be justified in the long run. There is not an easy answer - except one you really would disagree with.

Insofar as the issues you bring up, I don't have enough specific knowledge to offer a good opinion. I will say EVERYBODY knows that the LEO community abuses their power and the courts are reluctant to hold them accountable. The cops can literally get away with murder. I don't condone it.

 

"Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, white countries for everyone."

That's what's racist about open borders

 

I'm sure Trump will build the Wall.....


in the same way, I'm sure a degree from Trump University guarantees you a seven-figure salary.

 

How does importing people from the third world turn the US into a "third world hell hole"? See what's happening in Europe lately? See where in Paris there are riots and burning cars in the "muslim immigrant" sections of town? Right now. [video=youtube;VHzUnOya7Mw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHzUnOya7Mw[/video]

See the report of the "refugees" molesting German women at an outdoor music concert? I went to school with some Pakistanis. Do you know they didn't quite understand the concept of a toilet? The corner of a bedroom on a pile of newspapers in the house they rented was good. My aunt's old neighborhood was a blue collar area of small framed houses with neatly trimmed lawns. It is now full of Mexican illegal aliens. Dump trucks park in the front yard. Houses are run down, some rent houses occupied by 8 young men sleeping on blankets on the floor, some with three families with multiple children living in a small three bedroom house. Schools are in disrepair as the district has to spend extra money on expensive ESL teachers and overcrowded buildings while the kids of people who belong here get short shrift and less service than they would if the illegal aliens weren't here.

When you import poor, uneducated people who require the expenditure of government services (schools for the kids, tax credits, healthcare, criminal justice assets) that cost far more than they bring to the table based on their own productivity, you impoverish the entire society. People leave third world hellholes to come here for better. But they don't leave behind the culture and instincts that produce the third world hellhole from which they fled. And with the leftist insistence on identity politics and enabling of illegal aliens presence, these folks are not required to assimilate into and adopt to the larger American culture.

Odd that I provide specific examples of racial identity politics as practiced by the left and those are dismissed as irrelevant and isolated and the good old "taken out of context", yet they are practiced on entire college campuses today all over the country. Only one group is targeted for "diversity" training which is demanded by those who practice leftist identity group politics. There are no right wing identity groups demanding recognition of "white privilege".

Disagreement with re-defining marriage by those who engage in deviant sexual relationships into something it has never been is not "hate". That's nonsense. "Hate" is denial of rights of those who disagree. SPLC is a completely discredited organization. They themselves are a "hate" group as they proved when they provoked the murderous attack on the FRC. LaRaza is a racist hate group. MeCha is a racist hate group. Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group that has burned, assaulted, looted and rioted based on racial identity grievances.

Haven't seen many "right wing" identity groups smashing windows, blocking traffic, shutting down speeches, assaulting attendees at political rallies. Perhaps you can give some recent examples. I can give a LOT of examples of left wingers practicing identity politics doing those things.

Get over it.

 

Best response ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That there isn't an easy answer is the point I was trying to make. The government's job is to serve everyone, and in a large and diverse country like the US that often means having to balance competing interests as fairly as possible. That's a hard thing to accomplish and even when we get it right nobody gets exactly what they want. You know what they say - you've reached a fair compromise when everyone is a little unhappy with the result. We all need to be heard in the process so we all need to advocate for our own interests. But I think it's important to think about what other interests are at stake when we wind up not getting our own way.

Incidentally, when I say that the US is large and diverse, I don't just mean in terms of race and ethnicity. It can be just as hard balancing the interests of urban and rural communities, or of the rich and the poor, or the young and the old, workers and management, agriculture and finance, high tech and heavy industry, and so on.

I was wondering if you have more information about Christians being told they can't wear a cross to work in a federal building. I've been looking around on Google for information on dress codes for federal employees and I've been finding surprisingly little. It seems that there generally aren't formal written agency wide dress codes for federal employees. All I could find were some very general guidelines to the effect of, "Dress in a way that's appropriate for your kind of work in your community." What dress codes there are seem to be informal and low level, specific to a particular workplace or office.

As for the idea of blacks displacing whites, it's hard to comment specifically without knowing more about the particular place and circumstances you're talking about. But I will say that race relations are not a zero sum game. Just because the lot of one group is improving doesn't mean another group is suffering in equal measure. The economy is constantly growing (at least most of the time!) which means that new jobs and new companies are always being created. And there's always natural turnover in the workplace - employees retire or leave for other jobs, contracts expire and are rebid, the fortunes of particular companies rise and fall, and so on. Just because you see a new face at a workplace doesn't necessarily mean they've displaced anyone. And I would encourage you to look for actual numbers and hard statistics before reaching conclusions about how dominant any particular group is in any particular place. Sometimes first impressions can be very misleading.

MOVE is a black power sort of group in Philadelphia. They got into a series of confrontations with police in the late 70's and early 80's. They set up their headquarters in a fortified row home in West Philadelphia, which included and improvised bunker on the roof. They got into an armed standoff with the police, so the police used a helicopter to drop a bomb on the roof bunker. I kid you not - they used an actual bomb. I remember watching the police chopper dropping it on the local news. The bomb started a fire that killed a lot of the people inside and went on to destroy a big swath of the surrounding neighborhood. It hadn't occurred to me before this conversation, but now that I think about it there really are some strong parallels with what happened in Waco. You might want to read up about it.