Open borders or not?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by jgoins, Apr 28, 2017.

?

How many here think we should just open our borders to anyone?

  1. Never, no border no country

    66 vote(s)
    85.7%
  2. Absolutely, it will improve our country.

    9 vote(s)
    11.7%
  3. I just don't care one way or the other.

    2 vote(s)
    2.6%
  1. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're absolutely right, the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately, both politicians and historians have taught us that it's a democracy. In truth, they were lying, but it set us up to expect democratic outcomes. Now we watch true democracies in Europe and other places scattered around the world enjoy the benefits of democracy while we settle for a system that declares candidates who get fewer votes as "winners," like G.W. Bush and Donald Trump illustrate. I guess we're at a point in history where some Americans are waking up to this dichotomy between being a republic or a democracy, and to the choice that we must make as to which we'd rather be. You prefer the republic choice because you value states rights over individual rights. I choose democracy because I feel every citizen of the nation should have an equal voice by their vote, and that (on a federal level) the voice of the individual trumps the voice of the states (no pun intended).
     
  2. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And, what you want does not equal democracy. The founding fathers want a word with you:

    "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent."

    Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S.

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry


    The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

    Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, October 7, 1789

    The primary difference between a Republic and a Democracy boils down to one thing: In a Republic you have those unalienable Rights and no majority can take them away. If you recall, the first people in America that were accused of oppressing others happened to be those Democrats that were known as the Ku Klux Klan. So, you still like mob rule? Are you still a disciple of Democracy? I mean, racism was a product of a popular vote, so it must have been okay and a good thing.

    In a Republic every human being has the equal value of even a majority opposed to him or her. Unalienable Rights are not subject to a popularity vote.

    "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." Benjamin Franklin

    You do not have an equal voice when you have no voice and that is what democracy really is. Unless you are in the majority, you don't count.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  3. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhh... did you listen to anything he said on the campaign and see any of the things that have happened since he was elected? illegal immigration.
    Unsurprising, Clinton was a "third-way" Democrat and Trump is a Liberal North Eastern Republican, they were friends and likely see eye to eye on a number of things. In terms of legislation passed, Clinton was one of the more conservative presidents of our lifetimes. In fact, as a baseline for the fundamental reform of the Federal Government and its relationship to the country, a reset to spending and tax levels, administrative reach and so forth, the average of the Clinton terms would be a very good starting point.

    The shortage of illegal labor is already putting upward pressure on CA farm labor, exactly as predicted and intended. Don't freak out so much at winning, that is expected and precisely the point.
     
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Our public education system has served us poorly, but you do have a google searchbar and can quickly and easily educate yourself on these matters as they come up.
    Our system is superior, because we protect the inherent rights of the individual against the will of the majority. In many US states, the majority was quite happy to enslave the minority. Quite frankly, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, as well as the right for women to vote should have been in the original constitution, but as the preamble notes "To form a more perfect Union" and Article 5 allows, the forming of a more perfect union is an ongoing, never-ending process. Rather than complain about what our fore-fathers did not do in an addition to all that they did do, it's lays before us to vigorously put our hands to the task, using the tools they handed us, for just such a time as this.
    The EC prevents a fringe regional candidate from carrying a national election and in the last election, it worked perfectly. Trump carried half again more states than the generally drunken Hillary did, and with that, the NATIONAL election.
    No. I value individual rights over both. The reactionary SCOTUS with a number of civil war hold-overs, nearly immediately stripped out portions of the 14th amendment that gave Congress and the Courts the power to protect the inherent individual rights of the citizen from encroachment by both the State, the Federal Government, the Administrative State, or even the cities and counties for that matter. But, the text wasn't repealed, so like a shiny gem buried in the refuse, it still lies there, waiting to be rediscovered by a future court. In fact, the ground work has being gradually be laid in SCOTUS decisions for the reemergence of the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th amendment.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,”

    These are those fundamental rights that cannot be taken from you. The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of your dreams. The right to freely engage in commerce, or refrain from doing so, the right to freely exchange your labor for pay, or to choose not to, and to any list that could be developed, another could add 20 more, and so on. Essentially we are moving toward a deeper understanding of the rights of the individual and the ability and improved development of the system of law that secures those rights, and quite frankly, generally against the wishes of the majority. Remember, in a gang rape, the majority of the group would like to have sex, but the inherent rights of the victim are trampled as the exercise their majority choice, in the most basic and vile of manners. Government must be dedicated to securing the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, not the majority. Often by force, the majority can exercise their will, it's the minority that most often is in need of the effective protection FROM the majority.

    We are forever moving toward a more restrained government. One were the presumption is personal LIBERTY, not the passing whim of the majority or the State (in all its forms). We are looking for a legislature and Court that presumes that the right and choice of the Individual prevails, except in those cases were that choice violates the inherent right of another, or where the state has shown a compelling need, consistent with a listed duty in their constitutional charter, that cannot be met in a less intrusive manner. If fact, in Court proceedings, the duty is to be on the STATE to show that compelling need, and where that is demonstrated, if the complainant can demonstrate that a less intrusive means can be used to meet that need than the state has chosen, then the least restrictive means will be the ruling of the Court. That is the shinning city of the hill that we are forever in pursuit of. A greater understanding and a deeper protection of the rights of the individual is ever the task before us.

    To be quite blunt, pure democracy would be to backslide away from this vision. Never forget that the Framers were in the historical context of the French Revolution and quite clear on the murderous madness that can take hold of the mob, even very large ones, even national ones.

    We have a very powerful government with a very limited reach and its purpose is to secure our inherent rights. That is why we formed our government, it's purpose, and it's our consent that bestows on it legitimacy.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  5. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Immigration policy changes every four years on average. The steps Trump has taken are to get his arse kicked in court. His actions to kick people out and use the law in a draconian fashion will backfire in the long run. Here's what's happening:

    Trump pursues laws that the court will knock him down for trying to enforce (like unconstitutional Executive Orders.) Now, he can say he tried, but those evil judges didn't treat him fairly. The man is either an idiot or a con artist. I'm going with con artist. The door is being shut on some options. Trump got shot down on trying to force local governments to enforce federal laws... and it was the right that went to court in 1997 and got the United States Supreme Court to rule that states and local governments CANNOT be compelled to enforce federal laws.

    The people are going to rise up and demand what the right tells us they want - make them citizens. After that happens, the demographics are going to favor the left; they will ultimately vote the right into oblivion and those idiots campaigning for the destruction of our foundational principles will become the undisputed minority and have NO voice in the future.
     
  6. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A few rogue courts, SCOTUS will restore order when they get the case. Have you read the decisions? These judges are openly putting in their decisions that if a President they favored had written the same orders, that they would be "constitutional". They are refusing to accept the fact that Trump has been elected president, and as such has the totality of the power of the Executive Branch, and his EO is wholly in keeping, not only with his Executive Office power, but it is also completely in keeping with the Legislative grant of authority to the executive branch. You can't seriously think these lower court actions are going to stand up.

    Tell the one again about the inexorable arc of history, forever bending Left:
    Uhh... yeah that one. Google James Carville and his claim after the 1992 victory that the GOP would spend "forty years in the wilderness" in less than two years, for the first time since 1932, the GOP took both Houses of Congress. Now, after the 2016 election, the GOP is in the strongest position from the Federal to the Local level, that its been in, since 1928.

    So the band keeps playing that tune, and the choir keeps belting it out, but seriously, your faith in it really remains unshaken?

    Amazing!
     
  7. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, you have the mistaken notion that I'm on the left. I fear the left. The facts remain. Trump's policies are calculated to end in a long term defeat.

    Trump won the electoral college, NOT the popular vote. Here in Georgia we have a 30 year old brat spending MILLIONS to get a Congressional seat that hasn't gone Democrat even once in his life. He's leading in the polls. Yes, the political pendulum swings back and forth.

    The Supreme Court decided in 1997 that state and local governments cannot be compelled to force local and state governments to enforce federal law. Will they change their ruling? I would hope they don't revisit that. They might, but if they changed the ruling, they would be guilty of legislating from the bench. Even if you "win," you lose. When the pendulum swings the other way, the left can do what they like.

    I'm not playing the left's music. I'm fearing that they will do exactly what they say they will. And so, I offer ways to address the issue that disarm the left, give citizens a decided advantage over foreign workers, respect the LIBERTIES of all Americans, and the rights of everybody concerned. You've put nothing on the table except support for a defeated point of view.
     
  8. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Knowing that most posters aren't reading the thread, I'll keep repeating my plan so that the criticisms might be predicated upon an actual knowledge of what it is I'm for.
     
  9. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough.
    I don't buy this at all. Trump is not ideological, he is transactional. To him success is taking something run down or undeveloped and leaving something magnificent, that functions well in his place. I think our failing infrastructure, schools, inner cities, shabby airports are really shocking to him, just like he says. But he is not an ideological conservative, and doesn't claim to be. But, we have sure elected a lot of bullshit "conservatives" and received very little for our efforts. Another unique thing about Trump is that he has no power base other than his voters. If he loses their support, he is on an island surrounded only by family members, and he isn't too stupid not to have an understanding of that.
    So? We don't elect Presidents based on the Electoral College vote. Hillary won CA by 4.5 million votes, so excluding CA, Trump did win the popular vote in the rest of the country.
    Yeah, I saw that, and was surprised by that.
    Printz?
    That the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly? No. I think that's good law. But, there could be steps to hold local officials responsible for the harm that results when they deliberately act to prevent the Federal Government from enforcing Federal Law.
    That's why I think we need more structural changes to rein in Judges, but, I think that SCOTUS will likely anticipate that, and to avoid just that, rein in these lower courts that are going rogue with these ridiculous decisions.
    Good points. Thank you for your reply.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  10. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zorro,

    Presidents win the presidency via the electoral college:

    "The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators."

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

    Regardless of where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she won it and you're sounding like a Republican to point out that California can negate several other states combined! If ain't froke don't bix it.

    Yes, Printz was the case I was referencing and you are wrong about federal laws. The feds can enforce federal; law all they want. They cannot state and local governments to do it for them.

    None of this has to do with the issue of open borders other than to point out that Trump settled for what Hillary Clinton voted for a decade earlier. Implement my plan, save TRILLIONS of dollars and you won't have to worry about adding more citizens
     
  11. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhh.... duh. the rest of the country was never unclear on that.
    So? As soon as you win one more vote than the guy in second place, you get their 55 votes. That's the way it has always worked in America, everyone else is clear on that, Hillary entered the election knowing full well those were the rules, and when her supporters didn't get the outcome they wanted, suddenly they want to retroactively change the system. Poor dumb Drunken Hillary recently claimed she "won" the election.

    In the World Series between the Pittsburgh Pirates and The New York Yankees, the Yankees scored twice as many runs as the Pirates, but still lost the series, 4-3. Why? Because the series is Games won, not runs scored. Each set of runs is within a game, only a drunken clown would would try to total the runs over the entire series and then claim "I won!" Clearly Hillary is much too stupid to be President and you shouldn't be following her into her delusion. The election was held, you didn't get the outcome you wanted, get over it.
    No. I'm quite right.
    Yup, they can't commander State resources, just like I said.
    What's your plan?
     
  12. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Smoke weed by any chance? You started out wanting a democracy and now you don't like it and want to claim you're right by now agreeing with me? Okay, I can live with that, but I can't be right AND wrong. So which is it? You do remember that I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, right?

    You aren't reading the thread, you're just talking trash, but I am right.

    I keep repeating my ideas over and over. I just reposted it three or four posts back. Do you ever READ these threads?
     
  13. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.
    I love our Republican Democracy.

    You brought up your plan, so asked for a brief summary of it. I'm not sure why you got all butt-hut about it. It was a honest question, but, if you don't want to share it, you are certainly under no obligation to.
     
  14. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I did... on this page.. Butt hurt??? Republican Democracy??? I thought we settled all of this long ago. The de jure / lawful / constitutional government in the United States is a Republic.

    You stipulated to that. Now you want to change the Form of Government? George Washington wants a word with you:

    "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." - George Washington's farewell address.

    Since you obviously cannot READ THE THREAD and keep up, yes we can repost my plan for the umpteenth time. It's not big secret; it's on this thread multiple times. See if you can keep up if we are going to progress.
     
  15. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reposted yet again for those who won't read the thread and accuse me of having a secret plan.
     
  16. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry to say ... but strange and superfluous question when the US elected a President who wants to build a new Berlin Wall to Mexico and where many US people want the have a large lethal minefield to Mexico to prevent illegal entries!

    That this wall and the hard border control is since ever existing is of course ignored by them... who wonders these days anymore about righty stupidity, eh?
     
  17. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IF the right did begin laying minefields, it WOULD be a stupid idea. The nutty wall idea shows the dangers of running a country by mob rule.

    When I was a kid people used to travel back a forth to Mexico and the Mexicans came and went; doing business, vacationing, and the normal things people do without all this human registration B.S. Maybe we should just go back to that.
     
  18. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are fabricating again.
    No worries, I didn't realize I was asking to see the family jewels.
     
  19. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Calling me a liar. Why don't you read his farewell address. That ought to clear it up for you.

    As for seeing the family jewels, if you would learn how to read the fricking thread, you'd see all of this has already been covered... and I reposted it for you. Do you need it reposted yet AGAIN?
     
  20. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Soft wood.?
     

Share This Page