• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Borders

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Found this on facebook, had to repost.

Borders.jpg
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Soooo, let's look to Iran and North Korea because they are such great examples of how a country should be ran, amirite?
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Soooo, let's look to Iran and North Korea because they are such great examples of how a country should be ran, amirite?

Good point. Though N.Korea has it's border secured too keep people in just as much as people out. Ron Paul alluded too the possibility of people someday wanting to escape the US.

We do need better controls so we know who comes in, and we can track them if we want them out.

I think the idea of an open border where anyone can come in anytime with anything they like is absurd though.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Yeah, an open border smacks too much of freedom. We can't have that here.

Edit: my current signature comes from a friend's comment about how to view people crossing the borders. His unredacted comment:
Often in the public debate about immigration (ie. brownies crossing the border), the "issue" (ie. concern troll) of illegals skewing the vote gets trotted out as yet another example of their heinous crime against this country.

However, I don't think the inventors of this fiction thought out the implications of the accusation; or rather, they could count out the possibility of their audience ever thinking that far.

For if we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights.

The short of it: if we considered citizenship something that is earned rather than inherited, who has earned it more than one who has risked their lives to get here in hopes of a better life?
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
A fully-secured border with a physical barrier deeply disturbs the liberty-lover in me. The last thing I want is to give the State the ability to pen me in like an animal.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that it is folly to assume that a constitutional republic can be maintained while absorbing a tremendous influx of poor people from Third World societies, many of which have not yet evolved to even the "Magna Carta" stage of understanding rights and freedoms. In many if not most of the nations that produce the majority of illegal aliens, politics is characterized by vicious intergroup struggles to obtain total power. Once control of government is achieved, it is used as a tool to deliver benefits to those in power and to screw over those who are not. Is it reasonable to assume that once they touch American soil, they will magically become good constitutional patriots and vote for limited government? I think not, especially considering their economic position once they enter, and the fact that they enter in such large numbers that they often are able to form exclusive ethnic communities that do not integrate and have very clear ideas about collective interests.

I really don't have the answer on this one.

EDIT: My comments can also be applied to legal immigration, although to a lesser degree. While there is at least some control, many overstay their visas (which I believe is actually the most common entry method of illegal aliens), and "family reunification" and humanitarian/refugee/asylum claims bring in folks who do not contribute to the needs of the country. Frankly, until unemployment is zero, I think the argument could be made that we don't need any further immigration at all. 330 million people is plenty, and I've never driven through beautiful open country and wished I had seen condos and strip malls.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
So what you're saying is that no one outside of the 'fence' should have liberty?

Whether they have liberty or not shouldn't be our concern. They can fight their own revolutions. When we start getting involved in other nations' civil wars (i.e. Libya + Syria), that is when things go to ****.

I'm just worried about being within the fence when liberty is taken away, and not having the option to flee if I deem that is what is best for my family.
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
I'm just worried about being within the fence when liberty is taken away, and not having the option to flee if I deem that is what is best for my family.

The way certain constituents of this country think, it won't be the "flee-er's" country of origin that will be of concern but rather the country with which someone is attempting to flee into. Are you expecting them to accept you with open arms (within certain citizen guidelines of course)?
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Whether they have liberty or not shouldn't be our concern. They can fight their own revolutions. When we start getting involved in other nations' civil wars (i.e. Libya + Syria), that is when things go to ****.

I'm just worried about being within the fence when liberty is taken away, and not having the option to flee if I deem that is what is best for my family.
You can fight your own revolution! Whether you have liberty or not is not the concern of others nations and they need to stay out of your business.

You shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to other nations, because you don't even have a basic understanding of liberty, as evidenced by your unwillingness to fight for it and subsequently just running away somewhere else. And as a refugee, your economic position in their nation would be as a leech. You would be nothing more than a blight and stain on their nation. And frankly, until they reach zero unemployment, I don't think they should even consider allowing you to immigrate into their nation.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
You can fight your own revolution! Whether you have liberty or not is not the concern of others nations and they need to stay out of your business.

You shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to other nations, because you don't even have a basic understanding of liberty, as evidenced by your unwillingness to fight for it and subsequently just running away somewhere else. And as a refugee, your economic position in their nation would be as a leech. You would be nothing more than a blight and stain on their nation. And frankly, until they reach zero unemployment, I don't think they should even consider allowing you to immigrate into their nation.

1. Calm down.
2. I only said I wanted the option, for the protection of my family.
3. You have no idea what preparations I've made or what my economic position would be in such a scenario.
4. I recognize and respect the right of sovereign nations to deny me entry. My hope would be that my skills and/or resources would be seen as an asset and would buy me access.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Yeah, an open border smacks too much of freedom. We can't have that here.

Edit: my current signature comes from a friend's comment about how to view people crossing the borders. His unredacted comment:


The short of it: if we considered citizenship something that is earned rather than inherited, who has earned it more than one who has risked their lives to get here in hopes of a better life?

I'd agree with you IF the government was not stealing my money and giving it to other people. If we end forced "charity" then I'd know that the new arrivals were not coming to get my money... that indeed they were here to make the best of the opportunities of freedom.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
The first sentence of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

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,[75] 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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Those paying attention already get the point. In case some of those who don't already get the point are willing to listen, I'll elucidate:

The rights identified by those who founded this nation were not limited, in their view, merely to those whom the wiles of fortune had ordained to be born within the borders of an arbitrarily-defined geopolitical region. Such rights were possessed of all people*. That was The Point™: no accident of provenance governed, in any way, these rights which are intrinsic to people. Let's leave aside, at least for now, whether this Declaration can be claimed to justify interference in foreign matters**. Incontrovertibly, the founders of this nation countenanced no notion that people outside the nation were possessed of lesser rights than those within, and by corollary no government of the people of this nation may be destructive of the rights possessed by any people.

In short, by the clear instruction of the Declaration which separated this nation from Great Britain, no government of this nation may take the view that Liberty is any less the right of those outside this nation than those inside.


* As those with grounding in English grammar understand, "men" can be, and in this case is, used in the neuter form. Moreover, while the ubiquitous nature of this statement seems to present direct contradiction to the continuation of slavery in the nation that issued this Declaration, two things ought to be clear: first, that men are fallible; second, that the language herein contained was the compromise reached whereby abolition was not explicitly advocated, but left to future debate. There is no argument that can pass rational, let alone scholarly, muster which suggests that the preamble does not cover all human creatures, period.

** This author believes it can not; the reader is encouraged to try his hand at an understanding of the specific (it's capitalized for a reason) meaning of the term "the People".
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
1. Calm down.
2. I only said I wanted the option, for the protection of my family.
3. You have no idea what preparations I've made or what my economic position would be in such a scenario.
4. I recognize and respect the right of sovereign nations to deny me entry. My hope would be that my skills and/or resources would be seen as an asset and would buy me access.
  1. I'm just repeating your own words.
  2. So you want the option to immigrate to another nation all the while denying those options for others?
  3. Does it matter what your preparations you make today if the government explodes into tyranny tomorrow?
  4. All the while saying that this nation shouldn't let anyone immigrate until unemployment reaches an impossible zero percent. Yet, you want other countries to let you immigrate there?
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
Here's my opinion and view point on this subject, we keep immigration to where people who apply and get approved to come on get to come over. The people who illegally enter our nation need to get the **** out so we can stop paying for their free ride. I'm all of having people join our country and all, but if your going to do it illegally and then expect us to pay for your living within our country? Yeah as I and others would say "Get the **** out".
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
The people who illegally enter our nation need to get the **** out so we can stop paying for their free ride

Lol. Seriously? We are hardly giving free rides to illegals.

Besides, if that's your position I'll call it and raise you "let's get rid of anybody getting a free ride."

Welfare recipients, kids in public school, grandmas on Medicaid, anyone getting pell grants, disabled people on SSI. Get the heck out!!! Pull your weight or GTFO...

/sarcasm
 
Top