• 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.

Feds Sentence Two Illegal Immigrants for Carrying Nearly 150 Assault Rifles Into U.S. FoxNews.com

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

Bikenut wrote:
What you may "feel" has no bearing on the truth.
Why else would I have wrote "feel"?

Just as you get to say who farts on your couch the citizens who own this country get to say who can live in it. The world does belong to God but the part of His world called the United States of America is under the stewardship of those who own it.
I will admit this is the best argument I have heard yet! Bravo! you may have changed my thinking just a bit. I still don't think we as citizens have the right to say who has the god given right to property and who doesn't. Yes it may be our country but if someone purchases property here they have as much right to it as I do mine. Looking at it from your point of view I see how you could come to say we have this right, but should we use it? I don't think it changes much. I look at it like this: God gave us (humans) this world, so I think every man has the right to walk about it freely. Of course so long as he does not disrupt others and their rights.

Because your birthplace was within the U.S. you have fulfilled one of the qualifications that confer citizenship and therefore you are a citizen... the Frenchman wasn't born here and isn't a citizen of the U.S. until he goes through the process to fulfill other qualifications that allow him to become a citizen.
Qualification fuwee! what does it do? nothing, just some bologna that the "big wigs" came up with for a false sense of security.

"Public" property is property owned by "we the people" .. not "them the whole damn world".
Do they not fit that category if they so choose? I thought "We the people" included allof us people who wish to be free.

You are confusing property ownership with citizenship status... they are not the same thing.

No, just saying that all men have the right to property and not just men under a certain citizenship.

You, and I, as citizens also own that bench in a public park. What part of "public" being the group called "citizens" do you not understand?

I don't understand where you get citizens? I speak of the people, you are confusing people with citizens.

Wrong Sir! There is a God given right for all men to defend themselves... it is only in America that there is a written guarantee that the citizens have the right to use arms to defend themselves.
Those rights are still rights even if they are not written down or are repealedby men. That is why wewrote the DOI. When we were red, we had no such things written down, but we acted on them anyway because we knew they were there andcould only be taken away by god.
The legally protected right to keep and bear arms and the God given right to self defense are not the same thing.

I believe they are both god given.
Now... I'll say this to you Sir... if you think that anyone, anywhere, has the God given right to come into the U.S. just because they are a human being let me suggest that you personally invite an illegal alien and his family into your own house... and pay for their food, their schooling, their health care, their clothing, and let them fart on your couch... all on your own dime.

Now your just going back to the wel-fare argument.
Sorry I just read it as it's written: We the people, not We the citizens. I know you think they are the same thing but I do not. The founders were smart enough to write citizens if that is what they meant. They knew it was forall people and not just citizens.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

steveman01 wrote:
I feel there is a big difference between my home and the country. My home is private property, but the country I see as public property. And public property should be open to the public (all). This world belongs to god, Who are we to say who can live where? And how is it I have more right to be in this country than a Frenchman? Because I was born here? HAH! We are both men, and given life by the same creator.They have the same god givens rights that I do. So I don't see how one can say it is not a right. Sure they have no right to enter on my property, but if they buy their own what's the big deal? What right do you have to tell them they can not live on their own property or enter on public? So do men have a right to property? Or is it only some men?


I'm all for protecting against foreign invasion, but not foreign immigration. So I think someone coming into my home and "farting on my couch":lol: (LMAO) is a bit different from someone farting on a bench in a public park. Yes they may suck our wel-fare states dry but so do many of our citizens. The better question is should we have a wel-fare state?

(I don't know much about this) Would a foreigner who ownsasmall homein lets say Utah, still be considered an illegal alien if he comes here by chopper (no papers of course), and lands on his property?What about off it?That would justbe wrong to own a homein Utahbut not be able to live there legally. Just curious...

In the case of the OP I see there were no charges other than entering the U.S. illegally. I guess they recognized that the god given rights (to arms at least)apply to all men!:celebrate

We know that firearm laws only restrict law abiding people, why would it be any different for immigration laws? I guess for those that are just looking for a false sense of security it works much like a placebo.

Buster, I'm still curious as to what concerns of the founders specifically (not whose')your mentioning?


They were concerned about the dilution of principles. Having an unlimited inflowof invaders with beliefs dramatically different from theirswould have had a negative impact on the uniformity of principles and habits they were trying to establish.

Like I said before, you might be right. A wide open border and open invitation to the entire world, criminal and saint alike, might solve all the problems. Maybe not.
 

erichonda30

Banned
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
434
Location
PAHRUMP, Nevada, USA
imported post

this has what to do with oc? just asking because i have been scolded for it 500 times

i think illegals should be shot before they get 1 leg over the fence
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Now, maybe at one time, there was an open border in the United States. At one time, slavery and Dred Scott was the law of the land. Things do change.

As a matter of fact, the Constitution DID change. The 14th Amendment changed who and what was a citizen of the United States.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

Further, Art. 1, sec. 8 gives to Congress the authority and power "To provide for the common defense" and "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

While the ability to move about freely is discussed in the Magna Carta ("It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.") it should be noted that even here, it states "according to the laws of the land".

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has this to say:

(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.Notice, again, the phrases "provided by law" "necessary to protect national security" "public order" and "public heath"...
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

oneeyeross wrote:
Now, maybe at one time, there was an open border in the United States. At one time, slavery and Dred Scott was the law of the land. Things do change.

As a matter of fact, the Constitution DID change. The 14th Amendment changed who and what was a citizen of the United States.

Of course, mans documents and rules are always subject to change. But my god given rights do not. If they did we would still be British.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has this to say:

"We recognize this as a right but there are some restrictions. So therefore it is not. There is no mention of RAS, there is a catch all, and void where prohibited, so don't bother call'n on this document for any help." LOL

:banghead:
I loved your post, enjoyed it verymuch.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Once again, the God-given right is to protect one's property by setting up boundaries. That right extends from individuals to groups and to nations. Disregarding those boundaries, whether they be your neighbor's fence or a nation's border, is NOT a right.
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

steveman01 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.
100% correctomundo!! Are they not human rights? I am one to beleive they are, as it was written, Though like I said many disagree. Apparently they want to throw the BOR and DOI in the trash, or pick and choose what fits there wishes. They sound like denominations to me.
All Y'all are either stupid or just being rediculous, or worse, you're progressives. A country is defined by it's borders, language, and culture. If you attempted to enter Mexico ILLEGALLY you'd face either immediate deportation, or jail for two years or more and worse. Human rights my backside. They are rights of The People OF the United States. Born here or Naturalized PERIOD. Damn it's no bloody wonder that this country is going down the tubes, we have idiots like you that do not understand the Constitution was written for Americans, BY Americans. Get a grip.:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

steveman01 wrote:
:banghead:
I loved your post, enjoyed it verymuch.
Well, you have your right to your opinion, however wrong I believe it to be. I can find no document that says that moving from one country to another freely, with no laws to obey, is a human right. None. Do you know of one that I am missing?

I must say, however, that the idea of totally open borders, no check points, people coming and going however they please (it is a God given right, you said) would cause anarchy and chaos.

Who gets to vote? Who can hold office? Why have a person be a citizen? What denotes a citizen, anyway?

Multinationalism doesn't work. Ever hear of the Austo-Hungarian Empire? How about the old Soviet Union? Yugoslavia?

Just for kicks and giggles, have you ever read Rousseau? Locke? Hobbes? You know, those guys who first gave us the idea of "God given rights?" You might be interested in reading their viewpoints on nations...
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

I am always intrigued by the term "God given rights", especially when used in such cases as this. First of all which God gave these rights. If you consider the Cristian-Judeo God then I seem to remember in the Bible stories about certain people being ordered to lay waste to certain countries including killing all of the inhabitants of that land. There seems to be several stories about one group of people taking the lands and possessions from another group of people, making the conquered people slaves all under the orders of that God that is giving these same rights to "everyone" today.

The only thing I really remember from thePolitical Science I took in college is the definition of a soverign country or state. I simply means that you have the power to defend your borders from all enemies both from outside and from within. We have the power to defend from the outside but we are losing the battlewith the enemies from within. More and more they are taking the sides of the enemies from outside under the guise that we are not a soverign nation but are open to all. The original settlers of this country from England did not just happen to come here but were either sent here by the King or given permission to come here. They did not just pick up and decide to go without being allowed to. The one from other nations arrived much the same way to other parts of the "New Land". When they arrived they took the land from the original owners. If the Native Americans who had been here for thousands of years had been smart they would have slaughtered every immigrant when they stepped off the boats.

Just like the Native Americans (Indians if you want to calll them that) we have some people right now with that same attitude about "Human Rights" or "God Given Rights" or "Constutional Rights or whatever you want to call them and we are going to see the same thing happen all over again. We have already reached a major point in the face of America changing. If you don't know what IPEDS is you may want to look it up but one of the primary items we have to report is race. As of this Fall the report for each person wefirst have to declare is the person Hispanic or not. Then wereport such things as white, black, oriental, Native American. Already the face of America has changed to the point that the first question is "Hispanic -Yes/No". As I believe it was Pogowho siad, "We have met the enemy and it is Us".
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
SNIP I am always intrigued by the term "God given rights", ...
I wouldn't attach too much significance to the choice of words for the source of rights.

The two main concerns, I think, would be:

  1. From what source does my listener think his rights originate. And,
  2. What can I do to persuade him or give him an even more workable view
If I am trying to persuade someone about gun rights, I am thinking the main reasons to know theirrights-origin belief is to a) not trip myselfup by triggering an objection, and b) to incorporate their belief into mydiscussion.

But, I can bypass those two concerns by operating on a level just slightly removed from the origin. I just stick to reminding my listener about things that are self-evident (I hope), without touching on origin: "Is itright that a criminal can stab you, break some bones, kill you?" "Does a person deserve to defend himself?" "Should a woman be able to turn her face or duck if an abusive spouse slaps her?"

Call the source of rights God, Allah, Vishnu, the Creator--they are all talking in one way or another about the original causation, whatever it really is or was. It would be a real missed opportunity to get hung up on arguing about the characteristics of the Original Cause to the extent that freedoms suffer.
 
Top