Poll: Gun Owners More Likely to Find Fundamental Freedoms Essential Than Non-Owners

Well then show me where the constituion recognizes the unalienable right for anyone to enter our country.

You do have unalienable rights. Crossing borders isn't one of them.

SCOTUS clearly interpreted "powers over naturalization" as "power over immigration" and rightly so. You can't get frickin naturalized if you can't enter the frickin country. Not to mention, naturalization implies legal immigration, since anyone sneaking in the country isn't trying to get naturalized.

If Congress doesn't have authority to enforce our borders and laws, then we don't have a country, and there's no need for a federal government.

 

You only have 2 options:

A) Immigration is an unalienable right, and we cannot stop anyone from entering the country, and the entire world is doing it wrong

or

B) Immigration is not an unalienable right, government can decide who enters it's country and falls within its jurisdiction

You can't have both.

 

I've not advocated any position other than that.

 

No matter how many times vman12 tries to mislead the posters; no matter how many times he lies; no matter if we go the thread limit with his childish back and forth, he cannot prevail. I will do a detailed post proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt that vman12 is WRONG and he's lying.

 

It all depends upon whether you want to examine the facts or not. If you believe in the inherent Rights of man and want to return to a nation of Freedom and Liberty, the answer is yes.

Just because every conversation is not pleasant does not mean it cannot be productive. If yu will read the long winded response I have planned for vman12 you will find something useful.

 

AN OPEN RESPONSE TO VMAN12 AND THOSE WHO OBSESS OVER IMMIGRATION AS IT RELATES TO RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

vman12 wanted to jump onto this thread and argue with me because I told another poster that I was the most pro-gun poster on this site. vman12 has helped me to prove that and now vman12 has started acting like a child with his incessant posts so, I'm going to dismantle his arguments one by one and we should not have to revisit this any longer.

1) By our foundational principles, every human being has unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights are those rights bestowed upon you by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and not subject to any infringement by the government.

What unalienable Rights are NOT, as vman12 tries to portray Rights that you can just do any time, any where, and for any reason or non reason. For example, I have an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. Another person may have an unalienable Right to their property. So I wear a gun and vman12 owns a store. I go to vman12's store and he denies me entry with a no guns allowed sign posted. A dilemma exists. It should not take a Harvard graduate to understand this, but vman12 wants you to think it does.

My Rights are not jeopardized as I can continue to wear my weapon, but I have to shop at another store. The right is regulated so that both vman12 and I can exercise those unalienable Rights, but they are not denied

2) vman12 tried to mislead everybody here. He asked:

"According to your argument, anyone, at any time, can enter our country. Is that your stance?"

I'm not here to sell you my personal stance. It's irrelevant, but the law is what the law is. The controlling statute on this question (found in Title 8 of the United States Code) addresses proper and improper entry. The statute does NOT address a legal v illegal action. It clearly and unequivocally addresses proper and improper actions. Implied in that statute is that there is a proper way to enter the United States. In real practice there is not. In real practice people are held to arbitrary quotas; employers are unfairly denied the Right to hire the person they want; families are split apart due to those quotas. In short, the enforcement of the laws is unconstitutional

3) vman12 makes this pretentious argument over whether or not foreigners have a Right to come here. Even among conservatives on the Supreme Court, Trump could not deny Muslims entry into the United States based upon their religious preferences. It's quite obvious to me, we cannot, according to the courts, keep people out so they must have a Right of entry. Add to that the 14th Amendment absolutely guarantees to all persons a Right to Liberty. But, that is not all.

vman12 supports a "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that is used to getting their collective a**es kicked on this issue. The current effort ended up in court back in 2003 when a group called Ranch Rescue detained some Salvadorans crossing over private property in order to effect an improper entry. In other words, the Salvadorans were trespassing on private property in order to avoid immigration authorities and come here without human registration papers. Anyway, an altercation ensued and the Salvadorans sued.

The court determined that the Americans violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans and, apparently, those rights trumped the property rights of the landowner. Ranch Rescue members went to prison; the landowner lost his ranch to the Salvadorans. So, I'm not giving you my opinion here, IF the Salvadorans did not have a right to enter, then they would have had no civil claims against the land owner. The improper entry did not affect their unalienable Rights.

Now, at the time, I urged Ranch Rescue members and the land owner to appeal and fight back on the grounds that you have a Right to defend your property. Everybody concerned rejected that idea so the law is what the law is

4) "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." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons"

Law Dictionary: What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Written more than a decade before we ever had a United States Citizen, the foundational principle stands. ALL men have a Right to Liberty. So, yes, people have a Right to enter. We also have a Right to regulate people coming in and out, but we cannot deny them entry without a just cause (under the Constitution.) vman12 and his ilk seek to use the immigration laws as a means to deny people their Liberties (even arguing against unalienable Rights.) The immigration laws are constitutional when they serve as regulatory tools. IF the Rights of foreigners are not protected, nobody here has a Right that is safe under people like vman12

5) Those espousing National Socialist inspired "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution) continue to insist that I am somehow responsible for the cultural damage in America and that their way is the only way. Their way is what got America into this predicament in the first place! AND, their convoluted reasoning is furthering the destruction of America.

These people wail and cry because the immigration laws aren't being enforced and, at the same time, those same immigration laws are the reason our culture is under attack. The same immigration laws with arbitrary quotas for guest workers allow over 750,000 people to come from other countries and become citizens each year. They don't have solutions and they want to use FORCE to make the rest of us agree with them.

The founding fathers disagreed with vman12; virtually every Republican disagreed with vman12 from the beginning of the Republican Party down to Reagan and even George W. Bush. The courts have consistently disagreed with vman12's position. Bottom line: Either all men have unalienable Rights or they don't. And my point to Dr.Who when I came here is that a lot of people are equally misguided as vman12.

 

Wrong.

The founding fathers stated that it was time to abolish a Government, if it no longer upheld freedom and civil liberties.

We the people are the real Government.

Remember Nazi Germany killing people under the color of Government, Law and authority ?

 

...and thus you prove you know NOTHING about rights or Liberty.

Read our founding documents. The Founders of this nation believed that we have inherent rights. Totalitarian governments may seek to place controls upon those rights or even seek to arbitrarily eliminate them, but they exist nonetheless. One of the reason the Founders sought to codify the Right to Bear Arms was to ensure that should the government seek to crush the rights of the people the people would possess the means to fight to stop them.

You, sir, are a totalitarian. Believing that "rights" are nothing but government sanctioned "privileges" that can be removed at the whim of the government - and self-righteously proclaiming that such is how things are meant to be - show that you are a willing slave happy to be ruled.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Benjamin Franklin