"The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent."
So, they DON'T commit the majority of crime. Thanks for providing that information.
Hard to validate an "unreported" #, especially if any claim is being made that a majority of crime is being committed by illegal immigrants, (outside of coure of their already illegal status).
Speculative, at best
THAT'S what you call "research?" Shoulda stayed in bed and watched the Late Show, Kramer.
I stopped reading here:
<<How much of that is consequence of illegal alien crimes is largely unknown because NOBODY IS TRACKING IT. >>
Q.E.D.
<<However, we do know that a large portion of the surging prison population is due to illegal alien criminals – a subject addressed later in this section. Also note the correlation with the increase in the illegal alien population since 1989.>>
whoopee doo - - more aliens sneaking into the country, more aliens in the jails. What a surprise.
The stats you need would go something like this:
total no. of illegals in the country, average Jan. 1/09 to Dec. 31/09 = a
total no. of legal American (immig. & native-born), average Jan. 1/09 to Dec. 31/09 = b
total of illegals convicted of murder in 2009 = c
total of legals convicted of murder in 2009 = d
illegal conviction rate = c/a
legals conviction rate = d/b
Then you see if c/a >d/b, in which case you are right, or if d/b>c/a, in which case you are wrong.
You're welcome.
Two new public opinion polls reveal that the majority of the American public believes the U.S. immigration system is broken, and that fixing it should include the creation of a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants already in the United States. The polls, conducted by the New York Times/CBS News and USA Today/Gallup, indicate that Americans are deeply frustrated over unauthorized immigration and the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system that fuels it. Yet most of the respondents in both polls don’t believe that a get-tough, enforcement-only, deport-them-all strategy towards unauthorized immigrants is the best way to move forward. This should be heartening news to advocates of comprehensive immigration reform who understand that smart and targeted immigration enforcement must be coupled with a thorough revamping of our immigration system in order to be effective.
The New York Times/CBS News found that “the overwhelming majority of Americans think the country’s immigration policies need to be seriously overhauled.” Specifically, 44 percent said it “needed to be completely rebuilt” and 45 percent said it “needed fundamental changes.” When asked in particular about “illegal immigrants who are currently working in the U.S.,” 43% of respondents concurred that “they should be allowed to stay in their jobs, and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship,” while an additional 21% said agreed that “they should be allowed to stay in their jobs only as temporary guest workers.”
http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/05/04/polls-show-americans-want-broken-immigration-system-fixed/#more-4714 (http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/05/04/polls-show-americans-want-broken-immigration-system-fixed/#more-4714)
| By conventional wisdom, El Paso, Texas should be one of the scariest cities in America. In 2007, the city's poverty rate was a shade over 27 percent, more than twice the national average. Median household income was $35,600, well below the national average of $48,000. El Paso is three-quarters Hispanic, and more than a quarter of its residents are foreign-born. Given that it's nearly impossible for low-skilled immigrants to work in the United States legitimately, it's safe to say that a significant percentage of El Paso's foreign-born population is living here illegally. El Paso also has some of the laxer gun control policies of any non-Texan big city in the country, mostly due to gun-friendly state law. And famously, El Paso sits just over the Rio Grande from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, home to a staggering 2,500 homicides in the last 18 months alone. A city of illegal immigrants with easy access to guns, just across the river from a metropolis ripped apart by brutal drug war violence. Should be a bloodbath, right? Here's the surprise: There were just 18 murders in El Paso last year, in a city of 736,000 people. To compare, Baltimore, with 637,000 residents, had 234 killings. In fact, since the beginning of 2008, there were nearly as many El Pasoans murdered while visiting Juarez (20) than there were murdered in their home town (23). El Paso is among the safest big cities in America. For the better part of the last decade, only Honolulu has had a lower violent crime rate (El Paso slipped to third last year, behind New York). Men's Health magazine recently ranked El Paso the second "happiest" city in America, right after Laredo, Texas—another border town, where the Hispanic population is approaching 95 percent. So how has this city of poor immigrants become such an anomaly? Actually, it may not be an anomaly at all. Many criminologists say El Paso isn't safe despite its high proportion of immigrants, it's safe because of them. |
| Following up on my story about El Paso's large immigrant population and low rate of violent crime, the Immigration Policy Center points to a study I missed by the America's Majority Foundation. The study looks at overall social indicators in states with high immigration rates versus the rest of the country during the immigration boom between 1999-2006. On the subject of crime, the study finds.... • While the overall crime rate in the U.S. dropped 10.9 percent, the crime rate in the 19 states that saw the largest influx of immigrants dropped 13.6 percent. • In 1999, the 19 states that would settle the largest number of immigrants over the next seven years had a crime rate higher than the national average. By 2006, their crime rate was lower. • Violent crime in the 19 high-immigration states dropped 15.0 percent over seven-year period. Violent crime in the other 32 states (the study included D.C.) dropped just 1.2 percent. The authors are careful to explain that lots of variables contribute to a state's crime rate, and they warn that one should not conclude from their study alone that immigration reduces crime. But it does present a pretty strong refutation of the argument that immigrants are creating more crime in the states where they settle. Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bud Kennedy also kindly mentioned my article today, and added an interesting statistic of his own: "Illegal immigrants generated an extra $17.7 billion in the Texas economy when the state comptroller checked in 2006. That was after subtracting the cost of emergency healthcare and their American-born children’s education." |
| A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population." Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, who has focused his research on Chicago neighborhoods, documents that felonious behavior is less common among Mexican-Americans, who constitute the biggest share of Latinos, than among whites. Second and third generation Latinos, contrary to what you might expect, fall into more crime than immigrants. But Sampson says that overall, "Mexican-American rates of violence are very similar to whites." The phenomenon is so evident that it was even recognized in a recent article in The American Conservative—a magazine founded by the lusty nativist ("we're gonna lose our country") Patrick Buchanan. It was written by Ron Unz, who made some enemies among Latinos by pushing a California ballot initiative to sharply limit bilingual education in public schools, but who knows better than to regard Latinos as the enemy. Unz points out that in the five most heavily Hispanic cities in the country, violent crime is "10 percent below the national urban average and the homicide rate 40 percent lower." In Los Angeles, which is half Hispanic and easily accessible to those sneaking over the southern border, the murder rate has plummeted to levels unseen since the tranquil years of the early 1960s. |
El Paso sits just over the Rio Grande from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, home to a staggering 2,500 homicides in the last 18 months alone. A city of illegal immigrants with easy access to guns, just across the river from a metropolis ripped apart by brutal drug war violence. Should be a bloodbath, right?
Here's the surprise: There were just 18 murders in El Paso last year, in a city of 736,000 people. To compare, Baltimore, with 637,000 residents, had 234 killings. In fact, since the beginning of 2008, there were nearly as many El Pasoans murdered while visiting Juarez (20) than there were murdered in their home town (23).
This means that Mexicans behave better as guests than they do at home?
Yet the situation seems to be bad for Mexico , are we an attractive bait that draws their most honest, hard working and , capable away from home , leaveing a dearth of these qualitys at home?
Within the country we encourage workers to move , answering the call of economic advantage even to the point of behaveing like nomads .
What is the thing that maks us irritated by border crossing workers?
The simplest answer we can find would probly suggest the proper choice of action for dealing with the problem.
Simpler....
Are Mexicans who can spend money haveing any problem crossing our border?
Simpler....
Are Mexicans who can spend money haveing any problem crossing our border?
Simpler or different? That seems like an entirely different question than the one you asked before.
Not really I hope to point out that all of the problems you mentioned may be real , but that they are trumped by economic considerations.
Which of these problems do we have with Canada?
Canada has been shareing our economy for generations , they are as wealthy as we are and we scarcely defend our border against Canadians at all.
WE should not only make it easy to cross the border for the purpose of honest work , we should make education availible to the Mexicans and other Latinos we therby find availible to our indoctrination.
Byt he time that they return to the land that they love , where they have their familys , they would not only have a pocket full of cash , but they would have a working knoledge of English and an understanding of American style good government.
Not really I hope to point out that all of the problems you mentioned may be real , but that they are trumped by economic considerations.
I'm not sure racist and xenophobic objections are overcome by economic considerations.
You may go ahead and be certain , it does.
Which of these problems do we have with Canada?
Canada has been shareing our economy for generations , they are as wealthy as we are and we scarcely defend our border against Canadians at all.
They are also mostly like us in culture and most speak English with little accent to our ears.
I'm not sure that economic objections are overcome by racist and xenophobic considerations. If Canadians were pouring across the border to find factory and management jobs in our major citys ,,... oh wait they are, have been doing that so long we forget they have a diffrence.
WE should not only make it easy to cross the border for the purpose of honest work , we should make education availible to the Mexicans and other Latinos we therby find availible to our indoctrination.
Byt he time that they return to the land that they love , where they have their familys , they would not only have a pocket full of cash , but they would have a working knoledge of English and an understanding of American style good government.
Sounds like a good plan. When you can convince people like Sirs to support it, let me know. I've argued for similar ideas, and I get told they are irrational and impractical and a host of other "but we can't do that" objections.
So you agree that the basic solution is to teach Mexicans to become Canadian? You are some sorta racist , xenophobic culture killer? Odbviously the real solution can't be to crush the Mexican peoples spirit and make them forget their culture. Bad enough we have done that to the Canadians.
So you agree that the basic solution is to teach Mexicans to become Canadian? You are some sorta racist , xenophobic culture killer? Odbviously the real solution can't be to crush the Mexican peoples spirit and make them forget their culture. Bad enough we have done that to the Canadians.
So... you've just come to mock me? Oh. Okay. I thought you were trying to discuss the issue. My mistake.
I guess I missed the memo about how all debate here was to occur in the form of making up nonsense and then accusing other people of believing the nonsense. But I am sure I can catch on to how it's done. I have so many able teachers, apparently.
| The passage of a Jim Crow/police state law in the US state of Arizona last week, based on alleged threats to that state’s civil order and economic health, is a fitting hook on which to hang a brief history of travel over the “national borders” claimed by the United States. To hear the Know-Nothings complain, you’d think that the US has a history of strict border control and that the federal government has only recently begun to lie down on the job. Nothing could be further from the truth. For close to a century, the federal government exerted precisely zero control over immigration. People decided where they wanted to be and then they went there, with no need to request permission. [...] The framers of the US Constitution didn’t even bother to enumerate a federal power to control immigration, choosing only to provide for regulation of naturalization of immigrants — i.e. how they might go about becoming citizens. While some assert an implied original intent to allow for immigration regulations, there’s no such intent alluded to in The Federalist Papers, while a complaint about the lack of such an intent is found in the anti-federalist literature of the time. [...] It wasn’t until 1882 that the first restriction on immigration (the Chinese Exclusion Act) became law. It wasn’t until 1891 that a federal Bureau of Immigration was created, its main job being to collect a “head tax” of 50 cents from each person passing through Ellis Island. [...] The history of US immigration regulation is part and parcel of the history of expansion of government power in America. In its form of the last 60 years, it represents the tail end of New Deal social engineering and the front end of “the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores” which “conservative” activist William F. Buckley, Jr. called for pursuant to the Cold War. |
If anyone wanted to get serious about slowing the "flood" of immigration and crimes commonly (but usually incorrectly) associated with immigration, he would stop trying to promote strict enforcement of a top-down law enforcement control system that has not worked for immigration control, drug control, alcohol control, pornography control, or pretty much anything at all. Instead, he would promote ending the "war on drugs", ending U.S. agriculture subsidies, legalizing most drugs they way alcohol and tobacco are legal, and opening up trade with other countries. That is what is needed to address the actual underlying issues. Immigration is an issue that will never be solved so long as everyone is focused on cracking down on it rather than the actual problems. Massive immigration is the symptom, not the disease.
Pooh yi! The answer to your question is in what you quoted. I am not going to start repeating myself to you too.
Labor problems and street drugs would not be a problem if we didn't try to controll them?
Make coming into the U.S. easier for the majority of people, and the black market problems will diminish significantly.
Labor problems and street drugs would not be a problem if we didn't try to controll them?
Parcheesi on a chess board... Sigh. No, Plane, that is not quite what I said. But thanks for phrasing it as a question.
QuoteMake coming into the U.S. easier for the majority of people, and the black market problems will diminish significantly.
What does that mean? Define easier.
So easier means that if you are fit and don't have a record you should be allowed in.
Would a job guarantee and a sponsor family be allowable in your scenario?
If you mean should they be required for legal immigration, I would argue against it.
What I am saying is that if you have a legal entry system in place then any illegal entry should be prosecuted. Otherwise why have immigration law in the first place.
I am also saying that there is no inherent human right to transnational labor migration, that a sovereign nation has a right and obligation to control its borders and that right trumps the supposed right of any individual.
Let me ask as a union member, will labor unions have any clout , leverage , barganing power, if the availibility of labor is almost infanite?
Let me ask as a union member, will labor unions have any clout , leverage , barganing power, if the availibility of labor is almost infanite?
That depends on whether or not they can convince people to join the union, I would guess. Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.
Anyway, you say a sovereign nation has a right and an obligation to control its borders. So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?
QuoteAnyway, you say a sovereign nation has a right and an obligation to control its borders. So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?
Seems to me immigration law now is more liberal than it ever has been.
So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?
QuoteSo would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?
No. I would say that immigration was controlled by other influence than immigration law.
Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.
Is infanate too strong a word?
How about inexaustable?
Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.
Is infanate too strong a word?
How about inexaustable?
I think you're exaggerating either way.
I think you are wanting more thinking time for this , Ok.
Tell me tomorrow whether there is any way for organised labor to remain relivant with a planetwide availibility of scab.
That seems a bit like trying to keep your cake and eat it too.
I think you are wanting more thinking time for this , Ok.
Tell me tomorrow whether there is any way for organised labor to remain relivant with a planetwide availibility of scab.
Planetwide availability of scab? Now you're just being silly.
I'm not sure if you're making a case against immigration or against international trade.
Okay, that was laying the sarcasm on a bit thick. I admit that. Even so, this infinite/inexhaustible supply of labor objection you keep trying to press seems a bit ridiculous. If all labor in all fields of endeavor was exactly the same and all access to it was exactly the same, you might have a point. But it isn't and you don't.
QuoteThat seems a bit like trying to keep your cake and eat it too.
Really?
I did not know indentured servitute was such an attractive offer.
You do realize in the early years of this country that was how the majority of non sponsored immigrants paid for passage.
So do you think that UNions must adapt or die?
Heh. Cute. My comment was directed at your statement, not indentured servitude. Nice misdirection though.
Anyway, I'll answer your questions, BT, after you answer mine.
Does the actual right of an individual ever trump the "right" of a nation?
What sort of control over borders must a nation maintain to be said to be living up to its obligation?
What rights does the individual actually have?
Does the actual right of an individual ever trump the "right" of a nation?
So you agree that the indentured servitude program was a legitimate means of immigration control?
So do you think that UNions must adapt or die?
Yes, though I also think great big, powerful unions do more harm than good.
Your sarcasm gets in the way of anything substantive you post and is hardly worth the bother.
Your sarcasm gets in the way of anything substantive you post and is hardly worth the bother.
If you want specific answers try asking specific questions.
What good do wimpy or absent unions do?
What good do wimpy or absent unions do?
Probably none whatsoever, Plane. Too bad there is nothing between "great big, powerful unions" and "wimpy or absent unions".
What rights does the individual actually have?
Unions should be how big? [...] I think that the right size for a union is the size it takes to strike.
QuoteWhat rights does the individual actually have?
This is not a vague question?
Is the "right for a man and a woman to marry" actually a right? If so why do you need a license?
Is the license a permit, indicating privilege, like a drivers license, or is it a certification of qualification, which would indicate that the "right" is limited, conditional and arbitrary.
If individual rights are God given, what happens if there is no God to give them.
If inalienable rights are of natural law, then these rights can not be universal because in nature the strongest is always able to suppress the weakest. Thus the need for a social contract and a polity strong enough to protect the weakest member of the society.
In the case of transborder immigration, if you say it is a right of natural law, a rancher with a gun can suppress that right easily.
If it is a civil right, then it follows that that right can be trumped by a political entity that deems control of the flow is in the entities best interest.
1) Yes, and 2) you don't. Not to exercise the right. A legal requirement does not mean something is or is not a right.
Your questions assume the right is defined by the law. It is not. How the law treats the exercise of a right does not define the right itself. Rights do not exist because we have laws. We have laws because rights exist.
Prove to me there is no God, and we'll discuss that.
Very Hobbesian of you. But you're making the mistake of assuming that rights and the liberty to exercise those rights are the same thing, and they are not.
No, he cannot. He might infringe the liberty of the individual to exercise the right (assuming for the sake of argument that "transborder immigration" is a right), but the rancher cannot take away the right itself.
A person's right to free speech is not eliminated because someone else puts duct tape over the person's mouth. The right still exists. If the right does not still exist, then there is no such thing as rights, only privileges granted at the whim of others.
Does that follow? I do not believe you have provided a sound argument for that. First you need to define what you mean by "civil right" because there are several definitions from which to choose.
Anyway, yet again you engage in misdirection. Rather than return to the questions asked of you and provide clearer answers, you throw up a barrage of questions and comments intended to keep me on the defensive. Any teenager with a single semester of a civics class can form the questions and comments you provided. That you can produce them does little to prove answering them in any detail for you would be worth my time. I'm beginning to get the impression that you only bother to engage me because you seek to try to embarrass me for my expressed opinions. It would explain your reluctance to clearly and directly answer reasonable questions, your constant attempt to shift the parameters of the discussion away from the wimpish answers you do provide, and the tone of your replies to me being frequently more antagonistically condescending than generally inquisitive or respectfully objecting.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you knew the difference between natural rights and those rights afforded by the social contract, ie , civil rights. Perhaps you slept through that chapter of civics class.
Unions should be how big? [...] I think that the right size for a union is the size it takes to strike.
The size it takes for whom to strike?
Let me see if I have this right.
You are allowed to make snide remarks about civics class but I am not.
You demand others answer your questions but you are exempt from answering questions.
Must be nice.
Does an individual have a right to own real estate?
Does an individual real estate owner have the right to forbid other persons to cross his boundries without permission?
If the answers of the first two of these is yes , and yes then;
Does a large group of persons have property right simular to an individual?
An individual may strike , but few individuals are so critical and unique that such an individual protest is effective.
I think that the right of an individual to strike is an unalienable individual right , whether effective or not.
I consider the right of individuals to act in concert with other individuals in peacefull protest is a very strong right, not lightly to be restricted .
Unions need to be of a certain size to be effective barganers , they need the size of membership representing the ability to strike or boycot effectively. This is an important tool for effecting change with peacefull force.
Laws or circumstances ,which limit or eliminate the rights of workers to influence the terms of their working contracts ,are dangerous to the rights of workers to act as if they are the owners of their own labor.
I think that the right of an individual to strike is an unalienable individual right , whether effective or not.
So the basis of Human rights seems to be a mutual contract, tacit or recorded , between human beings.
Does an individual have a right to own real estate?
Does an individual real estate owner have the right to forbid other persons to cross his boundries without permission?
Yes, and yes.If the answers of the first two of these is yes , and yes then; Does a large group of persons have property right simular to an individual?
Sure. What they don't have is a right to prevent others from exercising their own rights.
Is America, its people, its "home", infringing on someone else's rights of someone trying to sneak into their home, without their permission??
If yes, how do you explain your double standard
If no, how is America preventing someone from exercising their rights, when they're simply exercising their own rights
| No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission. I will categorically state that no one has a right to sneak into the country without permission. |
| Well, it would not have been my double standard because you asked me about something I never said. |
| That question assumes that the U.S. is merely and only exercising its rights. I do not agree with that assumption. I believe the U.S. government is over stepping its bounds to attempt to so strictly control immigration. |
Is America, its people, its "home", infringing on someone else's rights of someone trying to sneak into their home, without their permission??Is America infringing on someone's right to sneak into the country without permission?
No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission.
If yes, how do you explain your double standard?
Well, it would not have been my double standard because you asked me about something I never said.
If no, how is America preventing someone from exercising his rights when America is simply exercising its rights?
That question assumes that the U.S. is merely and only exercising its rights. I do not agree with that assumption. I believe the U.S. government is over stepping its bounds to attempt to so strictly control immigration.
author=Universe Prince
".......I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission. I will categorically state that no one has a right to sneak into the country without permission.][/table]
No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission.
Though, you seem to give those who do, justification. No?
The double standard is clear....one's personal property, their "home", is off limits to any and all who would try to enter without permission. That would include law enforcement without a warrant. Period, end of story, or so your position has been, in the past. Yet, illegal immigrants do precisely that....they enter without permission, but they largely get a pass by you, because of your issues with the "home owner" and their onnerous rules for entering their "house"
[...]
Yea, how dare the home owner be so abusive to those trying to sneak in without permission. Damn property owners
Our elected representative legislatures have enacted law that forbids persons from crossing our boundry without gaining permit.
Could you restate the nature of our disagreement? I kinda agree with you here.
No, but then I never said anyone had a right to sneak into the country without permission.
Though, you seem to give those who do, justification. No?
Sometimes, yes, I do.
The double standard is clear....one's personal property, their "home", is off limits to any and all who would try to enter without permission. That would include law enforcement without a warrant. Period, end of story, or so your position has been, in the past. Yet, illegal immigrants do precisely that....they enter without permission, but they largely get a pass by you, because of your issues with the "home owner" and their onnerous rules for entering their "house"
[...]
Yea, how dare the home owner be so abusive to those trying to sneak in without permission. Damn property owners
The nation is not a house. It is not owned like a house. It is not run like a house. It does not exist like a house. The fault lies not in my position, but in the analogy.
The anaology is dead on, which is why you're struggling with it.
No the U.S. is not a house that 1 person buys, with over a million bedrooms and 2 million bathrooms, it's OUR house, in where we live, yours, mine, Plane's, Ami's, Xo's, etc. That's why it's an anology and not a specific X<-->X comparison.
it's OUR house, in where we live, yours, mine, Plane's, Ami's, Xo's, etc. [...] The U.S. is our private property.
We have laws, that you obviously don't like, that are largely no different than the rules that limit/prevent someone(s) from entering any one's private property.
So the fault here is your double standard, not the analogy
The citizens of the U.S. do not collectively own the U.S. If the citizens collectively own the nation, then the whole notion protection of individual rights collapses like a house of cards in a strong wind.
Hey that is interesting.
And I highly disagree .
I don't suppose your contention is that >nothing< is collectively owned?
The government is the official owner of hundreds of parks and millions of acres of rangeland and mountains. Is that improper or dangerous?\
Navagable waters and most roadways ,even air lanes are communally owned and often this is the best alternative.
Radio Frequencys are publicly owned , but usually rented by private persons, corporations.
Why does it naturally follow that when we own some things in common that we then own each others rights?
What happens if you don't pay taxes on your private property?
Why does it naturally follow that when we own some things in common that we then own each others rights?
That is not what I said.
Navagable waters and most roadways ,even air lanes are communally owned and often this is the best alternative.
Does "nation " have ownership?
So sovereignty means nothing to you, apparently. We don't own our nation...it just sort of...exists in the same time and place we exist. A hole in the fabric of the space time & continuum
The Constitution spells out our individual rights. Or last time I checked
Next
So, Sirs, anyone who is in the US legally can over to your house and use it for their needs? That is what is meant by property being "owned" by the community.
Or do you have individual ownership of your property? Can you direct who is allowed to come onto your property and who is to stay off?
And there you have the answer, fitted nicely in the question posed. The home is owned by the individual. America is owned by the "community" of American citizens. Both with their own set of laws that protect their sovereignty
So, since I "own" the big box, and it's an accumulation of little boxes, then I can use any of the little boxes whenever I want?
Perhaps a quick check of the Bill of Rights might jog your memory on individual rights, and my dedicated support of them.
I'm still amazed though at your idea that someone has the right to enter any country they want, sovereignty be damned, if they reeeeaaaaaally need to better their lives. Americans don't own America....who the hell are they to tell some non-american who can & can't enter their, ooops, not their country....a country that merely exists.
So, since I "own" the big box.....
Close...WE, the community of Americans own the big box, vs individual Ami, and WE have government representatives and laws. None of which allow you to manipulate someone else's inidivudal box, I'm afraid
Perhaps a quick check of the Bill of Rights might jog your memory on individual rights, and my dedicated support of them.
I doubt the Bill of Rights mentions your support. But yes, check the Bill of Rights. It is not a list of rights.
Close...WE, the community of Americans own the big box, vs individual Ami, and WE have government representatives and laws. None of which allow you to manipulate someone else's inidivudal box, I'm afraid
Yes, but I am part of "we".
So, the "big box" is nothing but a figment, because it doesn't really exist.
1st amendment: Right to Free speech & freedom of Religion
2nd amendment: Right to own a firearm
4th amendment: Right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th amendment: Right not to incriminate yourself
6th amendment: Right to due process
7th amendment: Right to a jury trial (n certain civil trials)
etc., etc., etc.
Naaaa, no rights mentioned there, at all, and nothing referencing individuals ::)
Yea, I think that was prince's inferrence as well. Our nation and its sovereignty doesn't really exist
Now you're just trying to manipulate semantics. The position is clear despite you're trying to muddy it up
1st amendment: Right to Free speech & freedom of Religion
2nd amendment: Right to own a firearm
4th amendment: Right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th amendment: Right not to incriminate yourself
6th amendment: Right to due process
7th amendment: Right to a jury trial (in certain civil trials)
etc., etc., etc.
Naaaa, no rights mentioned there, at all, and nothing referencing individuals ::)
Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed.
Now you're just lying.
Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed.
Not at all, since it was a synopsis of rights, that demonstrate clearly their individual origins & applications.
Even when you print out the entire amendment, it is specific to individual rights AND the clear limitations Government is SUPPOSED to adhere to, as it relates to those rights.
Perfect examples being the 4th & 5th amendments, clearly applying to an individual (as they all largely do). Nothing at all related to some group right to "pleading the 5th"
Now you're just lying.
Naaa, just using hyperbole to highlight the direction of yours (and apparently Ami's) thought process
Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed.
Not at all, since it was a synopsis of rights, that demonstrate clearly their individual origins & applications.
Neither your representation nor the Bill of Rights itself are about the origins of rights or their applications.
Now you're just lying.
Naaa, just using hyperbole to highlight the direction of yours (and apparently Ami's) thought process
A hyperbolic lie is still a lie.
We're apparently going to have to agree to disagree, as I've demonstrating clearly how they DO apply to individuals, and they ARE rights, as established by the Constitution & Bill of RIGHTS
Now you're just trying to manipulate semantics. The position is clear despite you're trying to muddy it up
Nope, the inference that there is a big box that is communally owned by everyone is not semantics. If everyone owns this big box, then everyone is free to use any part of this big box - which means use of the little boxes, since that is all that exists in this big box.
LoL......riiiiiiiiiiight. And OJ was really innocent
Well, you did, but who cares?
Sorry "pal", no one's lying here.
That wasn't the post with the lie in it. But if you want to claim that post demonstrated something it barely even addressed, you're only fooling yourself.
Anyone can scroll back not 1 page (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9590.msg101173#msg101173) and see so for themselves. It also includes the reinforcement, which was never in question, that the Constitution, indeed is meant to be a limitation of Government power, on we little individuals.
I doubt it.
But if YOU need to convince yourself otherwise, or have some innate need to have the last word, the floor is yours