Government and their fascist minions want to use law to abuse people. This is the actual law. Rights are yours and no politician gives them to you.
This is not new, you'll find these principles is the writings of men like Locke and Blackstone but you don't need those to prove it either. Property rights are self proving foundations of law; stop letting people take them from you.
Good video, stay strong brother.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
great video!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hey Gav! You've got the concept of private property rights correct. Unfortunately you've got the concept of immigration control all wrong, and by trying to tie private property rights to unrestricted travel by foreigners into our country you've missed the mark.
It's clear that our founders were concerned about at least three challenges when it comes to allowing foreigners into our country: (1) the character of foreigners who would want to immigrate into our country (2) allowing too many foreigners in at one time, and (3) allowing too many foreigners from the same countries and cultures to settle in a certain community. Why would they even have these discussions if they didn't intend to give the government authority to control the flow of foreigners across our borders? That would make no sense.
Good job on properly describing property rights though!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually no, the founders placed not implied any restriction on letting foreigners in. You made that up. Everything you states above is for becoming citizens and has nothing to do with immigration. Property rights are universal and they are not limited on any person regardless of status. Nice try on the fascism trolling though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Disagreeing with your positions is now called "trolling"? Funny. I'll give you 4 more quotes from the "Records of the Federal Convention" in 1794 where the founders were debating the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 which deals with the rules of Naturalization. You claimed, incorrectly, that they did not even discuss the admittance of foreigners in their debates.
These clearly indicate many of the founders when discussing Naturalization, were also discussing whether or not to let foreigners into the country, what character they desired in these foreigners, and for how long they should be here before becoming citizens - all related to controlling access to foreigners.
Block me as you wish Gavin. If you feel that truth cannot be presented on your posts, or that the words of the founders should not be presented here as facts, your followers will see that you are the one not standing for truth (link to the document provided below):
[22 Dec. 1794] "The present (Mr. Sedgwick said) he believed the most inauspicious time for the indiscriminate ADMISSION OF ALIENS to the rights of citizenship. A war, the most cruel and dreadful which had been known for centuries, was now raging IN ALL THOSE COUNTRIES FROM WHICH EMIGRANTS WERE TO BE EXPECTED."
"Could (he asked) any reasonable man believe, that men who, actuated by such passions, had fought on grounds so opposite, almost equally distant from the happy mean we had chosen, would here mingle in social affections with each other, or with us? That their passions and prejudices would subside AS SOON AS THEY SHOULD SET FOOT IN AMERICA? or that, possessing those passions and prejudices, they were qualified to make or to be made the governors of Americans?"
"He believed that the amendment now proposed by his colleague, in conjunction with that which had already succeeded, would on the one hand CHECK THE ADMISSION OF FOREIGNERS IN SUCH NUMBERS AS MIGHT BE DANGEROUS TO OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS; and, on the other, that it would NOT EXCLUDE SUCH MERITORIOUS INDIVIDUALS as might be willing to serve the apprenticeship which might qualify them to assume the character and discharge the duties of American citizens."
"The second resolution produced a long conversation, in the course of which Mr. Murray declared, that he was quite INDIFFERENT IF NOT FIFTY EMIGRANTS CAME INTO THIS CONTINENT IN A YEAR'S TIME. It would be UNJUST TO HINDER THEM, BUT IMPOLITIC TO ENCOURAGE THEM. He was afraid that, coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, THEY MIGHT CONTAMINATE THE PURITY AND SIMPLICITY OF THE AMERICAN CHARACTER."
You can have your own opinion, just not your own facts. These are facts showing the founders debating the admission of foreigners into the country. There are plenty more quotes in the record to back this up.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/.../a1_8_4_citizenships12
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You just proved my point. Even in the most negative words you can find taken out of context theye are not a snipped of authouty give to restrict immigration. And the contexts of the word ADMISSION was speaking only of ADMISSION to citizenship because that was all that was on the table. That was the only regulation being considered.
You can keep searching to try and prove your confirmation bias. I know you're desperate to prove your long held beliefs instead of humbling yourself to truth. But you won't find it. I studied this in depth long before you did and that's what I started speaking up.
Man you're trying to rewrite history by finding select quotes that sound on your side. But even that is not working.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit