Does anyone have an entitlement to advantage based on birth?

#152
#152
n_huffhines said:
Of course, there is a conflict, and I am 100% fine with saying, "I bled for this, so you can't infringe on it." and I am not OK with saying, "I was born within this 4 million square mile boundary, and you can't exist here."

How far are people willing to go with their denial of natural rights?
Click to expand...

You are welcome to come here you just can’t stay. Same as if I go to another country. You can make out like it’s a deeper philosophical issue but it isn’t. If we weren’t a country and didn’t have a border then nobody would want to come here.
 
#155
#155
lawgator1 said:
Of course. But is it an entitlement by birth to belong whereas others are less worthy because they happened to be born elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's the way it works. If you wan't to try to become a citizen of another country you will play by the rules. Many, many countries require new citizens to prove that they can sustain themselves without government assistance. Are they wrong for doing that?
 
#156
#156
volfanhill said:
Yes. It's a dumb question bc it's an indisputable fact. Hey guess what if the vagina I pop out of is worth billions my life will be set up to be better too. Or if it graduated college. Or high school. Or even grade school. Knows to read too. I mean you are a clown .

Part of being born is the lottery. Winners and losers. Sorry. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Just like being born as a noble centuries ago.
 
#157
#157
n_huffhines said:
Of course, there is a conflict, and I am 100% fine with saying, "I bled for this, so you can't infringe on it." and I am not OK with saying, "I was born within this 4 million square mile boundary, and you can't exist here."

How far are people willing to go with their denial of natural rights?
Click to expand...
How about my family bled this is country....is that not the same?
 
#158
#158
whodeycin85 said:
How about my family bled this is country....is that not the same?
Click to expand...

First of all, they were the descendants of immigrants if they weren't immigrants themselves. We are a nation of immigrants and open borders made us great.

Second, it seems more likely they fought for what the Statue of Liberty of stands for, rather than against it.

Third, even if they bled for you to be able to say "deny this foreigner the American dream," it's still not the same thing because America isn't your/their personal property. It's 4 million square miles of supposed freedom and most of it isn't inhabited by anybody. How could it be the same with that glaring difference?
 
#160
#160
Orangeburst said:
Why is it so outrageous to limit immigration, other than storing some perceived racial or religious prejudice. Up to the citizens and their vote and the ability of the nation to absorb these people.
I do not think anybody should allowed if they do not accept American values and principles. There is a reason these are on a citizenship test.
Take believers in Sharia law..this is counter to the USC and our rights, women rights, etc.
Click to expand...
How about believers in biblical law, which is as counter to the USC etc as is sharia?
 
Last edited:
#162
#162
n_huffhines said:
Entry into the United States is an unnatural concept. It's in our nature to go wherever we want and let other people go wherever they want, just as long as they leave others' personal property alone. Government is used to deny these natural rights. We are using it to tell Juan Doe that he can't buy vacant property in Wyoming and live there. We are also telling John Doe he can't hire that guy and are eliminating him as a potential buyer of John Doe's property.

Now you can say, private property isn't natural and I don't disagree, but there is a world of difference between saying "You can't take what I have because I bled for it." and "You can't live within this 4 million square mile boundary because I was born in it."
Click to expand...
It is very much not in our nature, or any creatures nature to let others go where they want when they get into our territory. Even herbivores will fight over pasture land, and some migrationary paths. Others getting too close always leads to conflict or lack of resources, which then leads to conflict.

Governments just formalized that process of defending/marking that territory to try and ensure future violence was avoided. They arent doing it out of the good of their hearts either. Violence is destructive to the actual land, and to those working on it. Our Government allowing free movement is saying that the gain from letting in migrants openly is worth more, to them, than the loss from violence that will ensue.

Now the particular gains in our case arent necessarily just monetary. Clearly with our debt the government doesnt really care about the money side of it. What migrants offer is power. Even if they dont ever vote they are a chip to push. Then if you consider the instability uncontrolled mass migration offers that is a huge stinking opportunity for big government to make itself bigger.

Government has gone from enforcing borders to protect citizens, to dropping border control to gain power
 
#163
#163
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, which is completely different. Instead of you deternining what is done with your land, the mob decides what is done with all land. #freedom
Click to expand...
Unless your land backs up to the border it's kinda a moot point isnt it?

They arent saying you cant hire Juan Doe any more than they are saying you cant hire John Dundee who is still in Australia. Your natural right to do what you want/hire who you want on your land doesnt extend beyond the realm of the possible. At least without believing the whole world/physics interferes with your rights.
 
#165
#165
EasternVol said:
The kid's American as I understand our law. I don't know if he's Mexican too, that depends on Mexican law.
Click to expand...
They would have Mexican citizenship and if reported to the consulate American citizenship. I don't see why our laws should be any different.
 
#167
#167
ClearwaterVol said:
I have read it. That is why I know the voting is a right. It states it in the constitution no fewer than 5 times.
Click to expand...

It is a privilege people may exercise IF they meet all of the conditions and the conditions have changed numerous times. You should read it again.
 
#168
#168
hog88 said:
It is a privilege people may exercise IF they meet all of the conditions and the conditions have changed numerous times. You should read it again.
Click to expand...

The constitution calls it a right no fewer than five times. You should read again for that word.
 
#169
#169
ClearwaterVol said:
The constitution calls it a right no fewer than five times. You should read again for that word.
Click to expand...

The constitution isn't perfect, it's pretty close but just because something is called a right doesn't mean it is. Your vote can be taken away by a simple majority in a legislative body. Plus I don't define a right as something I have to register to use.
 
#170
#170
lawgator1 said:
A number of threads of late about immigration. I understand if you move to another country and through hard work earn a spot in that society.

But for the vast majority of Americans there seems to be an assumption that they are entitled to some presumption that they belong, and others do not, based on the happenstance of where they were born.
Click to expand...
Can't help where you were born or who your biological parents are. Don't believe that is a presumption that they belong, just luck of the draw on reaching the egg first.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top