Jump to content
JakePA_Titan

"They had 30 years. I see a lot of talk, but it's too little too late".

Recommended Posts

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/06/group-wants-california-secede-united-states

 

No, sir. It is never too late.

 

I do have a question on borders and the dems being against walls...

 

How many dems do you think have some sort of fence surrounding their property?

 

For those that do and are against a border wall, why do they feel the need to protect their own property from their neighbors but don't feel the need to protect those they are suppose to protect? If your main job is to provide a better life for your own civilians, you don't provide that better life by letting the country become over-populated.

 

Why don't they let people walk on through or even (let the homeless/immigrants) set up camp in their backyards? Use their resources like drinking water from their outside spicket or maybe eat right from their gardens?

 

Why do illegals take precedent over US civilians in terms of protection?

 

They are fine with it as long as it doesn't directly affect them and their families.

 

Why don't Democrats remove the fence surrounding the white house when they take the office? Because they don't want unwanted guests. Mmhhmmmm....Any unwanted guest that crosses that fence line is considered a threat. But they tell us its wrong to look at illegal aliens as such. But no double standard, right?

 

I'll tell you what will be too late. If you really open the flood gates, and the entire country starts becoming more and more populated thanks to a mass immigration to the states, there is no going back.

 

No going back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzTitan   

What legal and legitimate purpose would someone have inside the White House fences, that couldn't be satisfied by a normal tour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

What legal and legitimate purpose would someone have inside the White House fences, that couldn't be satisfied by a normal tour?

Well, I don't believe normal tours include meeting the POTUS. Maybe some are fortunate to do so, but not the majority.

 

So meeting the POTUS, I guess.

 

Taking pictures from certain angles?

Sell girl scout cookies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzTitan   
9 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Well, I don't believe normal tours include meeting the POTUS. Maybe some are fortunate to do so, but not the majority.

 

So meeting the POTUS, I guess.

 

Taking pictures from certain angles?

Sell girl scout cookies?

Wouldn't you be better off going to Mar a Lago for that? ;)

 

I guess meeting POTUS is legit, but not realistic for a lot of reasons (beyond just security). My point was I don't think it's a good analogy to a country's borders, because there are a lot of legitimate legal (after you've entered) reasons why someone would want to enter a country. So a society that was completely open to this to the extreme, can still happily put up fences around institutions that need to be protected, and create well defined public interfaces like tours to relax that barrier in a controlled way. For instance, obviously a society open to anyone coming into their borders may still want to run high security intelligence agencies that no member of the public has any business being near, and a fence is a part of meeting that requirement perfectly consistent with an open national border policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

Wouldn't you be better off going to Mar a Lago for that? ;)

 

I guess meeting POTUS is legit, but not realistic for a lot of reasons (beyond just security). My point was I don't think it's a good analogy to a country's borders, because there are a lot of legitimate legal (after you've entered) reasons why someone would want to enter a country. So a society that was completely open to this to the extreme, can still happily put up fences around institutions that need to be protected, and create well defined public interfaces like tours to relax that barrier in a controlled way. For instance, obviously a society open to anyone coming into their borders may still want to run high security intelligence agencies that no member of the public has any business being near, and a fence is a part of meeting that requirement perfectly consistent with an open national border policy.

It probably isn't the best analogy. 

 

What about this analogy.

 

If you sell drugs (which is illegal) and use your drug money to then legally purchase a home or car, they can take your home or car.

 

So even if you bought it legally, its negated bybthe fact it come from doing something illegal.

 

Crossing the border without proper documentation is illegal. So how come they can be allowed to live a legal life with US civilian rights when the whole thing was started by an illegal act?

 

Isn't anything you then acquire in the states considered ill-gotten gains because you only got it by committing a crime that put you in that position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzTitan   
40 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

It probably isn't the best analogy. 

 

What about this analogy.

 

If you sell drugs (which is illegal) and use your drug money to then legally purchase a home or car, they can take your home or car.

 

So even if you bought it legally, its negated bybthe fact it come from doing something illegal.

 

Crossing the border without proper documentation is illegal. So how come they can be allowed to live a legal life with US civilian rights when the whole thing was started by an illegal act?

 

Isn't anything you then acquire in the states considered ill-gotten gains because you only got it by committing a crime that put you in that position?

I'm not sure how far reacting to an illegal acquisition can go e.g. you stole a computer, and then invented a massive silicon valley startup while using it, now worth billions. Can the entire thing be taken from you because you stole the computer that you originally coded it on?

 

If the answer is yes, then I guess logically entering illegally should negate everything done thereafter.

 

If the answer is no, then there is precedent that this isn't treated with pure hard logic and, all things considered, what better thing to not apply pure hard logic to than someone's life?

 

I suspect it is "no" and the 'goods purchased using illegally obtained money' example is a special exception specifically aimed at preventing crime like drug dealing from paying off. Whether this same approach or the billion dollar startup example approach above should apply to otherwise law abiding people's lives I guess is a matter of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

I'm not sure how far reacting to an illegal acquisition can go e.g. you stole a computer, and then invented a massive silicon valley startup while using it, now worth billions. Can the entire thing be taken from you because you stole the computer that you originally coded it on?

 

If the answer is yes, then I guess logically entering illegally should negate everything done thereafter.

 

If the answer is no, then there is precedent that this isn't treated with pure hard logic and, all things considered, what better thing to not apply pure hard logic to than someone's life?

 

I suspect it is "no" and the 'goods purchased using illegally obtained money' example is a special exception specifically aimed at preventing crime like drug dealing from paying off. Whether this same approach or the billion dollar startup example approach above should apply to otherwise law abiding people's lives I guess is a matter of opinion.

Idk about that because then you're getting into intellectual property.

 

The stolen computer isn't why he was smart enough to invent a money making idea. Meaning, his idea isn't dependent on having a cpu. Might be dependent on getting it started, but I believe a good lawyer would argue that it could have been done with any cpu, therefore the stolen cpu itself wasn't the reason he had the idea.

 

Buying a home is however dependent on that illegally gained money.

 

Living a free life for an illegal in the US is dependent on committing that crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzTitan   
14 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Idk about that because then you're getting into intellectual property.

 

The stolen computer isn't why he was smart enough to invent a money making idea. Meaning, his idea isn't dependent on having a cpu. Might be dependent on getting it started, but I believe a good lawyer would argue that it could have been done with any cpu, therefore the stolen cpu itself wasn't the reason he had the idea.

 

Buying a home is however dependent on that illegally gained money.

 

Living a free life for an illegal in the US is dependent on committing that crime. 

A good lawyer may also be able to argue it wasn't dependent on entering illegally; that was just the vehicle chosen, like a stolen PC. Because like a stolen PC, once you're there/have it, the rest could be no longer attributed to the original crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Justafan said:

I mean, put up the wall.  What is the next step when that doesn't put a dent in illegal immigration?

https://www.pozogoldsteinny.com/illegal-immigration/

 

Quote

1. Illegal Entry

Each year, an estimated 500,000 people enter the country illegally, accounting for about 6.5 million of the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. Often, people enter the country with the help of “coyotes,” people smugglers that operate on the U.S.-Mexico border. The most popular area for unlawful migration is the desert border area of the state of the Arizona and Mexico border. However, not all illegal entries occur over the southern border. For instance, in 1993 the Golden Venture voyage attempted to smuggle almost 300 undocumented Chinese immigrants

If that is the most common way, idk how you believe it wouldn't put a dent in those efforts.

 

Answering your question would depend on what way then becomes the most common way to illegally enter if the wall is in place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

A good lawyer may also be able to argue it wasn't dependent on entering illegally; that was just the vehicle chosen, like a stolen PC. Because like a stolen PC, once you're there/have it, the rest could be no longer attributed to the original crime.

But entering illegally was the crime. Inventing a money maker isn't a crime.

 

The vehicle or route you used to enter is irrelevant, much like the cpu used to apply your invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you said the idea for his invention came off the cpu he stole, you might have a case. 

 

But the cpu is irrelevant to the idea he had.

 

If what your saying is the case, then why wouldn't he use a friends cpu? Or go to a public library and use theirs?

 

If you could lose your idea because you used a stolen cpu to make it happen, and you knew of that possibility beforehand, then you are stupid and deserve to lose it.

 

Much like if you're stupid enough to enter illegally when there is a way to enter legally, you should lose your freedom as a non-US civilian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OzTitan

 

Lets try this route.

 

Can you think of any other illegal acts someone can committ that other people try to make reason of it in an attempt to defend them?

 

How come it is ok to enter illegally in hopes to live a better life, but its not ok for a homeless man to steal food in hopes he doesn't starve to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzTitan   
12 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

But entering illegally was the crime. Inventing a money maker isn't a crime.

 

The vehicle or route you used to enter is irrelevant, much like the cpu used to apply your invention.

Inventing was never the crime - it was doing the original groundwork on a stolen PC (which itself may not be a crime - is continuing to use a stolen PC a crime? anyway, stealing it to begin with is).

 

You're right, unless there was some special characteristic of the PC, the same could have been done on a legally purchased PC. My point is the illegal immigrant also started with a crime, but could easily for the sake of argument be one who then made their life a success legally. Like the stolen PC you could argue had the original action not been illegal the same result would occur - yes it's presumably relatively easier to legally get a PC than legally enter the US, but that's not the point.

 

The argument would be that they deserve the billion dollar business because they could have done it on a legal PC - I think it's closer that an illegal immigrant could argue they could have done what they did on a legal entrance, where as it doesn't really make sense to say a drug dealer could have bought a Jessie Pinkman McMansion had only they not done drugs. BTW it's not about the PC analogy being a great analogy but more about stolen money goods being a worse one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...