Undocumented Aliens and Crime - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15047361
Sivad wrote:By natutal law these people have every right to go wherever they please, borders violate natural law.

Borders ain't the issue, it's the globalist imperialism driving mass migration that's the problem. You wingnuts are only half right, which means you're still 50% retarded.


The natural law is more about every single human being have a right to their life, to their liberty, and to their property, and it does not say anything of the right to up & relocate to wherever you want.

I suppose you could say that is part of liberty. But then the bottom falls out and before you know it we have to argue with Chief Miniminoag that how can a man own land? Ancestor find berry, hunt deer. Plant seed in Spring, find maize in fall. Why no-no walk-free? Why white man want fence? Haven't you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon? Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grins?

... Do we really have to do that?
#15047365
SpecialOlympian wrote:I'd say there's a significant portion of the population who is imprisoned and filing appeals and they probably care a great deal about laws.

But by all means, continue talking about your badass lawless lifestyle.



so now you're like just like stretching the plain meaning of what was said beyond all reason to whatever idiocy you can twist it to just to score some retard points on pofo? :lol:

I have like zero respect for you, your shit is just fucking ridiculous.
#15047366
Verv wrote:The natural law is more about every single human being have a right to their life, to their liberty, and to their property, and it does not say anything of the right to up & relocate to wherever you want.

I suppose you could say that is part of liberty. But then the bottom falls out and before you know it we have to argue with Chief Miniminoag that how can a man own land? Ancestor find berry, hunt deer. Plant seed in Spring, find maize in fall. Why no-no walk-free? Why white man want fence? Haven't you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon? Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grins?

... Do we really have to do that?


so let me get this straight, your "argument" for contrived geopolitical boundaries is a jackass ignorant mockery of a fundamental human intuition? :knife: :lol:
#15047373
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite. If the wages were higher for the entire working class,

There's no such thing as the working class, its a Marxist lie. All socio economic classes contain people who work and people who don't.
#15047459
BigSteve wrote:They broke the law. They're criminals...


I have already shown that claim to be false in this thread.

It is not a crime to be in the USA illegally. Not all things that are illegal are criminal offenses.

When did he do that?


During his presidential campaign.

—————————

Verv wrote:Our founding fathers believed that there were natural laws out there, and to go counter to these laws was to be tyrannical and therefore illegitimate.

What do you think about that?


The founding fathers allowed non-citizens to enter the country without any problem, and even gave them voting rights.

Since you support what the founding fathers did, can we assume you are in full support of those policies?

Verv wrote:The natural law is more about every single human being have a right to their life, to their liberty, and to their property, and it does not say anything of the right to up & relocate to wherever you want.


Your idea of natural law is based entirely on US culture, it seems. @Sivad is probably referring to an objective moral code instead.

I suppose you could say that is part of liberty. But then the bottom falls out and before you know it we have to argue with Chief Miniminoag that how can a man own land? Ancestor find berry, hunt deer. Plant seed in Spring, find maize in fall. Why no-no walk-free? Why white man want fence? Haven't you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon? Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grins?

... Do we really have to do that?


Do you think indigenous approaches to land ownership are like this racist caricature that you presented?
#15047469
@Sivad every motherfucker on this planet has every fucking right to migrate and settle wherever the fuck they please. that's a fundamental human right.


Of course I understand your opinion, minority as it certainly is. Can you give me a source for this? Please reference a single human document, asserting such a right, and agreed to by a significant number of countries.

NOTE: The profanity is a bit childish. I am happy to use it on occasion but in this case you have just managed to sound confrontational and boorishly low.
#15047509
@Sivad , are you saying that it is basic human intuition that we re able to cross freely into wherever we want to go? I've never really felt that way. I think we are not that much unlike pack animals, right; we have a natural concept of territory and delineations between one another. We are in competition over the same resources after all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The founding fathers allowed non-citizens to enter the country without any problem, and even gave them voting rights.

Since you support what the founding fathers did, can we assume you are in full support of those policies?


The United States allowed for non-citizens to become citizens without a problem if they met certain criteria.

Even the famous Constitutionalist scholar and abolitionist St. George Tucker spoke as a matter of fact that blacks, mulattoes, and Indians could never be citizens nor could they ever expect the right to vote, and suggested that they be highly regulated, not permitted to bear arms (as well), and that they should be encouraged to immigrate to other climes.

Are you suggesting that I embrace such a perspective?

Your idea of natural law is based entirely on US culture, it seems. @Sivad is probably referring to an objective moral code instead.


My concept of natural law is... limited. I believe that there are human rights that are granted by God -- for instance, the right to life, and the right to not be tortured or mutilated, the right to a fair trial, the right to one's own property, the right to be free from attempts on the sexual chastity of oneself and of one's spouse and family, the right to freedom of one's conscience, and, I think, but am not sure to what extent, the right to free speech, self-defense, and to what extent property can be accumulated.

I try to base this only on Biblical knowledge and the knowledge I glean from Saints.

Do you think indigenous approaches to land ownership are like this racist caricature that you presented?


You must not have been following the conversation.

What I stated was meant to make a mockery of Sivad's position on the right to wander wherever.

I am no expert on how native Americans regulated these things, and it would seem doubtful t hat many people can truly know for sure since they provided no written records in north America that go back far.

I would assume that they functioned like other tribes, and that "no one owns the land" and "wander about freely" would be just as alien to them as to the Europeans. They are a collection of ideas that Communists came up with later.
#15047513
Verv wrote:The United States allowed for non-citizens to become citizens without a problem if they met certain criteria.

Even the famous Constitutionalist scholar and abolitionist St. George Tucker spoke as a matter of fact that blacks, mulattoes, and Indians could never be citizens nor could they ever expect the right to vote, and suggested that they be highly regulated, not permitted to bear arms (as well), and that they should be encouraged to immigrate to other climes.

Are you suggesting that I embrace such a perspective?


You probably already do.

Now, answer the question: do you support the same immigration laws as the founding fathers?

My concept of natural law is... limited. I believe that there are human rights that are granted by God -- for instance, the right to life, and the right to not be tortured or mutilated, the right to a fair trial, the right to one's own property, the right to be free from attempts on the sexual chastity of oneself and of one's spouse and family, the right to freedom of one's conscience, and, I think, but am not sure to what extent, the right to free speech, self-defense, and to what extent property can be accumulated.

I try to base this only on Biblical knowledge and the knowledge I glean from Saints.


Your idea of natural law is based entirely on US culture, it seems. @Sivad is probably referring to an objective moral code instead.

You must not have been following the conversation.

What I stated was meant to make a mockery of Sivad's position on the right to wander wherever.

I am no expert on how native Americans regulated these things, and it would seem doubtful t hat many people can truly know for sure since they provided no written records in north America that go back far.

I would assume that they functioned like other tribes, and that "no one owns the land" and "wander about freely" would be just as alien to them as to the Europeans. They are a collection of ideas that Communists came up with later.


Oh, it was a poor attempt at a racist joke. I see.

I just assumed you were not making a joke and simply saying something racist.

————————

So, to summarise what we have learned in this thread:

1. Sanctuary cities are not more dangerous than other cities, despite the fact that undocumented migrants are allowed to roam freely.
2. It is not a crime to be in the US illegally and thus undocumented migrants are not necessarily criminals.
3. Breitbart has made erroneous or deliberately misleading claims about immigrants and crime.

From this we can infer that the relationship between undocumented migrants and crime is weak and/or spurious at best.
#15047517
Sivad wrote:every motherfucker on this planet has every fucking right to migrate and settle wherever the fuck they please. that's a fundamental human right.


Image

Sorry bro, gonna have to respectfully push back on this as well. Maybe you were drunk posting?

You may think it's a human right, but it is my understanding that governments, states, municipalities, tribes, whatever would probably disagree with you on that.
#15047526
Pants-of-dog wrote:You probably already do.

Now, answer the question: do you support the same immigration laws as the founding fathers?


What were the immigration laws of the Founding Fathers? I am aware of their laws concerning naturalization, and I recently read the taxation policies that they had on imported slaves and such, but I am not completely sure what the immigration laws were.

Your idea of natural law is based entirely on US culture, it seems. @Sivad is probably referring to an objective moral code instead.


I would have taken the concept of my idea of natural law being based on US law to the idea that it would have been based on the philosophy of John Locke later clarified by guys like St. George Tucker, John Calhoun, etc., all the way down to guys like Pat Buchanan (Paleoconservative) and William F. Buckley Jr. (Neocon).

I do not see my ideas as being part of this chain of thought so I think you have made an error.

Oh, it was a poor attempt at a racist joke. I see.

I just assumed you were not making a joke and simply saying something racist.


:lol: Would it be racist to make fun of 17th century white people? Of course not.

You are so sensitive, Pants.

So, to summarise what we have learned in this thread:

1. Sanctuary cities are not more dangerous than other cities, despite the fact that undocumented migrants are allowed to roam freely.
2. It is not a crime to be in the US illegally and thus undocumented migrants are not necessarily criminals.
3. Breitbart has made erroneous or deliberately misleading claims about immigrants and crime.

From this we can infer that the relationship between undocumented migrants and crime is weak and/or spurious at best.


(1) The list of sanctuary cities is actually quite long. The list of the most violent cities in the US includes cities that would be considered among the 50 most violent cities in the world (Check it out on Wikipeida, it's pretty wild).

This isn't actually an accomplishment.

Due to very weird politics, the state of North Dakota is considered a sanctuary city. No doubt, some NGO that no North Dakotan would ever support has somehow finagled its way into a position of influence. Just an observation.

(2) LOL, "It's a civic code violation!"

They can haul you before a judge and ban you from entering the country for 10 years, separating you from yoru family (who likely loves American welfare more than they love you).

But... it's not a crime. And these are not criminals.

It's a ... civil offense.

The fact that this asinine & ridiculous argument is still showing up is a bit frustrating but, what can we do?

(3) Where?
#15047566
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already shown that claim to be false in this thread.

It is not a crime to be in the USA illegally. Not all things that are illegal are criminal offenses.


You need to wrap your head around the fact that no one in the United States really gives a flying fuck about a Canadian's opinion when it comes to American laws...

During his presidential campaign.


No, he did not, and I defy you to link to a video or news article in which he's quoted saying that...

The founding fathers allowed non-citizens to enter the country without any problem, and even gave them voting rights.


We didn't have immigration laws to break back in the late 1700's, so your "point", such that it is, falls flat and is meaningless...

Since you support what the founding fathers did, can we assume you are in full support of those policies?


I support the rule of law as it is now. The founding fathers owned black people, too. I guess you believe that, since the founding father did it then that we should be able to do it now. After all, if they did it, it should be okay, right?
#15047567
Pants-of-dog wrote:From this we can infer that the relationship between undocumented migrants and crime is weak and/or spurious at best.


Please.

I could spend the rest of the weekend posting examples of illegal aliens committing crimes in the United States...
#15047568
BigSteve wrote:
I could spend the rest of the weekend posting examples of illegal aliens committing crimes in the United States...



What you couldn't do is post relevant statistics that support your silliness.

Keeping millions in an underclass is your way of promoting crime.
#15047571
late wrote:What you couldn't do is post relevant statistics that support your silliness.

Keeping millions in an underclass is your way of promoting crime.


If illegal aliens are the underclass, then the only place I want to keep them is back where they fucking came from...
#15047574
Verv wrote:What were the immigration laws of the Founding Fathers? I am aware of their laws concerning naturalization, and I recently read the taxation policies that they had on imported slaves and such, but I am not completely sure what the immigration laws were.


You are the one who argued that we should do as the founding fathers did. Now you seem to be saying that you do not know what they did.

I suggest knowing what you are proposing before you propose it.

I would have taken the concept of my idea of natural law being based on US law to the idea that it would have been based on the philosophy of John Locke later clarified by guys like St. George Tucker, John Calhoun, etc., all the way down to guys like Pat Buchanan (Paleoconservative) and William F. Buckley Jr. (Neocon).

I do not see my ideas as being part of this chain of thought so I think you have made an error.


This is all irrelevant.

:lol: Would it be racist to make fun of 17th century white people? Of course not.

You are so sensitive, Pants.


So far, this post of yours has been completely without argument.

(1) The list of sanctuary cities is actually quite long. The list of the most violent cities in the US includes cities that would be considered among the 50 most violent cities in the world (Check it out on Wikipeida, it's pretty wild).

This isn't actually an accomplishment.

Due to very weird politics, the state of North Dakota is considered a sanctuary city. No doubt, some NGO that no North Dakotan would ever support has somehow finagled its way into a position of influence. Just an observation.


It does not matter what your limited observation is. This exact question was studied and the results were that sanctuary cities are not more dangerous. Feel free to address the study if you think there is an error.

(2) LOL, "It's a civic code violation!"

They can haul you before a judge and ban you from entering the country for 10 years, separating you from yoru family (who likely loves American welfare more than they love you).

But... it's not a crime. And these are not criminals.

It's a ... civil offense.

The fact that this asinine & ridiculous argument is still showing up is a bit frustrating but, what can we do?


Yes, we all know your feelings about the word. As I said, this wording if yours is almost certainly an appeal to emotion, like when Trump called Mexicans rapists.

(3) Where?


In this thread.

——————————

@BigSteve

Since you do not have an argument or an intelligent criticism, there is no point replying to your post.

If you wish to keep posting anecdotes, feel free.

They serve the same function as Trump’s accusation that Mexicans are rapists: appeal to emotion.
#15047576
BigSteve wrote:
If illegal aliens are the underclass, then the only place I want to keep them is back where they fucking came from...



Still stuck in that fantasy world..
#15047581
Pants-of-dog wrote:@BigSteve

Since you do not have an argument or an intelligent criticism, there is no point replying to your post.

If you wish to keep posting anecdotes, feel free.

They serve the same function as Trump’s accusation that Mexicans are rapists: appeal to emotion.


My intelligent criticism is that your opinion on American matters is meaningless. Nobody here cares what you think or how you feel.

Now, you've argued that, since the founding fathers allowed non-citizens in that we should do the same.

The founding fathers also owned slaves. Do you think we should do that, too?
#15047591
BigSteve wrote:If illegal aliens are the underclass, then the only place I want to keep them is back where they fucking came from...


I wonder where your ancestors came from. They should have not come to the USA to lower the standard of debate discourse in political fora filled with people who are not from the USA....because the little stevie wants only his kind of people commenting.

I wish someone would take an intelligence pill. Any topic you enter is the kiss of death for intelligent discussion. It is all b.s.

Lol. Literally B.S.

The only Steve worth mentioning is this one: (And he is not a Republican). Lol.

Es una historia---donde Big Steve se calla la boca,

Y al final hay discurso inteligente,

Lejos de sus comentarios atontados,

Es una historia que si se calla, la boca,

El dialogo por fin mejorara....pero el no quiere,

Es un hombre con un problema.....un problema serio....

Buscando pleitos,

Pleitecitos....lol.

Lol. You don't speak Spanish B.S. You are not for that kind of work. Hee hee.

Google translate won't help you. I will flush you out....with that fib. Hee hee.

  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 17
Chaos in the South China Sea

The South China Sea is considered an extremely uns[…]

What is happening in Iran?

https://cofda.files.wordpress.co[…]

Despite the proven fact that the Kuril Islands bel[…]

As it is known, the Korean Peninsula remains a sou[…]