Kaepernick and the National Anthem

[Kelly the Dog]

No, they don't.

Show me where it says the US Government must allow immigration. Anywhere.

That is not the point.

 

If Richard Spencer is an immigration officer. And several Africans go through the entire immigration process and pass everything and all they need is a stamp from Richard Spencer but he says no and they are not provided their legal papers and citizenship, it would eventually go to court and the judge would rule Richard Spencer deprived these people of their rights.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If they pass the test and go through all of the requirements they do. I know he's your hero but he said he would stop them if they went through the whole legal process.

You have an odd way of being civil, what with your injection of ugly accusations in nearly every post you make. One might think you were incapable of making arguments without making baseless charges and acting like a ****ty person in general. I wish you'd stop doing that, because civility will either be a two way street or it won't be a street at all.

 

Moving on, hopefully with a willing partner, no, they still wouldn't have the right to be here. They would have the privilege of being here, which is something considerably different, and can be revoked. One of the ways it could be revoked is with a change to our immigration policy to reflect the preferences of Richard Spencer. And that would be ****ty, and would not be in service of America's interests, but it would not be in violation of anyone's rights.

[BringBackOrton]

That is not the point.

 

If Richard Spencer is an immigration officer. And several Africans go through the entire immigration process and pass everything and all they need is a stamp from Richard Spencer but he says no and they are not provided their legal papers and citizenship, it would eventually go to court and the judge would rule Richard Spencer deprived these people of their rights.

When you use specific language like "rights," it is the point. Immigration is not an inalienable right guaranteed by our government.

[Kelly the Dog]

You have an odd way of being civil, what with your injection of ugly accusations in nearly every post you make. One might think you were incapable of making arguments without making baseless charges and acting like a ****ty person in general. I wish you'd stop doing that, because civility will either be a two way street or it won't be a street at all.

Moving on, hopefully with a willing partner, no, they still wouldn't have the right to be here. They would have the privilege of being here, which is something considerably different, and can be revoked. One of the ways it could be revoked is with a change to our immigration policy to reflect the preferences of Richard Spencer. And that would be ****ty, and would not be in service of America's interests, but it would not be in violation of anyone's rights.

If he prevented a person from being here, which is what he is saying he would like to be doing, yes it would be a privilege but they would also automatically have all kinds of rights which they don't have because he would have illegally been keeping them out. So he is preventing them from those rights.

When you use specific language like "rights," it is the point. Immigration is not an inalienable right guaranteed by our government.

If you want to get technical, then he is violating the inalienable human rights bequeathed in the constitution of pursuit of happiness.

 

He would be stopping all Africans. You don't have to be allowed into the country. That's why I used the example of several Africans. A court would surely rule their rights were violated.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If he prevented a person from being here, which is what he is saying he would like to be doing, yes it would be a privilege but they would also automatically have all kinds of rights which they don't have because he would have illegally been keeping them out. So he is preventing them from those rights.

He's a politician trying to grow a political movement. He's making his case for his policy preferences.

 

He's saying "If I were in charge this is what I would do."

 

He's not calling for anything illegal to be done, so no, he's still not advocating for the violation of anyone's rights.

 

Further, coming to America would not bestow rights upon anyone. It would afford them the protection of rights they already possessed, and it would grant them privlieges of residence.

Edited September 28, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Kelly the Dog]

He's a politician trying to grow a political movement. He's making his case for his policy preferences.

He's saying "If I were in charge this is what I would do."

He's not calling for anything illegal to be done, so no, he's still not advocating for the suspensions of anyone's rights.

Keeping all people of one color out of the country is not illegal? Then why are there court fights and wins and losses from both sides on that exact point right now?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Keeping all people of one color out of the country is not illegal? Then why are there court fights and wins and losses from both sides on that exact point right now?

Again, he's advocating policy preference.

 

Current immigration law is not immutable; and non-citizens do not have the right to be in the country.

 

He's speaking about his vision for the future, in which policy and law are changed to enable his preferences.

 

And it's grotesque, but it's not a violation of anyone's rights.

[DC Tom]

Keeping all people of one color out of the country is not illegal? Then why are there court fights and wins and losses from both sides on that exact point right now?

 

It actually isn't. Hell, the US immigration system still works on a quota system. That's one of the reasons the Democratic Party supports illegal immigration - they can't get the quotas changed.

 

Really, the US immigration system is far more !@#$ed up than most people realize.

[Kelly the Dog]

It actually isn't. Hell, the US immigration system still works on a quota system. That's one of the reasons the Democratic Party supports illegal immigration - they can't get the quotas changed.

 

Really, the US immigration system is far more !@#$ed up than most people realize.

I didn't say it, but I thought it was implicit, that I was taking quotas out of the hypothetical. Of course not everyone is allowed in that deserves to be. I was saying, and if I wasn't clear before I am trying to be now, that if there was room for these immigrants, they haven't reached the quota yet, a large number are being let in but Spencer stops only the blacks, which is what he stated he wanted to do, that he would be denying them their rights.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I didn't say it, but I thought it was implicit, that I was taking quotas out of the hypothetical. Of course not everyone is allowed in that deserves to be. I was saying, and if I wasn't clear before I am trying to be now, that if there was room for these immigrants, they haven't reached the quota yet, a large number are being let in but Spencer stops only the blacks, which is what he stated he wanted to do, that he would be denying them their rights.

Again, current immigration law is not immutable, and non-citizens don't have the right to be in America.

 

If Richard Spencer, and a Congress full of like minded individuals, were elected tomorrow and changed all relevant laws, statutes, and policies to bring about his preferences regarding immigration he would not have violated anyone's rights.

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, current immigration law is not immutable, and non-citizens don't have the right to be in America.

If Richard Spencer, and a Congress full of like minded individuals, were elected tomorrow and changed all relevant laws, statutes, and policies to bring about his preferences regarding immigration he would not have violated anyone's rights.

He didn't say anything about changing laws. He said I would just keep all Africans out. And allow large amounts of white boat people in. Nothing about working with congress or changing laws. Just doing it because it is his preference.

 

Which would be ruled by the courts imo violating their rights.

Serious question. If Spencer were an immigration officer as in my hypothetical earlier. And say he kept 50 out of 50 -Africans out who passed all of their requirements - and there was room for them - and these people complained, and it was found out to be true and he even admitted it to be true, he seems to have no problem with that. What do you believe the courts would say as what he did illegal? He didn't violate any rights at all?

[TakeYouToTasker]

He didn't say anything about changing laws. He said I would just keep all Africans out. And allow large amounts of white boat people in. Nothing about working with congress or changing laws. Just doing it because it is his preference.

He's leading a political movement. He's a politician. He's espousing preferred policy, and hasn't called for the violation of anyone's rights. You'll note that he doesn't advocate for the forced ejection of US citizens.

 

That's how politics works.

[DC Tom]

He didn't say anything about changing laws. He said I would just keep all Africans out. And allow large amounts of white boat people in. Nothing about working with congress or changing laws. Just doing it because it is his preference.

 

Which would be ruled by the courts imo violating their rights.

Serious question. If Spencer were an immigration officer as in my hypothetical earlier. And say he kept 50 out of 50 -Africans out who passed all of their requirements - and there was room for them - and these people complained, and it was found out to be true and he even admitted it to be true, he seems to have no problem with that. What do you believe the courts would say as what he did illegal? He didn't violate any rights at all?

 

"White boat people?" White people fly.

 

And no, "the courts" would not find what he did illegal in that hypothetical. A court would, and I'm pretty sure that case would be venue-shopped until one was found (and it would be extremely easy to find - jurisdiction would fall to the district court covering the places of residence of those immigrants, which would almost certainly be urban and hence liberal.) But there's a good chance that court's ruling would be incorrect.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Serious question. If Spencer were an immigration officer as in my hypothetical earlier. And say he kept 50 out of 50 -Africans out who passed all of their requirements - and there was room for them - and these people complained, and it was found out to be true and he even admitted it to be true, he seems to have no problem with that. What do you believe the courts would say as what he did illegal? He didn't violate any rights at all?

In that circumstance, yes.

 

Buts he's not an immigration officer, nor is he seeking a job as an immigration officer. He imagines himself to be a visionary, is growing a political movement, and is articulating the ideas and ideals of that movement.

 

That is the context in which Richard Spencer exists.

Edited September 28, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Kelly the Dog]

He's leading a political movement. He's a politician. He's espousing preferred policy, and hasn't called for the violation of anyone's rights. You'll note that he doesn't advocate for the forced ejection of US citizens.

That's how politics works.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm not. Other times I am as you know. But if you are going to take everything that Richard Spencer says and put it into that prism, that he is a politician and he isn't talking about himself or what he wants, then it's kind of a ridiculous question IMO to ask someone to give an example of him denying any rights. Very little any politician would say would not fall under that umbrella.

"White boat people?" White people fly.

 

And no, "the courts" would not find what he did illegal in that hypothetical. A court would, and I'm pretty sure that case would be venue-shopped until one was found (and it would be extremely easy to find - jurisdiction would fall to the district court covering the places of residence of those immigrants, which would almost certainly be urban and hence liberal.) But there's a good chance that court's ruling would be incorrect.

 

Swedes, too! Thousands of Swedish boat people that wash up ashore he would just let right in with no questions.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm not. Other times I am as you know. But if you are going to take everything that Richard Spencer says and put it into that prism, that he is a politician and he isn't talking about himself or what he wants, then it's kind of a ridiculous question IMO to ask someone to give an example of him denying any rights. Very little any politician would say would not fall under that umbrella.

The Alt-Right is a undeniably a political movement, and Richard Spencer is one of it's leaders. Of course he's a politician.

 

And now you're getting it. He's making protected political speech, and is not violating anyone's rights. He's not even advocating for the future violation of anyone's rights.

Edited September 28, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Kelly the Dog]

The Alt-Right is a undeniably a political movement, and Richard Spencer is one of it's leaders. Of course he's a politician.

And now you're getting it. He's making protected political speech, and is not violating anyone's rights. He's not even advocating for the future violation of anyone's rights.

I'm not getting it. You are the one taking everything he says as political. I'm taking it personal because it is so personally offensive. I said it's kind of dumb of you to ask the question of anyone to provide an example of violating right when YOU are taking everything he says as political and every answer you give protects him.

[Rob's House]

I'm not getting it. You are the one taking everything he says as political. I'm taking it personal because it is so personally offensive. I said it's kind of dumb of you to ask the question of anyone to provide an example of violating right when YOU are taking everything he says as political and every answer you give protects him.

The point he's making is that there's a difference between suspending the existing rights of citizens and passing legislation that would affect the privileges currently available to certain people.

 

It's not a defense of Richard Spencer, it's just drawing a distinction between two concepts that are not analogous. It doesn't mean either is right.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm not getting it. You are the one taking everything he says as political. I'm taking it personal because it is so personally offensive. I said it's kind of dumb of you to ask the question of anyone to provide an example of violating right when YOU are taking everything he says as political and every answer you give protects him.

But you don't get to make that call, and your personal offense does not somehow strip away protections on political speech no matter how opposed you are to someone's ideas.

 

What you are doing is engaging in a special pleading fallacy because you find the philosophy of the Alt-Right particularly appalling, and you want the rules to be different for his ideas than for others.

 

And that's not how this works.

 

Finally, I'm not protecting Richard Spencer. The United States Constitution protects Richard Spencer just as it protects you, me, Colin Kaepernick, and everybody else who can lay claim to US citizenship; and the protections it provides are only good when they protect all of us equally, under the law.

Edited September 28, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

ROGER SIMON: Kneeling for a Self-Deceiving Lie.

Read the whole thing.