San Francisco is terrible

[DC Tom]

22 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Try again

 

You keep saying it's illegal because well nation state meh Murcia

 

That's not a reason lol. 

 

U can't say someone should be illegal because meh illegal

 

 

Again

 

If a person from Mexico can be given a ss# ( taxes etc) and we did a quick background check

 

Why would you not let them in?

 

That is a reason.  The only reason anything is illegal is because it is against the law.  That is what "illegal" means, you !@#$ing dumbass. 

 

And the legal precedent for the past 400 years was set by the Peace of Westphalia, which defined the idea of sovereign states.  And part of that definition - the very bedrock, in fact - is the principle that sovereign states have the right and ability to enforce their own borders how they see fit.
 

So again...you're doing nothing more than argue against the legal concept of "sovereign state," which would be "acceptably" stupid if you were open and honest about it.  But instead you're using completely inapplicable analogies that demonstrate you have no !@#$ing idea what even your own position on the subject is, let alone anyone else's.  That takes you from "acceptably" stupid to "Holy ****, I didn't even know it was possible for anyone to be this ignorant."  

 

Which is why you get nothing but mockery here.  You're not even trying to discuss anything, you're just a brain-damaged little monkey !@#$ing around on a computer keyboard.  Now stop your !@#$ery, go back to the infinite monkey pool, and send us the one that's writing Shakespeare, goddammit.

[westerndecline]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That is a reason.  The only reason anything is illegal is because it is against the law.  That is what "illegal" means, you !@#$ing dumbass. 

 

And the legal precedent for the past 400 years was set by the Peace of Westphalia, which defined the idea of sovereign states.  And part of that definition - the very bedrock, in fact - is the principle that sovereign states have the right and ability to enforce their own borders how they see fit.
 

So again...you're doing nothing more than argue against the legal concept of "sovereign state," which would be "acceptably" stupid if you were open and honest about it.  But instead you're using completely inapplicable analogies that demonstrate you have no !@#$ing idea what even your own position on the subject is, let alone anyone else's.  That takes you from "acceptably" stupid to "Holy ****, I didn't even know it was possible for anyone to be this ignorant."  

 

Which is why you get nothing but mockery here.  You're not even trying to discuss anything, you're just a brain-damaged little monkey !@#$ing around on a computer keyboard.  Now stop your !@#$ery, go back to the infinite monkey pool, and send us the one that's writing Shakespeare, goddammit.

Omg u just did it again

 

I'm going to write this in 3 rd grade

 

You.

Can't.

Say.

A person.

 Is.

Illegal.

 Because.

They .

Are .

Illegal.

 

And wrong again Tom, laws are not laws by fiat lol. A law isn't just meh a law, ( there's a thing called a reason or justification) - this is why we have a thing called court..... ?????

 

Wtf are u smoking

 

Now

Nobody is arguing ( Tom) against the sovereignty of a nation state....................................

 

 

A state can if it wants not let ppl over 6 ft in, or men in etc. Nobody is questioning that ability to enforce the border

 

IM ASKING WHY??????

 

do u get it now?

 

Again answer the question or u r simply retarded or a TROLL...

 

 

A person from Mexico wants to come here, why won't u let them?

Edited December 5, 2017 by westerndecline

[njbuff]

If you wanna be a serial killer and are an illegal alien, SF is the place for you as NOTHING will be done to you.

[westerndecline]

1 hour ago, njbuff said:

If you wanna be a serial killer and are an illegal alien, SF is the place for you as NOTHING will be done to you.

And if you're a serial killer and legal citizen u can still go to San Francisco

 

Guess what happens when they go to San Francisco?

 

News flash

 

They're still a serial killer.....

 

[LeviF]

17 hours ago, westerndecline said:

Now

Nobody is arguing ( Tom) against the sovereignty of a nation state....................................

 

 

A state can if it wants not let ppl over 6 ft in, or men in etc. Nobody is questioning that ability to enforce the border

 

IM ASKING WHY??????

 

 

 

You are arguing against the sovereignty of a nation state by saying that the state shouldn't disallow people from coming into their country simply because they don't want them.  Borders and barriers to citizenship are two of the most important distinctions of a nation state.  Its sovereignty hangs on both being strong.

[row_33]

build your gates nice and high

 

teach your children not to associate with people that can destroy them with drugs or bullets

 

[westerndecline]

6 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

You are arguing against the sovereignty of a nation state by saying that the state shouldn't disallow people from coming into their country simply because they don't want them.  Borders and barriers to citizenship are two of the most important distinctions of a nation state.  Its sovereignty hangs on both being strong.

You're still not getting it. Of course a nation can simply and arbitrarily say we don't want you. Just like they can decide randomly they only want beautiful blondes 

 

I'm saying that's not a reason founded in reality. There's a reason drunk driving is against the law.

 

There is no reason to keep out ppl from Mexico.... ( notice there is no wall talk about Canada)....

 

You're proving my point that this whole legal/ illegal talk is code racism.

 

The real truth is people don't want more Spanish Brown ppl in their land. They just don't have the guts to say it.

 

 

6 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

You are arguing against the sovereignty of a nation state by saying that the state shouldn't disallow people from coming into their country simply because they don't want them.  Borders and barriers to citizenship are two of the most important distinctions of a nation state.  Its sovereignty hangs on both being strong.

If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, then obviously you would make them legal, correct?

 

They want to be here and you give them a ss for tax reasons

 

 

Right?

You need to come up with a reason

 

U can't say, " they can't come in because well mehh, I decided they can't come in "lol.

 

 

[row_33]

do you mean for a visit to watch the Sabres and buy something at the Galleria Mall

 

or

 

entering the US on short or long-term business purposes

 

or

 

entering the US permanently in a legal capacity

 

or

 

entering the US under a refugee claim?

 

[westerndecline]

4 minutes ago, row_33 said:

do you mean for a visit to watch the Sabres and buy something at the Galleria Mall

 

or

 

entering the US on short or long-term business purposes

 

or

 

entering the US permanently in a legal capacity

 

or

 

entering the US under a refugee claim?

 

Permanent status

 

This was already discussed way earlier

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

You're still not getting it. Of course a nation can simply and arbitrarily say we don't want you. Just like they can decide randomly they only want beautiful blondes 

 

I'm saying that's not a reason founded in reality. There's a reason drunk driving is against the law.

 

There is no reason to keep out ppl from Mexico.... ( notice there is no wall talk about Canada)....

 

You're proving my point that this whole legal/ illegal talk is code racism.

 

The real truth is people don't want more Spanish Brown ppl in their land. They just don't have the guts to say it.

 

 

If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, then obviously you would make them legal, correct?

 

They want to be here and you give them a ss for tax reasons

 

 

Right?

You need to come up with a reason

 

U can't say, " they can't come in because well mehh, I decided they can't come in "lol.

 

 

I don't want more Spanish brown people in my country if they come here illegally.

[westerndecline]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't want more Spanish brown people in my country if they come here illegally.

Lol

Touche

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, westerndecline said:

Permanent status

 

This was already discussed way earlier

I don't think this was really discussed but you did make some sweeping statements.

[LeviF]

28 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

You're still not getting it. Of course a nation can simply and arbitrarily say we don't want you. Just like they can decide randomly they only want beautiful blondes 

 

I'm saying that's not a reason founded in reality. There's a reason drunk driving is against the law.

 

There is no reason to keep out ppl from Mexico.... ( notice there is no wall talk about Canada)....

 

You're proving my point that this whole legal/ illegal talk is code racism.

 

The real truth is people don't want more Spanish Brown ppl in their land. They just don't have the guts to say it.

 

 

 

 

Borders exist for a reason - they reflect differences in culture and values.  Mexico, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic.  Canada, as another example, does not have guarantees of free speech or religion, and the Canadian people seem largely ok with this.  I am not Catholic, and I enjoy the Constitutional protections my rights are afforded by the First Amendment.  I would oppose millions of people from either country being allowed to come here and vote without any sort of barrier simply because people's values influence their voting.

 

In any case, you're creating a false dichotomy; your drunk driving analogy falls flat when you realize that in order for it to work, immigration on its own must be illegal.  This is not the case.  There are avenues from people all over the world from hundreds of countries to immigrate to the United States. 

 

28 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, then obviously you would make them legal, correct?

 

They want to be here and you give them a ss for tax reasons

 

 

Right?

You need to come up with a reason

 

U can't say, " they can't come in because well mehh, I decided they can't come in "lol.

 

 

 

Wrong.  If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, the state enforces the laws that create barriers to citizenship/permanent status, not just "make them legal."  Just "making them legal" makes your barriers and borders irrelevant because you've abandoned your protection of them.

 

And yes, you can say "they can't come in because I decided they can't come in" if you're a sovereign state.  Just like I can say that people can't come into my home because I've decided they can't come in.  That's the point of sovereignty.  I don't need a logical reason, neither does the state.  Not all laws are based on hard and fast logic, and neither the Constitution nor the courts say they need to be.

[westerndecline]

5 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Borders exist for a reason - they reflect differences in culture and values.  Mexico, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic.  Canada, as another example, does not have guarantees of free speech or religion, and the Canadian people seem largely ok with this.  I am not Catholic, and I enjoy the Constitutional protections my rights are afforded by the First Amendment.  I would oppose millions of people from either country being allowed to come here and vote without any sort of barrier simply because people's values influence their voting.

 

In any case, you're creating a false dichotomy; your drunk driving analogy falls flat when you realize that in order for it to work, immigration on its own must be illegal.  This is not the case.  There are avenues from people all over the world from hundreds of countries to immigrate to the United States. 

 

 

Wrong.  If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, the state enforces the laws that create barriers to citizenship/permanent status, not just "make them legal."  Just "making them legal" makes your barriers and borders irrelevant because you've abandoned your protection of them.

 

And yes, you can say "they can't come in because I decided they can't come in" if you're a sovereign state.  Just like I can say that people can't come into my home because I've decided they can't come in.  That's the point of sovereignty.  I don't need a logical reason, neither does the state.  Not all laws are based on hard and fast logic, and neither the Constitution nor the courts say they need to be.

Would you oppose someone who is a democrat going from California to Texas? 

 

Are u saying that liberals from Mexico can't become citizens in the US?

 

This simply goes back to what I've already said, 

 

You can't say people are not allowed because wahh I said so. U don't convict ppl in court because you said so. 

 

By your logic liberals should have their citizenship revoked. If u can grant it based on political affiliation you can take it away. Of course this is logistically impossible. Ppl can lie.

 

So basically you want to spy on citizens to see their true opinion on unions or taxes lol. U r talking about civil war if things become that divided.

 

 

Again I'll give you another opportunity

 

If a normal person from Mexico comes to the border

 

Why would you not give them a ss# and background check for citizenship?

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Borders exist for a reason - they reflect differences in culture and values.  Mexico, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic.  Canada, as another example, does not have guarantees of free speech or religion, and the Canadian people seem largely ok with this.  I am not Catholic, and I enjoy the Constitutional protections my rights are afforded by the First Amendment.  I would oppose millions of people from either country being allowed to come here and vote without any sort of barrier simply because people's values influence their voting.

 

In any case, you're creating a false dichotomy; your drunk driving analogy falls flat when you realize that in order for it to work, immigration on its own must be illegal.  This is not the case.  There are avenues from people all over the world from hundreds of countries to immigrate to the United States. 

 

 

Wrong.  If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, the state enforces the laws that create barriers to citizenship/permanent status, not just "make them legal."  Just "making them legal" makes your barriers and borders irrelevant because you've abandoned your protection of them.

 

And yes, you can say "they can't come in because I decided they can't come in" if you're a sovereign state.  Just like I can say that people can't come into my home because I've decided they can't come in.  That's the point of sovereignty.  I don't need a logical reason, neither does the state.  Not all laws are based on hard and fast logic, and neither the Constitution nor the courts say they need to be.

It's vital to note, in regards to the desire in some circles for greatly enhanced border security on our Southern border without matching enthusiasm for similar actions to be taken with our neighbor to the North, that you don't put band-aids in places you aren't bleeding.  We don't have an immigration problem with Canada. 

[westerndecline]

The Catholic example makes no sense

 

The US government is neutral on religious affiliation. It's called the first amendment.

 

 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Would you oppose someone who is a democrat going from California to Texas? 

 

Are u saying that liberals from Mexico can't become citizens in the US?

 

This simply goes back to what I've already said, 

 

You can't say people are not allowed because wahh I said so. U don't convict ppl in court because you said so. 

 

By your logic liberals should have their citizenship revoked. If u can grant it based on political affiliation you can take it away. Of course this is logistically impossible. Ppl can lie.

 

So basically you want to spy on citizens to see their true opinion on unions or taxes lol. U r talking about civil war if things become that divided.

 

 

Why can't you follow the logic?  When did I say anything about "liberals"? Or spying on people?  Or restricting travel within a nation?  California and Texas aren't sovereign; your comparison is a non-sequitur, just like your drunk driving analogy.

[westerndecline]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's vital to note, in regards to the desire in some circles for greatly enhanced border security on our Southern border without matching enthusiasm for similar actions to be taken with our neighbor to the North, that you don't put band-aids in places you aren't bleeding.  We don't have an immigration problem with Canada. 

You're saying it's an " immigration problem" because you don't want them here.

 

 

Why?

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Why can't you follow the logic?  When did I say anything about "liberals"? Or spying on people?  Or restricting travel within a nation?  California and Texas aren't sovereign; your comparison is a non-sequitur, just like your drunk driving analogy.

It's not a non sequitur, why?

 

Because you have not demonstrated a reason to not let ppl in.

 

You want the law to say, ppl from Mexico can't come here , well, because I said so.

 

 

Again give me a real justification besides begging the question and I'll grant your conclusions match your premise, which u have not provided

And again nobody is denying sovereignty

 

A nation can reject a citizen because he has a low iq

 

 

You won't even give a reason

 

Which goes to my previous point about coded racism

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

 

It's not a non sequitur, why?

 

Because you have not demonstrated a reason to not let ppl in.

 

You want the law to say, ppl from Mexico can't come here , well, because I said so.

 

 

Again give me a real justification besides begging the question and I'll grant your conclusions match your premise, which u have not provided

 

I have given you one justification, you just don't like it.  If you don't like the way the laws are, lobby and vote to change them.  It's a non-sequitur because travelling from California to Texas is fundamentally different from travelling from Mexico or Canada or wherever to the United States.  There's no comparison to be made until California or Texas secedes, as they are wont to threaten to do.

 

I never said I want the law to say people from Mexico can't come here.  Please supply a quote if I did.

 

And if you really want to have fun with google-fu internet forum fallacies, here's one for you: motte and bailey.  It's a game you've been playing for four pages in this thread.

[westerndecline]

Notice the trump travel ban in the middle east has a reason

 

 

U won't even give a reason

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

I have given you one justification, you just don't like it.  If you don't like the way the laws are, lobby and vote to change them.  It's a non-sequitur because travelling from California to Texas is fundamentally different from travelling from Mexico or Canada or wherever to the United States.  There's no comparison to be made until California or Texas secedes, as they are wont to threaten to do.

 

I never said I want the law to say people from Mexico can't come here.  Please supply a quote if I did.

 

And if you really want to have fun with google-fu internet forum fallacies, here's one for you: motte and bailey.  It's a game you've been playing for four pages in this thread.

Your reason was culture and politics about free speech

 

 

The other was because you said so

 

So if a person from Mexico ( different culture) and was (a liberal democrat)

 

Would you reject their citizenship?