*Liberals have a far better record of reaching a compromise; meaning the deportation of illegal immigrants, avoiding amnesty but also providing a path to citizenship for the truly expectation illegals immigrants.
I am also against illegal immigration but living in southern California a lot of my friends are illegal immigrants that came here as kids, knowing nothing but America. Any laws that are supported by the tea party that are mean spirited and aimed to punish these kids severs any alliance we could have had. Liberals are far better record of reaching a comprising agree that deports and avoids amnesty be also provide a path to citizenship for expectational illegals.
This not only struck home on the illegal immigration problem, but also on the concept of giving land back to the people who had it before? WHAT WITCHCRAFT IS THIS?!?
Legal immigration in Western countries should be restricted to half of what it is today or restricted to only fellow Westerners. The Western World is being overrun by non white immigration - miscegenation is the result.
However, before you call me a racist for being against miscegenation and legal non white immigration - need I remind you that this is the true method of diversity.
@BIoodrunk Integration is only bad if it's forced; separation is only good if it isn't. Before I call you a "racist" or "anti-American", need I remind you that words like "overrun" and "true method" make you sound woefully xenophobic and intellectually insecure.
My ancestral grandfather Timothy J Mcrea came over from Ireland during the famine when he was just 11 with his father later Mcrea would enlist in the Union to fight for his new adopted country he fought threw the entire Civil War finally accepting an honorable discharge when the south surrendered after that he moved to California and became a Deputy US Marshall he loved this country far more then he loved Ireland and he wanted to earn the right to be here all legal immigrants probably do as well
You know that no one wants to do the world that "illegals" do sense Arizona passed there anti illegal immigration law some farmers are going out of business because so called "hard working" Americans don't want the jobs even though there are so many out of work.
@hermanessences around 90% of America's addresses are available through various legal websites. Celebrities and others' home addresses aren't available either because they pay extra to be unlisted. Or they are simply unlisted in phone book. Therefore their information is not listed. The rest of it is considered "public record", meaning anyone has access to it.
@realworldbycj Aah, I see =) It's almost like that in Norway too, but about 99% of addresses (and phone numbers) are public record, you can get secret ones, it doesn't cost any money, it's just a lot of paperwork. ^^
Immigration has bad side effects, European countries are seeing rising statistics of things like violence, rape and support for political Islam and Sharia because of immigration. Especially from certain countries, for example, Somalia. This might seem racist to someone, but it's an undeniable fact. Of course, this doesn't mean all immigrants are bad, many of them are wonderful people. But all the violent, arrogant, filthy and hateful ones ruin for them.
Did you know that the American government number one business is weapon trafficking. the same weapons Mexico cartels use are sold by the U.S Government. The reason there is immigration is because United States Imperialism, third world countries have the resources to feed their people but is taken away by the U.S and thats what causes Immigrations. Educate yourself !
@geofrey692000 In your dreams. Most of the weapons used by Mexican cartels come from China, Korean (north of the 38th parallel [Not that I expect you to understand what that means]) and, or all places, Israel. They are purchased from a variety of sources, none of which are in the US.
@Dragdamar wow either your to naive to realize that or you just dont want to believe it. you gotta wake up takes this for example look how much the government cares about your life!
@ParanoidGallows Invaded and overthrown? No. Do some research, actual research. Stop trying to spread fallacies about the US. We've helped countless nations in their times of need, and will continue doing so. Pure and simple.
@realworldbycj No, you do some actual research. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation with a monarchy and a functioning parliament. The coup d'état was led by american citizens who conspired to overthrow the monarchy and the success of the coup efforts was supported by the landing of U.S. Marines who came ashore at the request of the conspirators. In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the Apology Resolution which apologized for the U.S. Government's role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
I was handed a slip of paper today at my university. I go to school in Idaho (VERY conservative state) but I almost screamed when they passes out this note. It said
"All Ethnic minorities please meet in the auditorium to discuss tolerance and perseverance" Being the person that I am, I went to that meeting ripped the paper in half, and proceeded to calling them tools.
Once the welfare state is abolished the large majority immigrants that America would attract would be people willing to work to achieve a better life. Restricting immigration is also a violation of Americans and foreigners right to freedom of association. Because of this, immigration should be very close to open, but with a license application which would be granted to all except criminals. This would help close the borders towards true criminals by ending the black market for illegal routes.
Your argument about the providence of Texas could be just as easily applied to Israel. The British took it by force from the Ottomans, who took it by force from the Byzantines (Romans) who took it by force from the Jews.
"... stupid, uneducated neanderthals, we're white-trash rednecks, knuckle-dragging proto-nazis, KKK-loving violent extremists ready to execute anyone who does not bend a knee to our up-coming fundamentalist christian theocracy. Oh... Oh, and we're domestic terrorists." Couldn't have put it better myself. (You're not hot enough to be a werewolf, Bill.)
@cadslave1 We don't have Bill but we do have Ron Paul who belives all these things and is the father of the modern tea party,or would you prefer Mr.CFR Gingrich?
Spare me. Most Mexican immigrants are looking for work that they cannot get in Mexico. The Arizona law is unjust and, on another point, HOW IS THIS A PROBLEM? All they want is a job and a home. That's it. They are willing to work for their money unlike some "honest Americans" who are perfectly content to live off of welfare money. Mexican immigrants provide a workforce for America. Why should we stop it?
How about because a lot of them are ILLEGAL immigrants, as in they've already broken our laws before they've even set foot in America. Do you want lawbreakers in this country? Would they tolerate us coming over illegally into Mexico? No, they'd shove us in a rat-infested cell without trial, like they have been doing. Would you accept somebody who entered in unannounced through your back door? I'd tell them to get the hell out before I call the police! Wouldn't you?
And if they can't find work in Mexico, how can they magically find work here? Work doesn't grow on trees. It has to be created by people with money and a mindset to produce and create wealth. Mexico doesn't have that because it has a corrupt government and completely uneducated people. Maybe they should sweep out their own home country and live in it rather than taking up space in our country's garage! That being said, if they come legally then I say Welcome!
I don't like the fact that some "honest Americans" live off of welfare money either. But that's our problem and we are perfectly capable of solving it. It doesn't mean we should call upon an entire people to compensate for our own shortcomings. I can mow my own lawn. I can fix my own car. And it would cost me a lot less. But manual labor is all Hispanics seem to know how to do, as a whole. Not a whole lot of ambition and drive, as far as I can see. I find that problematic.
@commonsenseforUSA There is this antipathy to learning English among Hispanics. If you go to any nation and refuse to learn the dominant language you will be forced to laborious work and menial jobs. If someone goes to Mexico and refuses to learn Spanish you can't be a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc. You will be relegated to washing dishes or picking fruits and vegetables. You also wont be able to get an education. If they followed the laws and learned English America would be brighter for everyone
Somewhere in the ancestry of each of us, somebody was raped and got pregnant, producing offspring that became our forebearer. So, believing that Mitt is somehow unworthy for anything because he may be offspring of an illegal immigrant, roughly equates to believing that each of us is unworthy for whatever. What matters is the character of the individual. Unfortunately, for the present occupant of the Oval Office, his character is a state secret, protected by the elite media.
the country of mexico is not making any claim to land that belongs to the US. that is not what the immigration problem is about. the moral issue is that people who were descendents of the original americans are being told by decendants of europeans tthat they have no moral right to be here.
@1sportboys How do you know if the original people in America were automatically aligned with Mexicans of now? What happens if they were born in America, and THEN went to what we call Mexico? Since he walked over there, is he now connected to that land too? What is the maximum amount of distance it takes to make you not connected in your view?
@superlucci political alignment with mexico is irrelevant since they share deeper roots. disagreements among american countrie in no way gives europeans a moral right to anything just like any disagreement you may have with your relatives over a particular objects gives no one outside your household a right to that object
@1sportboys Oh so now you say there is a limit to the amount of roots you can have before you have a moral right to it? Please tell me a number.
And once again. We are back to the main point.
If a body of power disagrees with the other body of power and go to war over it, when 1 side wins and claims victory, even if they were both the same type of people at one point, its now theirs. It doesnt belong to another person anymore, its the winners.
the ones who were here before were indegenous populations just like the direct descendants of modern day mexicans. everyone else came from other lands to claim that this was theirs and no one else including the original inhabitants of this continent should have it
@1sportboys There were other people before Mexicans. Therefore giving it to Mexicans is out of the question.
Oh and tell me why somebody from another land does not have authority over another land when they migrate here?
What is your definition of land? A lot of land is connected to the US, do the Mexicans deserve that land as well? Even though they might not have been there? Hell, Im sure there is a region somewhere in Mexico where Mexicans havent stepped on, so do they deserve that as well?
@superlucci I feel like I am repeating myself. those people were indigenous populations just like the direct descendants of modern day mexicans. People from other lands do have a legitimate claim to this one but not at the expense of those who were originally here. The right of the descendants of europeans to live here is not an issue, the right of the descendants of the original people of the american continent is.
@1sportboys Right, so since their ancestors forcibly took that land, and since they were able to stay there awhile and have offspring for awhile, those offspring automatically deserve that land right? Come on now.
@superlucci no, the point is that they were already here even before the descendants of europeans, so they have as much right to be here as they do. all societies engage in force, so that is irrelevant to moral rights. if someone goes to your house and takes over the land telling you that you have no rights to it would that be justifiable in your eyes.
@1sportboys You do understand that their ancestors took land by force correct? By that logic, it should automatically stop you from supporting them.
No it would not be justifiable. I live in a country where a government has to protect property rights. If my house is burglarized, and I call 9/11 the police are supposed to come and help me.
War is completely different than individuals breaking into my home.
@1sportboys Once again, how much land is somebody entitled to when they are born there? If I am born in georgia, do I have the right to keep all of the USA? Whats the cut off point?
Please tell me when the cut off point is for connecting countries as to when they arent entitled to more land.
Are you then going to switch to a new moral argument on if the majority of a population is 1 ethnic group, then they deserve the land?
I can refute your moral arguments with logical flaws.
@superlucci noone is saying people are entitled to land, what i am saying is that no one who was not originally from this continent has a moral right to tell people who were, that they dont belong here. Before you get ready to refute an argument, try to understand it first
@superlucci who is claiming that anyone deserves an entire land mass? is that what you believe the issue of illegal immigration is? building up a straw man that you can easily turn down wont do. the country of mexico is not making any claim to land that belongs to the US. that is not what the immigration problem is about. the moral issue is that people who were descendents of the original americans are being told by decendants of europeans tthat they have no moral right to be here.
@1sportboys I asked if the first person born on this planet would be entitled to the entire planet. And you havent answered the question, because if you say no, you are going to have to explain the morality between a land mass and the sea.
So anybody born on a land mass has the moral right too all the dirt around him right? What is your basis?
So what? What happens if a majority of people born on the land decided to move away? Or take only a portion of land for themselves? Now what happens?
I'll answer the question. It's called homesteading. That land which you fence, cultivate, and put to productive use is not only the land but a product of your work. Check out Austrian Economics for a more complete understanding.
@NativeNewMexican One of the reasons it's called "property" is because, when a person works with natural resources, he impresses some of the properties of his own personality upon it - his industry, ingenuity, etc.
I've looked into the Etymology of the word Property and it doesn't follow. You could say "One of the reasons it's called OWNING land is because you've made it of yourself, etc." That may be nitpicking, but I don't want superlucci to misinterpret.
@NativeNewMexican It's not in root language of the word; I got that from the great deal of theological and secular philosophical writing there has been on the subject for the last 500 years or so in the West.
You should all see this video: watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU it helps to understand what ownership is, how it comes to be and the economic and moral consequences of it.
Respond to this video... The Mexicans started the War with Texas when they wanted to become a lone republic, since they themselves wanted to become a lone republic, do the Mexicans automatically own the Texans simply because that land was currently being occupied by Mexicans? But then a majority of people in their wanted to become independent?
Now who has the moral claim to that? People who are forcing others to become their state? Or the people let them become independent, then one?
@superlucci but a moral argument is what the guy in the video just gave. if all original inhabitants of the new world and their descendants were all wiped out yes the land would cease to be theirs and there would not be an immigration problem at all, would it? I dont see your point.
@1sportboys The point is if in your views, all Mexicans are wiped out. If America claims that land, can they claim it? Even though its the country of Mexico? Its not like the requirement for Mexico to still be Mexico is to have a certain amount or type of person.
If you think yes, then I think your insane.
The point is how can 1 generation who had their generation screwed in some way automatically have any moral/legal claim to it now?
@superlucci mexico is not claiming any land. the point is that people who were originally on this continent have as much or even more of a moral right to be on this continent than the ones who came here from a different continent. America belonged to its original inhabitants before it belonged to anybody else. the direct descendants of those original inhabitants are the ones who are now treated as aliens in this land . that is morally unacceptable.
@superlucci Don't forget that every Mexican is actually a Spaniard who murdered people to get the land. It's the same way every white person in the US is a slave owning racist.
@Dragdamar That's awfully judgemental. Especially considering that you have zero facts to support that claim. I am an American, born and bread. I have never in my life, even known a person who owned or has known someone that has own slaves of any kind; not even a maid! And please, stop trying to make excuses for why we feel you're entitled to this land, all so that you can win an argument you've already lost 5 fold.
@VictorLepanto our immigration laws are our way of making sure that "Trojan Horses" don't get into this country. In previous eras, the "Horses" were spies from various nations. In this era, immigration laws are a way of keeping terrorists at bay and also drug traffickers and other criminals. It is still our intention to let in people to this country.
The thing is, our more restrictive immigration limits were created by racist like Margaret Sanger to limit the damage of inferior breeds from Southern & Eastern Europe diluting the American gene pool.
YOU NEED TO GET IN THE REAL WORLD FELLA HAHAHAHAHA THE WHITE MAN BUILT THIS COUNTRY AND THEY HAVE ALLOW TROJAN HORSES INOT HE COUNTRY, TIME WILL TELL HAHAHAHAHA
My Sicilian ancestors hopped a boat, arrived at Ellis Island, got a health check, and then answered a few questions about whether they were criminals, anarchists or communists. Then they were thrown out onto the streets and left to fend for themselves.
Drawing a distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration today by using historical examples is intellectually dishonest. It was basically unlimited. If you want to legalize immigration to historical levels, cool. Otherwise, stop.
@sleepyady How is defining the differences between legal and illegal immigration dishonest?
Its obvious why when this country was first founded we didnt care on who came here, because there was land and space to explore. However right now we arent expanding, and we cant just have everybody willynilly in here.
@superlucci I didn't say that 'defining the differences' is dishonest. I said that citing historical examples of legal immigration to show a long tradition of opposition to illegal immigration is intellectually dishonest because there were essentially zero barriers. The analogy falls flat when you try to hold up a historical activity that was more or less unregulated and then pretend that your contemporary regulations are somehow comparable because they're both 'legal.' That's my issue.
You're making a different argument - that regardless of history, we need restrictions. The argument that "legal immigrants" are the "backbone of America" is just modern spin, an attempt to justify a regulation in history. Yeah, immigrants in the 19th century were legal. There was also basically no difference between legal and illegal, though. It'd be like comparing modern gun control laws against 19th century practices because both are legal. Get what I'm saying?
who are the direct descendants of the native people of this continent? The Irish? The English? The Germans? The French? The Italians? Perhaps the Dutch? Mexicans descend from the Aztecs who are the same race as the Cherokee, The Apache, The Sioux, The Mayas, The Incas, so what modern country in North America is the representative of these people?. Besides, even if a person is dead, that does not give anybody else a right to their land does it?.
since you speak on behalf of rmurph42, then you have to clarify what he meant by asking "if you take ten illegal immigrants here, where do you think at least 8 or nine of them come from? Simply stating your manifesto won't do
@Pill88Dickle What? You can't be serious! Four legs? Naaah, every single IKEA store must be exactly like the one I saw! Oh, well, maybe you're right. Maybe a person's individual one time experience with a store aren't representative of the stores as a whole. Maybe a person's individual one time experience with some racist assholes that happened to be at a Tea Party aren't representative of the tea party as a whole too.
@Pill88Dickle According to your logic, I can make this conclusion: All the chairs I saw at a specific IKEA store I went to the other day had 3 legs. That must mean that all chairs that IKEA sells in all their stores throughout the country have 3 legs.
Have you been to a Tea Party in New Mexico? Guess not, because you'd see MEXICANS in it.
@Pill88Dickle You're full of crap. We are fine with immigrants of all colors. It's is only when the immigration is illegally done that we have a problem with it. Keep calling us racists all you want, you'll still be wrong.
hey are rmurph42 do all illegal immigrants look mexican to you? are you against illegal immigration regardless of where the illegal comes from or are you against mexicans coming to this country?
@1sportboys Since you didn't include the @rmurph42 I don't think he'll respond, but I will.
No, not all illegal immigrants look Mexican or, more accurately, Hispanic or Latin. Yes, we are against illegal immigration regardless of the originating country. No, we are not against Mexicans (Latinos) coming to this country provided they do it legally.
@NativeNewMexican since you speak on behalf of rmurph42, then you have to clarify what he meant by asking "if you take ten illegal immigrants here, where do you think at least 8 or nine of them come from? simply stating what you believe in won't do
@superlucci I know exactly what he meant? But what is the sense of pointing out that fact in a discussion on illegal immigration? As far as "common sense" is concerned that is fine for everyday activities like not mixing your whites with colors when doint the laundry. In politics however, it pays to be as precise as possible. that is if you are committed to finding out the truth.
@superlucci and what is the relevance of that fact in a discussion of illegal immigration? would it make a difference if most illegals came from Canada or even Mars
@1sportboys I didn't catch that comment. No, I don't speak on behalf of rmurph42. As far as I can tell, his response was inane and potentially racist.
I don't care who immigrates to this country, as long as they do so legally and with the intent of assimilating instead of paying lip service and fully being loyal to some other country.
borders are political arrangements and they are established in avariety of ways, not all of which are legitimate. I agree that the first inhabitants of the American continent, that is those who were already here and did not have to cross an ocean to arrive have a legitimate claim to these lands. The people I wish to protect are the original inhabitants of the American continent. They do stand on a moral high ground just like you would if your land had been colonized.
Why do you focus so much on mexico? Aren't there illegal immigrants from other countries as well. Isn't it racist to make one particular group the escapegoat for a national problem caused by Americans as much as illegal immigrants? why don't you attack the people who hire these illegals?
i am not a supporter of a La Raza but I don't like silly arguments like yours. La Raza seems to be making an argument about the legitimacy of national borders between the U.S and Mexico so how do you make arguments about people who were not even considered nations in the modern sense of the word?
@superlucci borders are political arrangements and they are established in avariety of ways, not all of which are legitimate. I agree that the first inhabitants of the American continent, that is those who were already here and did not have to cross an ocean to arrive have a legitimate claim to these lands. The people I wish to protect are the original inhabitants of the American continent. They do stand on a moral high ground just like you would if your land had been colonized.
@superlucci who are the direct descendants of the native people of this continent? The Irish? The English? The Germans? The French? The Italians? Perhaps the Dutch? Mexicans descend from the Aztecs who are the same race as the Cherokee, The Apache, The Sioux, The Mayas, The Incas, so what modern country in North America is the representative of these people?. Besides, even if a person is dead, that does not give anybody else a right to their land does it?.
@1sportboys You just said that since somebody took land from somebody else, and then had generations of people on that land....it is somehow ok....but when the United States take that land......it is not ok?
That doesnt make sense.
It doesnt matter who descended from who. The land was taken by force. And then passed down, then we took the land.
Both cases had land being forcibly taken from them.
@superlucci Force is irrelevant to this discussion because all societies engage in violence to take land, but since that does not give anyone moral authority over others it is irrelevant. Wnat i am saying is that the original inhabitants of this continent have a moral right to be on these lands, more so than those who crossed an ocean to come here and now claim that this land belongs to them. morally speaking, which is the argument the clown in the video is addressing, who is the real alien??
@1sportboys The land that we acquire by force is ours. You dont have any logical or moral standing to say we dont deserve the land we have.
The original inhabitants of this land are all dead. New ones have taken over. Mexicans were not the first ones to inhabit a land. Therefore they dont have any claim to it since we took it over.
@superlucci so you believe that you have a moral right to claim something that you acquire by force? Michael Jackson is dead too, does his killer have a right to his property? Who are you referring to when you say "our land"? Were these people even on this continent before the Mexicans? when you have a real argument let me know.
@superlucci the fact that something has been done many times does not mean that it is morally right. you cannot go from a claim of fact to a normative statement. regarding your 2nd and 3rd statements I need to remind you that this is not a discussion about civil laws but about moral rights. Being an american is a legal status which is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the native inhabitants of this continent have a moral right to be here. Mexicans represent these people in North americ
@superlucci the ones who were here before were indegenous populations just like the direct descendants of modern day mexicans. everyone else came from other lands to claim that this was theirs and no one else including the original inhabitants of this continent should have it
@superlucci i do know that there were people before the mexicans. they were indigenous populations just like the Aztecs who were the direct descendants of the mexicans. Neither one had to cross an ocean to get here.
@superlucci who are the direct descendants of the native people of this continent? The Irish? The English? The Germans? The French? The Italians? Perhaps the Dutch? Mexicans descend from the Aztecs who are the same race as the Cherokee, The Apache, The Sioux, The Mayas, The Incas, so what modern country in North America is the representative of these people?. Besides, even if a person is dead, that does not give anybody else a right to their land does it?.
so if my dad takes my radio away by force, that somehow gives a total stranger the moral right to take it from my dad by force? Whatever fights took place among the native people of these lands in no way gives people from other continents the moral right to take these lands from them . by the way you failed to blame American businesses and landlords for the illegal immigration problem. they sell, hire or rent to illegals. why not go after them?
@vonBondenSkurge "It's the polarization of ethnicities which causes tension amongst the people" and yet we are still here. i find the argument against Multiculturalism a sort of scapegoat for xenophobia. once you break it down you can clearly see the underpinnings of racism. and thats really the only logical conclusion of anti-Multiculturalism, to deny another ethnicity because the fabric of society will decay in it's presence.
@vonBondenSkurge no sir, your argument for assimilation makes zero sense considering we're a nation of immigrants. what exactly are new immigrants supposed to assimilate to when the latino population exceeds the caucasion (thats spelled wrong) population in the near future? and how the hell can our country "not survive" because different ethnic groups don't get along with one another? self segregation has been and will be around for a long time. assimilation is un american. diversity is american
@vincenizzzle No just hate it when people don't realize this country is built on the blood of immigrants not backs. They are here to undercut labor costs nothing more
@vincenizzzle to elaborate every wave of immigrants we've had up until now has been shunned and used as cheap labor. Everything that's been said about Mexicans was said about the Irish,Germans,etc. Give it a generation or 2. Folks will get used to them and, they'll actually expect to be paid decent wages, and we'll all be happy under our new Chinese overlords.
I've found Bill Whittle's YouTube series to be very informative and to the point.
But I've found one thing missing: what are Bill's/The Teaparty's views on gay marriage? Or rather, how can legally discriminating against gays who want to get married possibly be compatible with the ideals of libertarianism.
@WELanning We were? So there are news stories and videos of rallies and marches that took place in 86' that can match the immigration hysteria of today? I'd love to see em'.
I don't support immigration amnesty, I don't support any policy that ignores our current immigration laws.
Then like now, an amnesty policy shows a lack of leadership.
It's funny that the best and well thought out argument in this video was the one arguing that Texas shouldn't be given to Mexico. A point that almost everyone agrees on. The rest of it was pretty much nonsense.
@vaguelyhumanoid But in order for a country to function there has to be a level oh cohesion amongst its people. The citizens have to be able to communicate universally amongst themselves, there has to be a set of rules that dictate what is acceptable, even if those rules are very basic and non- constrictive. This cohesion is achieved by a level of assimilation, conscious or otherwise. You can retain a sense of pride over your roots and culture, but your loyalty has to be to your new home.
@vaguelyhumanoid No. What makes a country legitimate is by virtue of its ability to defend itself. If you can't defend yourself, you're not a country, and you exist only by other nation's whim.
@vaguelyhumanoid An army does. He that has the most guns wins. Now, you can go into notions about constitutions and rule of law, but in the end what backs that law up is force and the willingness to use it. If you break a law, what good is it if nobody comes to arrest you? At that point what good is it to write a law if there's nobody to enforce it if violated? All of this is backed by the military that secures the state rulers, who may employ them against the populace if the need arose.
Simple "We" are Americans. "America" is a country. Assimilation is good. It promotes unity. No one said you couldn't still recognize your native culture. All it means is that instead of being a Mexican(for example) who just so happens to legally reside in America, they are Americans who just so happen to have Mexican descendants , heritage or whatever. By the way nothing Bill said was racist.
@vaguelyhumanoid "Why should I view the borders of "America" as a valid geopolitical entity?" The same reason your neighbors should respect the property lines of your house & yard. I highly doubt that if a bunch of people you didn't know or like breached your living quarters, pitched tents & helped themselves to your fridge and possessions that you'd have no problem with it.
"Why is unity between "Americans" good?" It's better than race riots and discrimination. I can tell you that much.
@lockdown260 1. I should be able to live in my house, that doesn't mean I should have absolute dominion over it. Property is merely an abstraction that can be beneficial or harmful, it is nothing in reality.
2. False dichotomy. Why should there even be a "USA" in the first place?
@vaguelyhumanoid 1. Your house is your property along with other stuff you worked to obtain. It's nothing abstract. If someone took your stuff w/o permission you'd be pissed, end of story. Property is far from nothing. W/o it civilized societies could not exist. Said principles extend to the national level. Different countries have different resources & styles of government. It's not good for random ppl to come in, take a country's stuff & impose their rules on the populous. part2->
2. It is not a false dichotomy. Name ONE country where disunity or separatism in the population did not breed resentment, mistrust, xenophobia, or racism. "Separate but equal" does not work anywhere.
"Why should there even be a "USA" in the first place?" Goes back to property rights. There is no point in working, (or doing anything really) if someone can just run in and take the fruits of your labor. Same thing applies to countries.
*Liberals have a far better record of reaching a compromise; meaning the deportation of illegal immigrants, avoiding amnesty but also providing a path to citizenship for the truly expectation illegals immigrants.
iMaDeMoN2012 14 hours ago
I am also against illegal immigration but living in southern California a lot of my friends are illegal immigrants that came here as kids, knowing nothing but America. Any laws that are supported by the tea party that are mean spirited and aimed to punish these kids severs any alliance we could have had. Liberals are far better record of reaching a comprising agree that deports and avoids amnesty be also provide a path to citizenship for expectational illegals.
iMaDeMoN2012 16 hours ago
lol sounds like was talking about Zionists
Gaara1555 4 days ago
This not only struck home on the illegal immigration problem, but also on the concept of giving land back to the people who had it before? WHAT WITCHCRAFT IS THIS?!?
Nawor666 1 week ago
Whittle for president!!!
denniscasey5 2 weeks ago 4
Legal immigration in Western countries should be restricted to half of what it is today or restricted to only fellow Westerners. The Western World is being overrun by non white immigration - miscegenation is the result.
However, before you call me a racist for being against miscegenation and legal non white immigration - need I remind you that this is the true method of diversity.
BIoodrunk 2 weeks ago
@BIoodrunk Integration is only bad if it's forced; separation is only good if it isn't. Before I call you a "racist" or "anti-American", need I remind you that words like "overrun" and "true method" make you sound woefully xenophobic and intellectually insecure.
th3giv3r 1 week ago
My ancestral grandfather Timothy J Mcrea came over from Ireland during the famine when he was just 11 with his father later Mcrea would enlist in the Union to fight for his new adopted country he fought threw the entire Civil War finally accepting an honorable discharge when the south surrendered after that he moved to California and became a Deputy US Marshall he loved this country far more then he loved Ireland and he wanted to earn the right to be here all legal immigrants probably do as well
ZombieSurvivalist11 2 weeks ago
We don't need any more LEGAL immigrants either.
Dye6666 2 weeks ago
6:08 to 7:45 is AWESOME!
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 2 weeks ago
Bill if you did read any of my comments then I would like you to know that I respect you as a person but not for your ideals.
coolkent7777777 2 weeks ago
You know that no one wants to do the world that "illegals" do sense Arizona passed there anti illegal immigration law some farmers are going out of business because so called "hard working" Americans don't want the jobs even though there are so many out of work.
coolkent7777777 2 weeks ago
WAIT people still want to come here?
coolkent7777777 2 weeks ago
Also, are home addresses not publicly available information in the US? Is it because there are so many serial killers and such in your country?
hermanessences 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@hermanessences around 90% of America's addresses are available through various legal websites. Celebrities and others' home addresses aren't available either because they pay extra to be unlisted. Or they are simply unlisted in phone book. Therefore their information is not listed. The rest of it is considered "public record", meaning anyone has access to it.
realworldbycj 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@realworldbycj Aah, I see =) It's almost like that in Norway too, but about 99% of addresses (and phone numbers) are public record, you can get secret ones, it doesn't cost any money, it's just a lot of paperwork. ^^
hermanessences 3 weeks ago
Kudos for the private home analogy.
Immigration has bad side effects, European countries are seeing rising statistics of things like violence, rape and support for political Islam and Sharia because of immigration. Especially from certain countries, for example, Somalia. This might seem racist to someone, but it's an undeniable fact. Of course, this doesn't mean all immigrants are bad, many of them are wonderful people. But all the violent, arrogant, filthy and hateful ones ruin for them.
hermanessences 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos 2
Brand new to your sight and I love it! Brilliantly articulated. Nine minutes and 50 seconds of joy to listen to.
Thank you.
cher128bx 4 weeks ago
Did you know that the American government number one business is weapon trafficking. the same weapons Mexico cartels use are sold by the U.S Government. The reason there is immigration is because United States Imperialism, third world countries have the resources to feed their people but is taken away by the U.S and thats what causes Immigrations. Educate yourself !
geofrey692000 1 month ago
@geofrey692000 In your dreams. Most of the weapons used by Mexican cartels come from China, Korean (north of the 38th parallel [Not that I expect you to understand what that means]) and, or all places, Israel. They are purchased from a variety of sources, none of which are in the US.
Dragdamar 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
@Dragdamar wow either your to naive to realize that or you just dont want to believe it. you gotta wake up takes this for example look how much the government cares about your life!
geofrey692000 3 weeks ago
Rossen Reports: Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked
geofrey692000 3 weeks ago
@geofrey692000 That report was so misleading it wasn't even funny.
GoblinKnightLeo 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
I do like the argument about Texas but what about Hawaii? Hawaii was a sovereign nation before being invaded and overthrown by America.
ParanoidGallows 1 month ago
@ParanoidGallows Invaded and overthrown? No. Do some research, actual research. Stop trying to spread fallacies about the US. We've helped countless nations in their times of need, and will continue doing so. Pure and simple.
realworldbycj 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@realworldbycj No, you do some actual research. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation with a monarchy and a functioning parliament. The coup d'état was led by american citizens who conspired to overthrow the monarchy and the success of the coup efforts was supported by the landing of U.S. Marines who came ashore at the request of the conspirators. In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the Apology Resolution which apologized for the U.S. Government's role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
ParanoidGallows 3 weeks ago
I wanna be a werewolf =/
antipryzm 1 month ago
I was handed a slip of paper today at my university. I go to school in Idaho (VERY conservative state) but I almost screamed when they passes out this note. It said
"All Ethnic minorities please meet in the auditorium to discuss tolerance and perseverance" Being the person that I am, I went to that meeting ripped the paper in half, and proceeded to calling them tools.
I left feeling happier than ever!
Nationofhonor 1 month ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
end the drug war
Mrinebriation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the free novel for the Tea Party generation: THE OMEGA CRUSADE at:
theomegacrusade.blogspot.com
and get the revolution rolling!
Carlos101010101 1 month ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
Once the welfare state is abolished the large majority immigrants that America would attract would be people willing to work to achieve a better life. Restricting immigration is also a violation of Americans and foreigners right to freedom of association. Because of this, immigration should be very close to open, but with a license application which would be granted to all except criminals. This would help close the borders towards true criminals by ending the black market for illegal routes.
mrrobotica 1 month ago
Your argument about the providence of Texas could be just as easily applied to Israel. The British took it by force from the Ottomans, who took it by force from the Byzantines (Romans) who took it by force from the Jews.
therealhardrock 1 month ago 2
"... stupid, uneducated neanderthals, we're white-trash rednecks, knuckle-dragging proto-nazis, KKK-loving violent extremists ready to execute anyone who does not bend a knee to our up-coming fundamentalist christian theocracy. Oh... Oh, and we're domestic terrorists." Couldn't have put it better myself. (You're not hot enough to be a werewolf, Bill.)
incinerare 2 months ago
Bill,
Please run for president.
Our country needs you in DC.
cadslave1 2 months ago
@cadslave1 We don't have Bill but we do have Ron Paul who belives all these things and is the father of the modern tea party,or would you prefer Mr.CFR Gingrich?
2wheels88 2 months ago
America isn't so brave anymore.
Vorzt 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Spare me. Most Mexican immigrants are looking for work that they cannot get in Mexico. The Arizona law is unjust and, on another point, HOW IS THIS A PROBLEM? All they want is a job and a home. That's it. They are willing to work for their money unlike some "honest Americans" who are perfectly content to live off of welfare money. Mexican immigrants provide a workforce for America. Why should we stop it?
mwregents101 3 months ago
@mwregents101,
How about because a lot of them are ILLEGAL immigrants, as in they've already broken our laws before they've even set foot in America. Do you want lawbreakers in this country? Would they tolerate us coming over illegally into Mexico? No, they'd shove us in a rat-infested cell without trial, like they have been doing. Would you accept somebody who entered in unannounced through your back door? I'd tell them to get the hell out before I call the police! Wouldn't you?
commonsenseforUSA 2 months ago 2
@mwregents101,
And if they can't find work in Mexico, how can they magically find work here? Work doesn't grow on trees. It has to be created by people with money and a mindset to produce and create wealth. Mexico doesn't have that because it has a corrupt government and completely uneducated people. Maybe they should sweep out their own home country and live in it rather than taking up space in our country's garage! That being said, if they come legally then I say Welcome!
commonsenseforUSA 2 months ago 2
I don't like the fact that some "honest Americans" live off of welfare money either. But that's our problem and we are perfectly capable of solving it. It doesn't mean we should call upon an entire people to compensate for our own shortcomings. I can mow my own lawn. I can fix my own car. And it would cost me a lot less. But manual labor is all Hispanics seem to know how to do, as a whole. Not a whole lot of ambition and drive, as far as I can see. I find that problematic.
commonsenseforUSA 2 months ago
@commonsenseforUSA There is this antipathy to learning English among Hispanics. If you go to any nation and refuse to learn the dominant language you will be forced to laborious work and menial jobs. If someone goes to Mexico and refuses to learn Spanish you can't be a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc. You will be relegated to washing dishes or picking fruits and vegetables. You also wont be able to get an education. If they followed the laws and learned English America would be brighter for everyone
chuck3668831 3 weeks ago
@mwregents101 Because they are criminals, you idiot. If you think they should come to the US why don't you invite them all to live with you?
Dragdamar 3 weeks ago
@iHeartPlans I completely agree. He talks as though he is better than everyone else
mwregents101 3 months ago
condescending much?
iHeartPlans 3 months ago
Somewhere in the ancestry of each of us, somebody was raped and got pregnant, producing offspring that became our forebearer. So, believing that Mitt is somehow unworthy for anything because he may be offspring of an illegal immigrant, roughly equates to believing that each of us is unworthy for whatever. What matters is the character of the individual. Unfortunately, for the present occupant of the Oval Office, his character is a state secret, protected by the elite media.
qwerty90615 4 months ago
Understand Texas wouldn't have won its independence had there not been Mexicans fighting against Mexicans
Also. we've greatly benefitted at times from illegal immigrants
As an example MItt Romney has Mexican ancestors & his father was an illegal Mexican immigrant to the USA
Had we not provided a free public education & public assistance to MItt's father, I doubt MItt would be where he is today
DillonDee1 4 months ago
I send $19.99 per month to Declaration Entertainment so Bill Whittle and his productions keep coming. I love writing the check!
uberapostate 5 months ago 31
@uberapostate Thank you.
comichound 1 month ago
@uberapostate
So does obama!
waldokoala 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
the country of mexico is not making any claim to land that belongs to the US. that is not what the immigration problem is about. the moral issue is that people who were descendents of the original americans are being told by decendants of europeans tthat they have no moral right to be here.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys How do you know if the original people in America were automatically aligned with Mexicans of now? What happens if they were born in America, and THEN went to what we call Mexico? Since he walked over there, is he now connected to that land too? What is the maximum amount of distance it takes to make you not connected in your view?
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci political alignment with mexico is irrelevant since they share deeper roots. disagreements among american countrie in no way gives europeans a moral right to anything just like any disagreement you may have with your relatives over a particular objects gives no one outside your household a right to that object
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys Oh so now you say there is a limit to the amount of roots you can have before you have a moral right to it? Please tell me a number.
And once again. We are back to the main point.
If a body of power disagrees with the other body of power and go to war over it, when 1 side wins and claims victory, even if they were both the same type of people at one point, its now theirs. It doesnt belong to another person anymore, its the winners.
Same matter of principle for Euro invaders
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci they are the same people,not the case with euro invaders (good choice of words)
1sportboys 6 months ago
@1sportboys Just because somebodies ancestors did something like being born on a land, it does not make it automatically theres.
Hell, why not the first person ever born on this planet not have a moral right to the entire planet right?
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci the first person born on this planet would have a moral right not to be considered an alien on it wouldnt he?.
1sportboys 7 months ago
the ones who were here before were indegenous populations just like the direct descendants of modern day mexicans. everyone else came from other lands to claim that this was theirs and no one else including the original inhabitants of this continent should have it
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys There were other people before Mexicans. Therefore giving it to Mexicans is out of the question.
Oh and tell me why somebody from another land does not have authority over another land when they migrate here?
What is your definition of land? A lot of land is connected to the US, do the Mexicans deserve that land as well? Even though they might not have been there? Hell, Im sure there is a region somewhere in Mexico where Mexicans havent stepped on, so do they deserve that as well?
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci I feel like I am repeating myself. those people were indigenous populations just like the direct descendants of modern day mexicans. People from other lands do have a legitimate claim to this one but not at the expense of those who were originally here. The right of the descendants of europeans to live here is not an issue, the right of the descendants of the original people of the american continent is.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys Right, so since their ancestors forcibly took that land, and since they were able to stay there awhile and have offspring for awhile, those offspring automatically deserve that land right? Come on now.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci no, the point is that they were already here even before the descendants of europeans, so they have as much right to be here as they do. all societies engage in force, so that is irrelevant to moral rights. if someone goes to your house and takes over the land telling you that you have no rights to it would that be justifiable in your eyes.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys You do understand that their ancestors took land by force correct? By that logic, it should automatically stop you from supporting them.
No it would not be justifiable. I live in a country where a government has to protect property rights. If my house is burglarized, and I call 9/11 the police are supposed to come and help me.
War is completely different than individuals breaking into my home.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci europeans also took land by force,
you are confusing legality with morality again
who is talking about war? as far as i know the mexican gov. has not made any claim to anything
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys Once again, how much land is somebody entitled to when they are born there? If I am born in georgia, do I have the right to keep all of the USA? Whats the cut off point?
Please tell me when the cut off point is for connecting countries as to when they arent entitled to more land.
Are you then going to switch to a new moral argument on if the majority of a population is 1 ethnic group, then they deserve the land?
I can refute your moral arguments with logical flaws.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci noone is saying people are entitled to land, what i am saying is that no one who was not originally from this continent has a moral right to tell people who were, that they dont belong here. Before you get ready to refute an argument, try to understand it first
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys Why a continent? Why not a country? Why not a state? Why not a city? Why not a town? Why not a spotch of land?
Why does somebody who is born on an entire land mass deserve the entire land mass?
Thats ridiculous. Your just randomly pulling out a moral argument that tries to expand itself to fit your own agenda.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci who is claiming that anyone deserves an entire land mass? is that what you believe the issue of illegal immigration is? building up a straw man that you can easily turn down wont do. the country of mexico is not making any claim to land that belongs to the US. that is not what the immigration problem is about. the moral issue is that people who were descendents of the original americans are being told by decendants of europeans tthat they have no moral right to be here.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys "what i am saying is that no one who was not originally from this continent has a moral right to tell people who were"
You said continent, therefore if somebody is not from the continent, they cant tell anybody what to do, and I asked you, why a continent?
Since somebody is born on a continent, they automatically have a connection with the entire land mass?
Why not a country? Or a state?
Because you make random moral arguments to fit your agenda
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci the continent was here before nations and states. the people of america were here before any political arrangements were made
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys I asked if the first person born on this planet would be entitled to the entire planet. And you havent answered the question, because if you say no, you are going to have to explain the morality between a land mass and the sea.
So anybody born on a land mass has the moral right too all the dirt around him right? What is your basis?
So what? What happens if a majority of people born on the land decided to move away? Or take only a portion of land for themselves? Now what happens?
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci i did answer
1sportboys 6 months ago
@superlucci
I'll answer the question. It's called homesteading. That land which you fence, cultivate, and put to productive use is not only the land but a product of your work. Check out Austrian Economics for a more complete understanding.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican One of the reasons it's called "property" is because, when a person works with natural resources, he impresses some of the properties of his own personality upon it - his industry, ingenuity, etc.
Halo4Lyf 6 months ago
@Halo4Lyf
I've looked into the Etymology of the word Property and it doesn't follow. You could say "One of the reasons it's called OWNING land is because you've made it of yourself, etc." That may be nitpicking, but I don't want superlucci to misinterpret.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican It's not in root language of the word; I got that from the great deal of theological and secular philosophical writing there has been on the subject for the last 500 years or so in the West.
Halo4Lyf 6 months ago
@Halo4Lyf
Saying, "that's why they call it property" suggests an etymological argument to me. Again, it's not a big deal, we likely agree on the matter.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican My bad, I should've been more clear.
Halo4Lyf 6 months ago
@superlucci @1sportsboys @Halo4Lyf
You should all see this video: watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU it helps to understand what ownership is, how it comes to be and the economic and moral consequences of it.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
Respond to this video... The Mexicans started the War with Texas when they wanted to become a lone republic, since they themselves wanted to become a lone republic, do the Mexicans automatically own the Texans simply because that land was currently being occupied by Mexicans? But then a majority of people in their wanted to become independent?
Now who has the moral claim to that? People who are forcing others to become their state? Or the people let them become independent, then one?
superlucci 7 months ago
@1sportboys What happens if all Mexicans are wiped out? Do they still have a claim to the land?
What happens if a European marries a Mexican, do they still have a moral right to the land as Mexicans? After all, they live there now.
I mean shit, moral arguments are useless.
superlucci 7 months ago 7
@superlucci but a moral argument is what the guy in the video just gave. if all original inhabitants of the new world and their descendants were all wiped out yes the land would cease to be theirs and there would not be an immigration problem at all, would it? I dont see your point.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys The point is if in your views, all Mexicans are wiped out. If America claims that land, can they claim it? Even though its the country of Mexico? Its not like the requirement for Mexico to still be Mexico is to have a certain amount or type of person.
If you think yes, then I think your insane.
The point is how can 1 generation who had their generation screwed in some way automatically have any moral/legal claim to it now?
Thats liek blacks getting reparations.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci mexico is not claiming any land. the point is that people who were originally on this continent have as much or even more of a moral right to be on this continent than the ones who came here from a different continent. America belonged to its original inhabitants before it belonged to anybody else. the direct descendants of those original inhabitants are the ones who are now treated as aliens in this land . that is morally unacceptable.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@superlucci Don't forget that every Mexican is actually a Spaniard who murdered people to get the land. It's the same way every white person in the US is a slave owning racist.
Dragdamar 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
@Dragdamar That's awfully judgemental. Especially considering that you have zero facts to support that claim. I am an American, born and bread. I have never in my life, even known a person who owned or has known someone that has own slaves of any kind; not even a maid! And please, stop trying to make excuses for why we feel you're entitled to this land, all so that you can win an argument you've already lost 5 fold.
realworldbycj 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@VictorLepanto our immigration laws are our way of making sure that "Trojan Horses" don't get into this country. In previous eras, the "Horses" were spies from various nations. In this era, immigration laws are a way of keeping terrorists at bay and also drug traffickers and other criminals. It is still our intention to let in people to this country.
TheMoron64 7 months ago
The thing is, our more restrictive immigration limits were created by racist like Margaret Sanger to limit the damage of inferior breeds from Southern & Eastern Europe diluting the American gene pool.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
Once he brought up drug trafficking, all I could think of is how we could so easily solve that problem by legalizing drugs
JMLeye789 7 months ago
Amazing
geoff1424 7 months ago
28 dislikes = 28 people w/o a shred of common sense. (comment at 0:53)
Hyena62 7 months ago 2
SORRY MR WHITTLE, BUT IT SEEMS UR LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD HAHAHA
tomcat624u 7 months ago
YOU NEED TO GET IN THE REAL WORLD FELLA HAHAHAHAHA THE WHITE MAN BUILT THIS COUNTRY AND THEY HAVE ALLOW TROJAN HORSES INOT HE COUNTRY, TIME WILL TELL HAHAHAHAHA
tomcat624u 7 months ago
My Sicilian ancestors hopped a boat, arrived at Ellis Island, got a health check, and then answered a few questions about whether they were criminals, anarchists or communists. Then they were thrown out onto the streets and left to fend for themselves.
Drawing a distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration today by using historical examples is intellectually dishonest. It was basically unlimited. If you want to legalize immigration to historical levels, cool. Otherwise, stop.
sleepyady 8 months ago
@sleepyady How is defining the differences between legal and illegal immigration dishonest?
Its obvious why when this country was first founded we didnt care on who came here, because there was land and space to explore. However right now we arent expanding, and we cant just have everybody willynilly in here.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci I didn't say that 'defining the differences' is dishonest. I said that citing historical examples of legal immigration to show a long tradition of opposition to illegal immigration is intellectually dishonest because there were essentially zero barriers. The analogy falls flat when you try to hold up a historical activity that was more or less unregulated and then pretend that your contemporary regulations are somehow comparable because they're both 'legal.' That's my issue.
sleepyady 7 months ago
You're making a different argument - that regardless of history, we need restrictions. The argument that "legal immigrants" are the "backbone of America" is just modern spin, an attempt to justify a regulation in history. Yeah, immigrants in the 19th century were legal. There was also basically no difference between legal and illegal, though. It'd be like comparing modern gun control laws against 19th century practices because both are legal. Get what I'm saying?
sleepyady 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
who are the direct descendants of the native people of this continent? The Irish? The English? The Germans? The French? The Italians? Perhaps the Dutch? Mexicans descend from the Aztecs who are the same race as the Cherokee, The Apache, The Sioux, The Mayas, The Incas, so what modern country in North America is the representative of these people?. Besides, even if a person is dead, that does not give anybody else a right to their land does it?.
1sportboys 3 minutes ago
1sportboys 8 months ago
since you speak on behalf of rmurph42, then you have to clarify what he meant by asking "if you take ten illegal immigrants here, where do you think at least 8 or nine of them come from? Simply stating your manifesto won't do
1sportboys 8 months ago
@Pill88Dickle What? You can't be serious! Four legs? Naaah, every single IKEA store must be exactly like the one I saw! Oh, well, maybe you're right. Maybe a person's individual one time experience with a store aren't representative of the stores as a whole. Maybe a person's individual one time experience with some racist assholes that happened to be at a Tea Party aren't representative of the tea party as a whole too.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@Pill88Dickle According to your logic, I can make this conclusion: All the chairs I saw at a specific IKEA store I went to the other day had 3 legs. That must mean that all chairs that IKEA sells in all their stores throughout the country have 3 legs.
Have you been to a Tea Party in New Mexico? Guess not, because you'd see MEXICANS in it.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@Pill88Dickle You're full of crap. We are fine with immigrants of all colors. It's is only when the immigration is illegally done that we have a problem with it. Keep calling us racists all you want, you'll still be wrong.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
hey are rmurph42 do all illegal immigrants look mexican to you? are you against illegal immigration regardless of where the illegal comes from or are you against mexicans coming to this country?
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys Since you didn't include the @rmurph42 I don't think he'll respond, but I will.
No, not all illegal immigrants look Mexican or, more accurately, Hispanic or Latin. Yes, we are against illegal immigration regardless of the originating country. No, we are not against Mexicans (Latinos) coming to this country provided they do it legally.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican since you speak on behalf of rmurph42, then you have to clarify what he meant by asking "if you take ten illegal immigrants here, where do you think at least 8 or nine of them come from? simply stating what you believe in won't do
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys Native will probably answer, but your question is an easy one to answer.
He is saying that 8 out of 10 illegal immigrants will most likely be Mexican.
Its common sense for people to just name the largest group of people who are included in some sort of conversation.
Obviously there are others that come here illegally, but not as much as Mexicans
superlucci 8 months ago
@superlucci I know exactly what he meant? But what is the sense of pointing out that fact in a discussion on illegal immigration? As far as "common sense" is concerned that is fine for everyday activities like not mixing your whites with colors when doint the laundry. In politics however, it pays to be as precise as possible. that is if you are committed to finding out the truth.
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys Common sense is common sense. Being precise is good in any situation. Probably moreso in politics I agree.
However what is the biggest group of Illegal Immigrants that come into the United States?
Its Mexicans
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci and what is the relevance of that fact in a discussion of illegal immigration? would it make a difference if most illegals came from Canada or even Mars
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys I didn't catch that comment. No, I don't speak on behalf of rmurph42. As far as I can tell, his response was inane and potentially racist.
I don't care who immigrates to this country, as long as they do so legally and with the intent of assimilating instead of paying lip service and fully being loyal to some other country.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
borders are political arrangements and they are established in avariety of ways, not all of which are legitimate. I agree that the first inhabitants of the American continent, that is those who were already here and did not have to cross an ocean to arrive have a legitimate claim to these lands. The people I wish to protect are the original inhabitants of the American continent. They do stand on a moral high ground just like you would if your land had been colonized.
1sportboys 8 months ago
Multiculturalism huh? Whats that old saying about a house divided?
ramajama4lif 8 months ago
@vonBondenSkurge thanx
lockdown260 8 months ago
Hey, SPortboy. . if you take ten illegal immigrants here, where do you think at least 8 or nine of them will come from?
rmurph42 8 months ago
Why do you focus so much on mexico? Aren't there illegal immigrants from other countries as well. Isn't it racist to make one particular group the escapegoat for a national problem caused by Americans as much as illegal immigrants? why don't you attack the people who hire these illegals?
1sportboys 8 months ago
i am not a supporter of a La Raza but I don't like silly arguments like yours. La Raza seems to be making an argument about the legitimacy of national borders between the U.S and Mexico so how do you make arguments about people who were not even considered nations in the modern sense of the word?
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys We have borders to protect us. Just like the majority of every other country.
The only people who have any legitimate claim to land are the first and last. The people who you wish to protect are neither.
You do not stand on any moral high ground. You dont stand on any logical high ground.
superlucci 8 months ago
@superlucci borders are political arrangements and they are established in avariety of ways, not all of which are legitimate. I agree that the first inhabitants of the American continent, that is those who were already here and did not have to cross an ocean to arrive have a legitimate claim to these lands. The people I wish to protect are the original inhabitants of the American continent. They do stand on a moral high ground just like you would if your land had been colonized.
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys The original people who lived in the NA are all long dead. You cant protect a dead people.
Therefore the only other legitimate claim is us Americans. Not Mexicans who were in between
superlucci 8 months ago
@superlucci who are the direct descendants of the native people of this continent? The Irish? The English? The Germans? The French? The Italians? Perhaps the Dutch? Mexicans descend from the Aztecs who are the same race as the Cherokee, The Apache, The Sioux, The Mayas, The Incas, so what modern country in North America is the representative of these people?. Besides, even if a person is dead, that does not give anybody else a right to their land does it?.
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys You just said that since somebody took land from somebody else, and then had generations of people on that land....it is somehow ok....but when the United States take that land......it is not ok?
That doesnt make sense.
It doesnt matter who descended from who. The land was taken by force. And then passed down, then we took the land.
Both cases had land being forcibly taken from them.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci Force is irrelevant to this discussion because all societies engage in violence to take land, but since that does not give anyone moral authority over others it is irrelevant. Wnat i am saying is that the original inhabitants of this continent have a moral right to be on these lands, more so than those who crossed an ocean to come here and now claim that this land belongs to them. morally speaking, which is the argument the clown in the video is addressing, who is the real alien??
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys The land that we acquire by force is ours. You dont have any logical or moral standing to say we dont deserve the land we have.
The original inhabitants of this land are all dead. New ones have taken over. Mexicans were not the first ones to inhabit a land. Therefore they dont have any claim to it since we took it over.
Its America's land, it is our land, not yours
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci so you believe that you have a moral right to claim something that you acquire by force? Michael Jackson is dead too, does his killer have a right to his property? Who are you referring to when you say "our land"? Were these people even on this continent before the Mexicans? when you have a real argument let me know.
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys I do believe we have a moral right to claim something which we have taken over. This has been done countless times in history.
No, no that person does not have a right to his property because we have laws in the country that we have created that forbid us to do so.
When i say our land, I mean every single American, no race, no gender, no age group, just Americans.
Do you honestly not know if there were people before the Mexicans? Did you not watch this video?
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci the fact that something has been done many times does not mean that it is morally right. you cannot go from a claim of fact to a normative statement. regarding your 2nd and 3rd statements I need to remind you that this is not a discussion about civil laws but about moral rights. Being an american is a legal status which is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the native inhabitants of this continent have a moral right to be here. Mexicans represent these people in North americ
1sportboys 7 months ago
@1sportboys Ok, then following your logic, who deserves the country?
Since there were people who lived here before Mexicans, shouldnt they get the country?
What makes Mexicans have any more of a right to this land than Americans? Both have taken land by force.
superlucci 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superlucci the ones who were here before were indegenous populations just like the direct descendants of modern day mexicans. everyone else came from other lands to claim that this was theirs and no one else including the original inhabitants of this continent should have it
1sportboys 7 months ago
@superlucci i do know that there were people before the mexicans. they were indigenous populations just like the Aztecs who were the direct descendants of the mexicans. Neither one had to cross an ocean to get here.
1sportboys 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superlucci who are the direct descendants of the native people of this continent? The Irish? The English? The Germans? The French? The Italians? Perhaps the Dutch? Mexicans descend from the Aztecs who are the same race as the Cherokee, The Apache, The Sioux, The Mayas, The Incas, so what modern country in North America is the representative of these people?. Besides, even if a person is dead, that does not give anybody else a right to their land does it?.
1sportboys 8 months ago
my neighbor's house got burglarized last week. do you think he cares whether the burglar was an illegal immigrant or a U.S. citizen?
1sportboys 8 months ago
so if my dad takes my radio away by force, that somehow gives a total stranger the moral right to take it from my dad by force? Whatever fights took place among the native people of these lands in no way gives people from other continents the moral right to take these lands from them . by the way you failed to blame American businesses and landlords for the illegal immigration problem. they sell, hire or rent to illegals. why not go after them?
1sportboys 8 months ago
@vonBondenSkurge "It's the polarization of ethnicities which causes tension amongst the people" and yet we are still here. i find the argument against Multiculturalism a sort of scapegoat for xenophobia. once you break it down you can clearly see the underpinnings of racism. and thats really the only logical conclusion of anti-Multiculturalism, to deny another ethnicity because the fabric of society will decay in it's presence.
vincenizzzle 8 months ago
Actually we didn't take Texas by force. Texas wanted to join us and sent the proposal themselves.
JDThinking 8 months ago
@vonBondenSkurge no sir, your argument for assimilation makes zero sense considering we're a nation of immigrants. what exactly are new immigrants supposed to assimilate to when the latino population exceeds the caucasion (thats spelled wrong) population in the near future? and how the hell can our country "not survive" because different ethnic groups don't get along with one another? self segregation has been and will be around for a long time. assimilation is un american. diversity is american
vincenizzzle 8 months ago
@vincenizzzle Check your history your so dead wrong.
TheNerdsFromHell 8 months ago
@TheNerdsFromHell which part? elaborate.
vincenizzzle 8 months ago
@vincenizzzle we've either actively or passively enforced assimilation for the last 200 years.
TheNerdsFromHell 8 months ago
@TheNerdsFromHell so that makes it an ideal americans should want to achieve? again, which part of my history is wrong?
vincenizzzle 8 months ago
@vincenizzzle No just hate it when people don't realize this country is built on the blood of immigrants not backs. They are here to undercut labor costs nothing more
TheNerdsFromHell 8 months ago
@TheNerdsFromHell never answered my question. moving on.
vincenizzzle 8 months ago
@vincenizzzle to elaborate every wave of immigrants we've had up until now has been shunned and used as cheap labor. Everything that's been said about Mexicans was said about the Irish,Germans,etc. Give it a generation or 2. Folks will get used to them and, they'll actually expect to be paid decent wages, and we'll all be happy under our new Chinese overlords.
TheNerdsFromHell 8 months ago
@vonBondenSkurge yea screw her heritage i want her to assimilate into our oppressive racist collective! yayness [;
vincenizzzle 8 months ago
I've found Bill Whittle's YouTube series to be very informative and to the point.
But I've found one thing missing: what are Bill's/The Teaparty's views on gay marriage? Or rather, how can legally discriminating against gays who want to get married possibly be compatible with the ideals of libertarianism.
yfirkaldan 9 months ago
Why didn't you conservatives get this upset when Ronald Reagan gave over 6 million illegals a Blanket Amnesty in 86'?
By the way, the Confederacy was never a recognized Gov't, that's one of the reasons why we "went" to War.
theylied1776 10 months ago
@theylied1776 We were.It was a blaring mistake. My question is, why do you support it now?
WELanning 9 months ago
@WELanning We were? So there are news stories and videos of rallies and marches that took place in 86' that can match the immigration hysteria of today? I'd love to see em'.
I don't support immigration amnesty, I don't support any policy that ignores our current immigration laws.
Then like now, an amnesty policy shows a lack of leadership.
theylied1776 9 months ago
It's funny that the best and well thought out argument in this video was the one arguing that Texas shouldn't be given to Mexico. A point that almost everyone agrees on. The rest of it was pretty much nonsense.
wowsa0 10 months ago
The Hispanics had their land taken most recently, that's why it matters.
Just because immigrants have historically assimilated doesn't mean it's good.
Who are "we"? What is "America"?
Culture is not a zero-sum game. One can retain both their own culture and the American one.
How the fuck is disagreement with you racist?
vaguelyhumanoid 10 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid But in order for a country to function there has to be a level oh cohesion amongst its people. The citizens have to be able to communicate universally amongst themselves, there has to be a set of rules that dictate what is acceptable, even if those rules are very basic and non- constrictive. This cohesion is achieved by a level of assimilation, conscious or otherwise. You can retain a sense of pride over your roots and culture, but your loyalty has to be to your new home.
saintjst7 9 months ago
@saintjst7 How is "a country" legitimate?
vaguelyhumanoid 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid How is a country legitimate? Simple. By virtue of its armed forces, and their willingness to use it.
WyldeMax 9 months ago
@WyldeMax IOW might makes right?
vaguelyhumanoid 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid No. What makes a country legitimate is by virtue of its ability to defend itself. If you can't defend yourself, you're not a country, and you exist only by other nation's whim.
WyldeMax 9 months ago
@WyldeMax No, I'm asking what legitimizes the authority of a state.
vaguelyhumanoid 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid An army does. He that has the most guns wins. Now, you can go into notions about constitutions and rule of law, but in the end what backs that law up is force and the willingness to use it. If you break a law, what good is it if nobody comes to arrest you? At that point what good is it to write a law if there's nobody to enforce it if violated? All of this is backed by the military that secures the state rulers, who may employ them against the populace if the need arose.
WyldeMax 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WyldeMax I mean *ethically*, why do we have a duty to obey the state?
vaguelyhumanoid 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid "Who are "we"? What is "America"?"
Simple "We" are Americans. "America" is a country. Assimilation is good. It promotes unity. No one said you couldn't still recognize your native culture. All it means is that instead of being a Mexican(for example) who just so happens to legally reside in America, they are Americans who just so happen to have Mexican descendants , heritage or whatever. By the way nothing Bill said was racist.
lockdown260 9 months ago
@lockdown260 Why should I view the borders of "America" as a valid geopolitical entity? Why is unity between "Americans" good?
BTW I never said he was racist.
vaguelyhumanoid 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid "Why should I view the borders of "America" as a valid geopolitical entity?" The same reason your neighbors should respect the property lines of your house & yard. I highly doubt that if a bunch of people you didn't know or like breached your living quarters, pitched tents & helped themselves to your fridge and possessions that you'd have no problem with it.
"Why is unity between "Americans" good?" It's better than race riots and discrimination. I can tell you that much.
lockdown260 9 months ago
@lockdown260 1. I should be able to live in my house, that doesn't mean I should have absolute dominion over it. Property is merely an abstraction that can be beneficial or harmful, it is nothing in reality.
2. False dichotomy. Why should there even be a "USA" in the first place?
vaguelyhumanoid 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid 1. Your house is your property along with other stuff you worked to obtain. It's nothing abstract. If someone took your stuff w/o permission you'd be pissed, end of story. Property is far from nothing. W/o it civilized societies could not exist. Said principles extend to the national level. Different countries have different resources & styles of government. It's not good for random ppl to come in, take a country's stuff & impose their rules on the populous. part2->
lockdown260 9 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid Part 2 cont.
2. It is not a false dichotomy. Name ONE country where disunity or separatism in the population did not breed resentment, mistrust, xenophobia, or racism. "Separate but equal" does not work anywhere.
"Why should there even be a "USA" in the first place?" Goes back to property rights. There is no point in working, (or doing anything really) if someone can just run in and take the fruits of your labor. Same thing applies to countries.
lockdown260 9 months ago