United States The United States and Immigration Policy

[Bear Ribs]

Blatantly unconstitutional. The census is required to count the number of people in every state, not citizens (maybe a holdover from slavery? Idk).

Not really. "Are you a citizen?" in some form was included on most census forms in history, more often on the "long form" since normally, to save paperwork, the census sends a majority of the population a "short form" that basically just asks age, race, and sex and then every tenth home or so gets a more detailed "long form" with questions about income, citizenship, etc. and they extrapolate the the makeup of the population from that. It's certainly not unconstitutional to ask about citizenship else a solid 90% of all censuses were unconstitutional.

Citizenship, the Census and Obama - FactCheck.org

Memes circulating online claim that former President Barack Obama removed the citizenship question from the 2010 census. He didn't. The citizenship question in 2010 was handled the same way it had been since 1970.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

All I can here are you whining the world isn't perfect, while ignoring all the great things the constitution has done. Christ, give up the blackpill why don't you.

This may surprise you, but I have great hopes for the future. Specifically because the American people have resoundingly rejected libertarianism.

Since you keep avoiding my question, I'll repeat it: why should unrepentant criminal non-citizens, who don't even give enough of a shit to respect the laws of the country they're moving to, have themselves factored into Electoral College appointments? Why do you think this is good? Why do you think this is fair? How does this promote liberty?

 

[Abhorsen]

Not really. "Are you a citizen?" in some form was included on most census forms in history, more often on the "long form" since normally, to save paperwork, the census sends a majority of the population a "short form" that basically just asks age, race, and sex and then every tenth home or so gets a more detailed "long form" with questions about income, citizenship, etc. and they extrapolate the the makeup of the population from that. It's certainly not unconstitutional to ask about citizenship else a solid 90% of all censuses were unconstitutional.

Oh, asking about it is no problem. It's excluding them from the count for purposes of representation that's the problem.

This may surprise you, but I have great hopes for the future. Specifically because the American people have resoundingly rejected libertarianism.

... Given they seem to be accepting marxism instead, I'm unsure why you want this tradeoff, but then I remember your previous idiotic statements, and it makes sense. You put about as much thought into this position as you did every other one you made.

Since you keep avoiding my question, I'll repeat it: why should unrepentant criminal non-citizens, who don't even give enough of a shit to respect the laws of the country they're moving to, have themselves factored into Electoral College appointments? Why do you think this is good? Why do you think this is fair? How does this promote liberty?

I don't, and never said it was good. I just pointed out that it's in the constitution, and rejecting the constitution means losing everything held dear about our rights.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

Given they seem to be accepting marxism instead, I'm unsure why you want this tradeoff, but then I remember your previous idiotic statements, and it makes sense. You put about as much thought into this position as you did every other one you made.

Tough talk from a guy who lets a piece of paper do all his thinking for him.

I don't, and never said it was good. I just pointed out that it's in the constitution, and rejecting the constitution means losing everything held dear about our rights.

It's amazing to me how you can hold so many mutually contradictory positions in your head at once. Leftism is bad, therefore we need the Constitution to protect us, but Leftists have figured how to rationalize whatever they want in Constitutional language and get it passed, but the Constitution hasn't failed and this is all normal and we have to let our enemies destroy us because they used the Constitution to legalize their attacks?

It's a tangled knot of shitty rationalizations, and it's pathetic. Do you even want libertarianism to win? Then why are you so intent on giving outsized electoral power to people who are not, never have been, and never will be libertarian? Remind me what illegal Guatemalans like to vote for again?...

 

[Abhorsen]

Tough talk from a guy who lets a piece of paper do all his thinking for him.

Compared to someone who can't think at all? I think I come out the winner here.

It's amazing to me how you can hold so many mutually contradictory positions in your head at once. Leftism is bad, therefore we need the Constitution to protect us, but Leftists have figured how to rationalize whatever they want in Constitutional language and get it passed, but the Constitution hasn't failed and this is all normal and we have to let our enemies destroy us because they used the Constitution to legalize their attacks?

You put all these words together and come up with something completely wrong, as per usual. It's hardly twisting when it's plain and obvious what the stuff means. Second, I just pointed out numerous examples of the constitution helping conservatives in the past 20 years, which you ignored.

It's a tangled knot of shitty rationalizations, and it's pathetic. Do you even want libertarianism to win? Then why are you so intent on giving outsized electoral power to people who are not, never have been, and never will be libertarian? Remind me what illegal Guatemalans like to vote for again?...

They can't vote, they just get representation. And as for where they are giving representation to, a large amount goes to Texas, which is very libertarian. So yet again, you are wrong.

You have no ideas, no coherent positions, and all you say is demonstrably wrong. I think I'm done with this conversation with you.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

It's amazing to me how you can hold so many mutually contradictory positions in your head at once. Leftism is bad, therefore we need the Constitution to protect us, but Leftists have figured how to rationalize whatever they want in Constitutional language and get it passed, but the Constitution hasn't failed and this is all normal and we have to let our enemies destroy us because they used the Constitution to legalize their attacks?

With enough bullshit, purposeful misinterpretation, and outright lies you can rationalize just about anything with any statement of political philosophy past a certain length.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Again, the constitution is the legalese laying out America's core principles. If those are under threat, it is the constitution we use as both guidance and safety. Abandoning the constitution when under threat is the stupidest piece of horseshit I've ever heard, along the lines of "Get out of the tank, they're shooting us with pistols!"


Because respecting the constitution means doing this, and the constitution matters. Just for example, a major religious and school choice victory just happened (which apparently you missed, thinking it's a useless document). But no, we must burn America, or else they might attack it.


Can't do that either. From the 14th amendment:

Illegal immigrants aren't Indians not taxed, so must be included.

Sure they are mezitos are explicitly part Indian. The majority of illegals are mezitos therefore Indians.

 

[Abhorsen]

Sure they are mezitos are explicitly part Indian. The majority of illegals are mezitos therefore Indians.

So first, you'd have to determine how many were actually indian, legally show they were legally indian (probably not, that part of the constitution likely refers to Indians that maintain tribal ties, especially ones to tribes in the US. Finally, they would have to pay no taxes, including sales taxes, property taxes, etc (income tax payment is irrelevant, as the amendment predated federal income tax). This, too, is unlikely.

 

[Lanmandragon]

So first, you'd have to determine how many were actually indian, legally show they were legally indian (probably not, that part of the constitution likely refers to Indians that maintain tribal ties, especially ones to tribes in the US. Finally, they would have to pay no taxes, including sales taxes, property taxes, etc (income tax payment is irrelevant, as the amendment predated federal income tax). This, too, is unlikely.

Then just ignore it there's no reason at all illegals should be counted. It's certainly a better reason to break the rules then say gun control.

 

[Abhorsen]

Then just ignore it there's no reason at all illegals should be counted. It's certainly a better reason to break the rules then say gun control.

Because it will be struck down by the supreme court. And if we ignore the supreme court, it will end very badly for us, as leftists start ignoring even more of the constitution, and we don't have the supreme court to stop that.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It's amazing to me how you can hold so many mutually contradictory positions in your head at once. Leftism is bad, therefore we need the Constitution to protect us, but Leftists have figured how to rationalize whatever they want in Constitutional language and get it passed, but the Constitution hasn't failed and this is all normal and we have to let our enemies destroy us because they used the Constitution to legalize their attacks?

It's a tangled knot of shitty rationalizations, and it's pathetic. Do you even want libertarianism to win? Then why are you so intent on giving outsized electoral power to people who are not, never have been, and never will be libertarian? Remind me what illegal Guatemalans like to vote for again?...

people like you though are also part of the problem though buddy. It's not so much that these people are using the constitution for their own ends full stop so much as they straight up ignore the constitution, and they have both a media and an education system that backs them up along with a corporate oligarchy. That's not the constitutions fault, that's on conservatives that sit on their butts and refuse any solution that isn't "Going 1776 on these traitors."

The way I remember it, when I was growing up teaching was something that was looked at as something you do when you were either too lazy or couldn't cut it in your field "Those who can do, those who can't teach." The arts was something that was looked at as either not being a real job, or something of lesser important and far more risky compared to a trade and don't get us started on kids these days and their new fangled technology.....and now look what's happened. The college system and Hollywood both are infected by progressive dribble, they established a tech empire that makes the most die hard capitalist green with envy, and no one has taken conservatism seriously in thirty years. now we're screeching because we lost at a game we were too lazy (or perhaps to arrogant) to play, and now we want to burn it all down as a result?

We really want to start winning on a level that matters, we need to start playing the darn game. Get involved in the education system, be active in the business of our local government, start encouraging our kids to get involved in the arts and in journalism. Heck with the establishment starting to buckle under their own hubris now would be the perfect time to do it, but we need to jump on it now before they have the chance to regroup. Anarchy and warlords are not the answer. Hard work and patience is.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Because it will be struck down by the supreme court. And if we ignore the supreme court, it will end very badly for us, as leftists start ignoring even more of the constitution, and we don't have the supreme court to stop that.

Bro the left is very much going to ignore the court anyway. Biden literally said this straight up not to mention all the stacking talk. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Bro the left is very much going to ignore the court anyway. Biden literally said this straight up not to mention all the stacking talk. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

That I do agree with. I really wish there was a way to dispel non constitutionalist from their positions.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

Because it will be struck down by the supreme court. And if we ignore the supreme court, it will end very badly for us, as leftists start ignoring even more of the constitution, and we don't have the supreme court to stop that.

So why are you wasting so much of your emotional energy on running interference for a document you've already admitted has been no meaningful hindrance to the Supreme Court? And before you bring out your list again, let me just point out that no honest person can look at the world today and think Americans are meaningfully freer in 2020 than we were in 1920. The Constitution has done nothing to stop it.

*snip*

I don't disagree with you on how to push back against Leftists, which is why your consistent slander of me as some neo-fascist Internet Tough Guy is so funny. The only people I'm against on the Right are "Liberalism 1.0" libertarians who insist on propping up Business as Usual and pretending the Constitution will save them.

The Constitution is nothing on its own without interpreters. Unlimited power to interpret the Constitution is the same as unlimited power to rewrite it. The entire point of building institutional strength is to either insulate ourselves from the hostile power, or become the power on our own.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I don't disagree with you on how to push back against Leftists, which is why your consistent slander of me as some neo-fascist Internet Tough Guy is so funny. the only people I'm against on the Right are "Liberalism 1.0" libertarians who insist on propping up Business as Usual and pretending the Constitution will save them.

Considering some of the post you put, all I can say is I missed that memo. If that's the case, I'm sorry.

The Constitution has laid out some really nice principles—most of which I agree with—but that's all they are: words on paper, unless there is a culture that actually enforces those principles. The fact that you're willing to throw the nation you claim to love so much to the wolves over some retarded legalese puts the lie to every single claim you've ever made about the power of the Constitution. Either the Constitution approves of Leftism, or it has been absolutely useless in preventing it.

to me the above quote doesn't sound like someone that holds the principles of the constitution, it sounds like someone who wants to abandon it,. Look I'm limited by the sums of my own experiences, but I don't know that first libertarian that wants to keep things as they are. The problem is we seem to be caught between two sides that want their pound of flesh and chalice of blood, and they want them now. Refuse to sate them and they will devour you, enable them and you've pretty much established that chaos is the one true order.

People want instant retribution and instant gratification and that's just not how good civilization building works. It takes patience it takes wisdom, it takes the exchange of ideas. It take blood sweat and tears of the self. In short it takes good old fashioned hard work.

 

[Lanmandragon]

So why are you wasting so much of your emotional energy on running interference for a document you've already admitted has been no meaningful hindrance to the Supreme Court? And before you bring out your list again, let me just point out that no honest person can look at the world today and think Americans are meaningfully freer in 2020 than we were in 1920. The Constitution has done nothing to stop it.



I don't disagree with you on how to push back against Leftists, which is why your consistent slander of me as some neo-fascist Internet Tough Guy is so funny. The only people I'm against on the Right are "Liberalism 1.0" libertarians who insist on propping up Business as Usual and pretending the Constitution will save them.

The Constitution is nothing on its own without interpreters. Unlimited power to interpret the Constitution is the same as unlimited power to rewrite it. The entire point of building institutional strength is to either insulate ourselves from the hostile power, or become the power on our own.

See your not really correct here either. Sure it's a ba situation but your delusional if you really believe it's stopped nothing. Without the exsteince of a written construction. We woul already very much have hate speech laws like England. Deplatforming an doxxing aren't good but they're a damn site better. Then being jailed for a tweet so what do you suggest?

 

[Deleted member 88]

If they implemented hate speech laws, they'd probably just flat out ignore the first amendment rather than go through the process of abolishing or revising it.

Combine with court stacking, it would serve to nullify it.

Not to mention the other Amendments are basically null accept the Second anyway-you can be held without charge and a quick trial, you can have your rights denied to you, and they have found ways to force double jeopardy.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

See your not really correct here either. Sure it's a ba situation but your delusional if you really believe it's stopped nothing. Without the exsteince of a written construction. We woul already very much have hate speech laws like England. Deplatforming an doxxing aren't good but they're a damn site better. Then being jailed for a tweet so what do you suggest?

I'm afraid I don't see much of a difference. Being jailed for a bigoted tweet just gives you a criminal record. It's a rough life, and an unjust punishment, but there are plenty of ex-cons who live productive lives.

Having your privacy violated, being unable to find any sort of job, having every bank, credit card, and payment processor deny you, and the ever-present danger of having some antifa recognize you in the street and sucker-punch you... that's pure evil. Inflicting that life on someone is the same as murder, in my opinion.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

We really want to start winning on a level that matters, we need to start playing the darn game. Get involved in the education system, be active in the business of our local government, start encouraging our kids to get involved in the arts and in journalism. Heck with the establishment starting to buckle under their own hubris now would be the perfect time to do it, but we need to jump on it now before they have the chance to regroup. Anarchy and warlords are not the answer. Hard work and patience is.

I agree with you for the most part in that Conservatives basically did nothing but let leftists take control over everything. For fucks sake, leftists have stated long ago that they were planning to take control of various institutions. They called it "The long march through the institutions" and conservatives did nothing.

However, you are mistaken in encouraging kids to enter education and journalism. Those places are infested with leftists whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate. We need to create a separate education and journalism system.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

However, you are mistaken in encouraging kids to enter education and journalism. Those places are infested with leftists whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate. We need to create a separate education and journalism system.

that's actually what I'm referring to. sorry I should have been more specific. Also while i'm enjoying the conversation it's getting off topic.

Honestly I wouldn't care so much about immigration if our leaders actually went through the proper channels to amend the laws, rather than just be lax on enforcement and make exceptions ever chance they get. They really want open boarders that bad, they need to put the proposal through congress, and the president just like any other bill.