Unamerican people need to leave America

imop i think not only 'un americans' but also Americans need to educate them selfs

Do natural rights give people the right to a welfare check ?

What needs to leave America is both welfare-ism and warfare-ism.

& pseudo-libertarian BS.

Somebody sent me this .... just thought I'd add it to the conversation - no doubt the OP believes these people should just be allowed to pour in and do this stuff?

MUSLIM BOAT PEOPLE

Where are all these “refugees”coming from? From what courtesy are they considered to be “refugees?”

How can they be Islamic refugees coming from an Islamic country?

Why are they all selecting Australia as their destination? Why not some other Islamic country? Hmmmmm!

This is all a thinly camouflaged immigration operation, secretly agreed to by the governments.

They should be jailed – or hung, for allowing this to happen.

It is about time we acknowledged that because of the thousands of years that we have cultivated our "ways of life" they are different, and this difference is a big hurdle?

Yesterday the 101st refugee boat arrived in Australian waters in the past year, that is eight boats per month for the last 12 months - over 4000 generally male Muslim refugees.

Who are these refugees?

These are the ones with enough criminal background or sufficient money to get themselves onto a refugee boat.

Ask yourself, will they ever assimilate as Australians, as we know Australians? NO

Will they want more mosques? YES

Will they want their children educated in Muslim-only schools? YES

Will they require taxpayer-funded medical care? YES

Will they require taxpayer-funded accommodation? YES

Will they require taxpayer-funded language courses ? YES

Will they require taxpayer-funded rental assistance and any other government / taxpayer handout? YES

Do you know the background of all the 911 terrorists? They were all illegal refugees who entered America under their refugee acceptance program.

Do you know the background of the leader of the Australian terrorist group found guilty of plotting to blow-up a major Australian event - the Melbourne football Grand Final possibly killing hundreds of people?

He arrived in Australia in May 1989 on a one-month visitor's permit, on which he twice gained extensions, and settled in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, an area with a large Muslim population.

After the expiry of his permit in 1990 he became a prohibited non-citizen, then spent the next six years fighting through the Immigration Review Tribunal appeals process for the right to stay.

During his hearings he told the Tribunal of his "love of the Australian lifestyle".

In 1992 Benbrika married a Lebanese woman who was an Australian citizen, with whom he had six children.

He hadn't worked a day since arriving in Australia, living off welfare payments.

en.wikipedia.org...-arrested-0

reply to post by Trublue


i think your refering to indonesians
a muslim overcrowded country near australia

I agree with what you are saying, but a pointless rant, nevertheless.

Do you think you have educated anyone here?

Hmm, I seriously doubt it. Anyone who hasn't already figured out what you have stated, just doesn't get it, simply because "We hold these truths to be self evident". Obviously some people don't.

ETA:
This doesn't include immigration laws, as these are based on economical and ecologial factors, not racial etc.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by nik1halo]

Originally posted by togetherwestand
reply to post by Trublue

 

i think your refering to indonesians
a muslim overcrowded country near australia

No they are traveling much further than that - they just leave from there.

reply to post by SpectreDC

The fundamental principles founded in this country are not laws given to us by the state. They are not deemed "okay" by any single entity. These principles, in ideology (not in practice, sadly) were not attributed to only Americans. They were not only attributed to white males. They were attributed to men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights, christians and atheists, because all of these labels and categories exist under another label: HUMAN

The USA was created as a country by North Western Europeans for North Western Europeans.


Up untill the 1930s the immigration policy of Northern Europeans taking preference reflected this.

As do:
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Read these links and you will see this is fact.

You are wrong, and I have proved you wrong, with two simple internet links. This shows your ignorance in this issue.
Instead of actually saying things that are true, you just spouted liberal lies to make yourself feel good, and harvest sme flags and stars.

Great contribution to the forum, thanks /sarcasm
Educate yourself.

reply to post by Jenna


Most of the influence in regards to Natural Rights in terms of our Founding Documents came from Locke's theories but are not limited to such. There was a whole lot of influence, philosophy and knowledge drawn upon to create the United States of America.


Hobbs: A known monarchist

First Law of Nature: Seek out peace; if it cannot be obtained then war ensues

Second Law of Nature: To achieve the first, Man must give up certain Rights. If Man follows the laws of Nature, then we know that Man is capable of killing. It is rights such as these we give up in order to obtain the First Law.

Third Law of Nature: Social Contracts must be kept and honored. Generally, States entered into a social contract with other States and the Nation as a whole, just as we enter into social contracts via elections, business transactions, etc.

-------

Locke's work is loosely based upon the work of Hobbs, as one can see in his theories laid out in Two Treatises on Government.

The gist of John Locke was that personal liberty can coexist with political order. To be able to obtain the coexistence, the People must seek out peace. To do so, we must abstain from our natural chaotic rights such as stealing, killing, etc. To do so, Locke proposed that we are subjected to moral law.

Once Law's One and Two are satisfied, the People can enter into a social contract delegating authority, not responsibility to Government. Since the Government is created by the People, the contract is valid as long as the People see it fit. The contract limits the powers of the Government, is beholden to the People, the creators of the social contract.

--------

Other notables are Montesquieu and Paine. Montesquieu took Locke's work and added a judiciary. Paine, as most widely known for Common Sense, had far greater works in The Rights of Man.

1. Men are born free and shall remain so. They are equal in their rights.
2. To preserve those rights, political associations are created
3. Since the Nation is based upon the People, and their rights are bestowed upon birth, the Nation can only have rights granted to it by the very People that created it.

---------

To answer as to which Natural Law was used: Hobbs was the base as the three principles must be met in order to peaceable live amongst one another, yet still pursue our self-interests. It is the foundation onto which personal freedom via self-governance is obtained. Without peace, we cannot associate. To maintain association, such as political association, Man is compelled to give up our more raw and primal rights such as killing, stealing, etc; totally disregarding each other in pursuit of self-interests. Without all the above, Social Contracts will always fail and would never form.


EDIT:Fixed word usage....



[edit on 5-5-2010 by ownbestenemy]

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

LOL Yeah. This is sort of the counter-thread to the white race one almost. But since they would disagree with the message (not the title) I could see them ignoring it after a cursory read through.

I support the white race thread in certain ways, immigration laws are insane here but I guess I'm automatically a racist in your eyes. That's ignorance. The OP's message is obvious and crystal clear to me so you are dead wrong!
I'm happy to prove you wrong.

Great thread OP!

The declaration of independence does not have the force of law. The constitution has been broadly undermined by subsequent legislation and executive orders. And the bill of rights stops short of enshrining or guaranteeing the simple rights outlined in the declaration of independence.

Until those three factors are remedied in a spirit of fairness and compassion for all, I sadly feel that we will remain in one form of bondage or another.

Originally posted by asd10
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

The fundamental principles founded in this country are not laws given to us by the state. They are not deemed "okay" by any single entity. These principles, in ideology (not in practice, sadly) were not attributed to only Americans. They were not only attributed to white males. They were attributed to men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights, christians and atheists, because all of these labels and categories exist under another label: HUMAN

The USA was created as a country by North Western Europeans for North Western Europeans.


Up untill the 1930s the immigration policy of Northern Europeans taking preference reflected this.

As do:
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Read these links and you will see this is fact.

You are wrong, and I have proved you wrong, with two simple internet links. This shows your ignorance in this issue.
Instead of actually saying things that are true, you just spouted liberal lies to make yourself feel good, and harvest sme flags and stars.

Great contribution to the forum, thanks /sarcasm
Educate yourself.

lmao they were some racist POS back then. Just glad things changed since those days......well it seems like it has changed.

This is where people are getting confused. People are trying to say because people don't believe in "Natural Rights" that people are UnAmerican. That is total bull hocky.

If you really want to get right down to it. The whole theory of Natural Rights and the US Constitution before the Bill of Rights is a complete failure. The reason for this is because without the bill of rights the government could do anything it wanted, take away guns, search us whenever they felt like it, etc. Luckily they decided to pass the Bill of Rights. Which gives us rights such as to bear arms, and no search and seizure without probable cause.

The fact of the matter is the only Natural Right that is bestowed upon you when you are born is the right to survive. Nothing more and nothing less.

Am I any less of American because I believe that Natural Rights don't exist? No I'm not. Strangely enough people in here feel that is the case because I don't believe a theory that was created hundreds of years ago that was subsequently proven to be wrong.

Pathetic actually.

You are my hero. You're saying what most ALL Americans feel and believe from what I have seen.
Thank you!!

reply to post by SpectreDC


Spoken like a true uneducated American Youth whose been indoctrinated by words, not a true education in history but in complete ideology based on a Wizard of Oz fantasy. But let me just clue you in on a few things my friend:
You don't like hearing it but the only people the Founding Fathers thought were able to vote, own land and participate in due process were - White men. Show me one signature on the Declaration of Independence or the other documents with a black, oriental, hispanic or female signature! White women didn't get a vote until the 19th amendment. Blacks had to have various amendments 13, 14, 15, 16, in order to get have legal right to own property and vote. 14th amendment had to be instated to remind us that we have the right to govern our own bodies and not white men.
These are sad and sorry facts and all in the legislation that is so long and tedious that you won't read it - unless its dangling from some video hoe's butt sliding down a stripper pole that is.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

I don't agree with your diatribe. "Natural Rights" are a concept. An opinion of what you THINK you have, of what you deserve. Yes, I said an OPINION.

In reality you are born with nothing. You deserve nothing. You are given nothing except what those around you will give to you.

You scream and rant about "rights" that all people have imbued in them simply by being born. There is only one right that you have at any one time and that is the right to resist the mandate of the existing law (order).

These "inalienable" rights you like to trumpet aren't imbued upon you simply because you are a born human being - that's the most SINGULAR CONCEITED, ARROGANT statement made, next to "We are the only life in the universe".

The rights you enjoy now are due to soldiers who fight enemies who would take those "inalienable rights" away from you. And there will always, always be someone who will be ready to take away your rights. Rights are BORN out of superior resistance. And if at any time a superior force were to take over this country, you would quickly see that those "rights" you quack about being imbued on everyone would be taken away.

Try arguing that you have inalienable rights with the man who has a weapon pointed at your head. If he demands you do something or not do something, the only right you have is the right to resist his order. Try excercising your "inalienable" rights in a prison camp under the order running the camp. Again, the only right you have to excercise as a human being is resistance. You may die for excercising that right, depending on who oppresses you, but you are free to excercise it.

I read this reply twice and was just wondering if you actually read it once !!
It would appear that you some how stated both sides of the argument at the same time.

How can pointing a gun at my head have any effect upon the facts of my rights one way or another? if I have any "natural rights" they can only be lost at the time of my death. If I do not have these rights, my death will make no difference what so ever.

It is the defiance of power in the light of persicution which will endow a person or persons with these "natural rights". These can then be passed on to those who come after them.

It should also be noted that along with these rights come the two edged sword of personal freedom and personal responsibility. This is how and why this country came about and how and why it shall continue to prosper.

Originally posted by Light of Night
Okay, lets just let everybody into the country without any background checks or anything. Or better yet lets call everybody in the world American's and they are entitled to everything that we have. I'm sure we can figure out a way to send welfare checks and food stamps to all the poverty stricken people all over the world.

So I guess basically what you are trying to say is that, illegal immigrants should be allowed the same rights as American citizens? That what this rant screams to me.

And you completely missed the point. No one is "allowed" rights. "People" have those rights and the government can't take them away. Not citizens - PEOPLE.

Good job proving the OP's point.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Light of Night
Okay, lets just let everybody into the country without any background checks or anything. Or better yet lets call everybody in the world American's and they are entitled to everything that we have. I'm sure we can figure out a way to send welfare checks and food stamps to all the poverty stricken people all over the world.

So I guess basically what you are trying to say is that, illegal immigrants should be allowed the same rights as American citizens? That what this rant screams to me.

Good job proving the OP's point.

To be fair, about half the people have proved several points I've either made in this thread or points I hold in my head.

Most people don't read, and don't apply critical thought. Most people are unthinking, irrational and insensible.

People seem to have forgotten that thing known as "deny ignorance" here on ATS.

This thread has nothing to do with immigration, it isn't even something that can be debated. While yes, everyone besides white men weren't allowed to really take part in much of the liberty in America for sometime, this wasn't the construct of the law itself but how it was enforced. Notice how I said ideology speaking versus in practice. And regardless of how it was practiced, the fact remains plenty of the founding fathers thought Natural Law applied to all but society in whole wouldn't allow such dynamic changes so quickly.

The point of this thread is simple for anyone who can read; if you hammer on about the founders, the declaration of independence, the constitution, and yet you're willing to strip many of the natural rights from someone because they do something to us, you're a hypocrite! You are a complete and utter hypocritical, sycophantic twit who is undermining the most fundamental aspect to America's principles. Don't try to justify it, accept what you are or change! It's that simple!

My beliefs on immigration policy, on the Arizona bill, on law and on justice....none of that has to do with what I'm talking about, which is the people here being hypocrites. I felt like mentioning some of you guys were hypocrites.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


No, the government gives people rights. If the government did not give people rights then people would only have the right to survive.

Again, natural rights are a failed theory. Natural Rights is what YOU BELIEVE, they hold no basis in reality.

Yet another person that only wants to see what they believe to be true.

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by mothershipzeta

 

Again, natural rights are a failed theory. Natural Rights is what YOU BELIEVE, they hold no basis in reality.

Besides the basis of thought for the founding principles of this country, but you seem to like ignoring that part.

Oh, and the part where Natural Law helped bring about the age of enlightenment and Liberalism..kind of another thing a little important to America.

But none of that matters when you're wrong, so you need to ignore history to make yourself right.

It's okay, no one considers your arguments legitimate anyways. That's what happens when you completely neglect facts of a case.