Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by SpectreDC


What led to the founding of the country was the overbearing demands of King George and the belief that the American colonies should keep most of what they produce.

Natural Law, is a failed Theory. If it was a proven theory then there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Again as it has been mentioned the government started taking away rights when the constitution was adopted so they passed the Bill of Rights.

What people are failing to understand is that Natural Law is a complete failure. If it was a fact and did in fact exist there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Nothing you say or believe refutes that fact.

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

What led to the founding of the country was the overbearing demands of King George and the belief that the American colonies should keep most of what they produce.

Natural Law, is a failed Theory. If it was a proven theory then there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Again as it has been mentioned the government started taking away rights when the constitution was adopted so they passed the Bill of Rights.

What people are failing to understand is that Natural Law is a complete failure. If it was a fact and did in fact exist there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Nothing you say or believe refutes that fact.

So now you're arguing that because an abstract ethical theory "doesn't exist", it's wrong?

Please this is starting to get rather entertaining. Why else is Natural Law "wrong"?

Because all you're saying is a bunch of ridiculous nonsensical arguments that make little or no sense, nor a hint of reason behind any of your claims other than "it is a fact" and "you're wrong, I'm right."

Brilliant debating

There is truth inside the op's argument somewhat. However there are certain rights on which the laws of our country have been written and even our founding fathers knew and stated that you have unalienable rights but they can become infringed upon at times or completely revoked by a governmental body. That doesn't mean you lose your inalienable rights but legally they are not protected fully or enforced fully by your government.

You see rights are a good thing to have it means we live freely and without distress, but we must also be mindful when our freedoms infringe on others and that is how boundaries for freedoms are set up making them more organized and easy to protect and enforce. Sometimes in the protection of those freedoms they are infringed upon to protect the freedoms of the whole rather then the individual.

Now onto the topic of immigration, we do have a freedom of movement right, read travel. But in practice this is not always enforced or protected, i.e. when you are on private property, your ordered by a law enforcement officer not to loiter or trespass in a public area due to a situational issue or when traveling abroad. In theory and ideology you have the freedom of movement or travel, but in practice there are regulations and restrictions, for good reasons sometimes, on that right.

We as American citizens have enumerated rights which i will not delve into, if you wish to research them by all means please do so. But those are also rights granted to every human, so called god given or natural rights. Now as i mentioned earlier freedom of moment and travel is regulated and sometimes restricted, for good measure to protect the whole of the American society not just its economy and financial status, but its population an social order as well.

Even or ancestors who came to this land saw these restrictions, many were forced to return to their place of origin due to health, social or criminal backgrounds or inability to assimilate into our society. Now i know this last sentence will inflame some minds as a bigoted comment but i assure it is not. We are a melting pot society and as such we enjoy many different backgrounds, ethnicity and cultures that form our American culture.

But part of that American culture is assimilation and acceptance of other cultures. We are free to celebrate our own heritage and cultures from our ancestors or relatives but we must also be tolerant and accepting of other cultures hat have become part of our nation. That last sentence is important as most, a large percentage but not all, illegal and non illegal immigrants who hail from Central and South America refuse to accept other cultures and in their minds do not wish to become American, they want to remain a citizen of their home country while enjoying the well regulated system of rights we enjoy in our wonderful country.

All the while enjoying their culture without respecting the cultures of the others in our great nation, and sometimes outright condemning or hating other cultures. Therein lies the problem, they of course have their natural rights however they come here due to conditions in their home country, where their rights are not being enforced or protected properly.





[edit on 5-5-2010 by LurkingSleipner]

reply to post by LurkingSleipner


Continued...

So logically would it not be hypocritical to remain a citizen of a nation who doesn't protect their rights while enjoying the rights in a foreign nation illegally? For example if i were to remain a us citizen and go to any EU country and demand or expect to receive all of their economic and social support benefits without being a citizen and not contributing to their society or economy but sending my income back to America to help my family, multiply that by 30 million and you can see how that can be damaging to any economy over time not just America. And for the numbers people why not just go ahead and say the average wage per year would total about 7,000 euro, that's about $14,000 American, at a minimum wage job.

And per year that's about $420,000,000,000 American, and 210.000.000.000 Euros per year for an illegal or undocumented workforce of about 30 million. And if you figure $14,000 is an average rather then the high you can see how much money is actually being siphoned away from any countries economy. Keep in mind to since Food, Clothing, Electric and heating, as well as numerous other needs are being met by subsidies or social welfare programs, much if not all of the income of undocumented aliens/ illegal aliens is going outside of the country.

Now by all means they should be welcomed as citizens and immigrate legally and properly, however we need to also regulate the amount of immigrations and properly structure them as not to damage the economic and social structure in which we base our country. Because as we have gone over in my previous post we cannot give an individual the freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of the whole, nor do they have such a freedom to do so. And by damaging social and economic stability that infringes on the wholes right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and their natural or god given rights.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by LurkingSleipner]

reply to post by SpectreDC


Very Well Said and it is the truth no matter what one say..star and flagged !!

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Unamerican people need to leave America

America needs to leave unamerican people.

No one living signed your silly four pieces of paper you call "the constitution". It was witnessed only, and by people who are long dead no less.

So in a very real sense you are the initiator of force here. People doing business as "America" need to leave "unamerican" people alone.

Lurking, that was a beautiful post.

You pretty much just said what I've been trying to say this whole time. Except, you did it a lot more eloquently haha.

True. Everyone has those inalienable rights (whichever you believe them to be) yet, there are consequences to every method you choose to use them depending on the society you live in.

What you can fight for aren't those rights, but rather the consequences of enacting those rights.

However, I still truly believe the only right man has is the right to survive and that everything else is a privilege.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Un-human people, not using humanity need to leave earth, or just end themselves. Terrible and pointless post OP. Nice one

While I agree with everything you said about rights, one of Americans' non-enumerated rights is to be ignorant. So, I disagree that they should have to leave. It would be nice if there was more attention paid to the Constitution and what it means, in public school, though.

I think they were talking about the right to be in this country.

not their inalienable rights

There is no natural law. There are no inalienable rights. They are both concepts made up in the minds of men.

The only "rights" you have are those in which you can defend from those intent on taking them away. I would say the only right you truly have is that of self defense.

You are not special. Your rights exist only as far as you can defend them. The only natural law is that you will be killed/eaten/hurt in some way by something else if you cant defend against that something else.

The only reason you have rights in the U.S. is because the government has (somewhat) continued to honor them. Not because of natural law. Your proclamation of natural law and rights means nothing to someone who does not honor them. Only the fear of reprisal keeps those rights intact.

See, even though the founders spoke of natural rights, they still felt the need for a second amendment enabling people to defend those rights. If they were in some way inalienable they would not need defending, now would they?

Although the OP states that this has nothing to do with illegal immigration I suspect it is at least related and recent discussions contributed to the creation of this thread.

Look, most people are decent people who want others to have a chance at a good life. However, without the rule of law ... actual political codified law ... the United States would not exist as it is. Not that we don't have problems but it's a pretty good place to live.

Those who would come here under the guise of just looking for a better existence while at the same time disrespecting and disobeying the laws of the land that would enable them to realize this betterment deserve neither the protection nor privileges of those laws they so freely dismiss when it's to their advantage.

Not only is it disrespecting our country, laws, and people, it's quite a big slap in the face to those who did follow the law and immigrated here legally.

reply to post by Primordial


No the reason you are sat up at your computer is because man has the power to think, to rationalise, to observe, to make decision based on probability.

If you knew the first thing about love, you would know about rights. We do have "rights" yes they were made up in our head but so was maths. They are idealogical concepts. Stop trying to confuse people.

We don't truelly have rights because of the way our goverments work. We are slaves to the monetary system - FACT.

reply to post by Light of Night


It is always so sad when I find out just how IGNORANT some people are !!!!

If you would bother to read the U S Constitution you would learn that it was structured and written to restrain the power of the government.

The first ten amendments, or the Bill of Rights, were added to specify the "natural rights" which are to be assured to every one. They are also there to further limit the scope and power of the governments influence on our lives.

Like I said, you would know this if you would simply read the U S Constitution.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You make good points, but let's examine the main topic about naturally born rights.

Being born, coming to adulthood, I make this statement:

"I have the right to ____________"

"... speak freely"
"... read whatever I want"
"... wear whatever I want"
"... do whatever I want"
"... live"

Those are just examples. You have those rights until they are taken away by the ruling force around you. My point about "obey or die" wasn't to fear-monger, it was just extending to the furthest common denominator. Indeed, for resisting the current order of law you could be imprisoned, tortured, fined or simply written a 'demerit' on a piece of paper.

No one can force you to believe their own beliefs. No one can force you to read a book you don't want to read. No one can force you to say things you don't want to say. They can intimidate and bribe you, but the decision to comply is truly yours.

My point is, whatever right you assert that you have, if they are contrary to the rule of current law, is resistance. Resistance is something that no one can truly ever take away from you. The rest of these 'rights' are.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by sos37]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by sos37]

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Light of Night

 

It is always so sad when I find out just how IGNORANT some people are !!!!

If you would bother to read the U S Constitution you would learn that it was structured and written to restrain the power of the government.

The first ten amendments, or the Bill of Rights, were added to specify the "natural rights" which are to be assured to every one. They are also there to further limit the scope and power of the governments influence on our lives.

Like I said, you would know this if you would simply read the U S Constitution.

They will never learn thats why humanity is doomed, racism, war, rape still carry on, do we ever learn?

Originally posted by SpectreDC
When you say someone doesn't deserve the rights we have in this country, it is unamerican. When you say that someone needs to be granted our rights, it is unamerican. When you say that someone isn't allowed our rights because they have done something heinous, it is unamerican.

Here here! Seriously. We need to keep flagging this until it's stickied in the #1 position on the main ATS page. Everyone is losing sight of this.

Our NATURAL GOD GIVEN RIGHTS as Americans are identical to established HUMAN RIGHTS. They go hand in hand. But rednecks want to pretend you don't have to treat 'illegals' as humans because they WALKED OVER AN IMAGINARY LINE.

Almost no one understands what a crime is anymore, what common law is.

And when you step up and voice your opinion, you're told. "If you don't like it leave."

If you don't like the fact that I don't like it, then you leave.

Bunch of cowards. This country was founded by people who didn't like the status quo. That's why the left and came here, and it followed them. Did they leave again?

Nope, they went to war. And that's exactly what's going on now. A war of of the intellect. Let us hope it starts there before it progresses into something less polite.

So I will do like they did. If I don't like it, I won't leave. I'll change it.

I'll rub your face in your own ignorance every day, I'll help show you a better way. I'll work hand in hand with you to restore, to rebuild, to grow and harvest both food and minds.

Despite our differences, I will give you the opportunity to admit your ignorance and walk hand in hand with me as a brother or sister. Together we shall rebuild this nation for us the majority, no longer to exalt the powerful.

Sides are being drawn. Where do you stand?

(Sidenote. I'm not a socialist, or communist. I'm a utopianist )

America is Zion. Due to the founding principles of the Declaration of Independance. Well before WE created government with the Constitution. Sadly man has used the Beast government as it's weapon. Giving it power that's taken from us. Slowly rotting this truly unique nation of it's historical pride and stature.

It's almost too late to fix it. Some hope America just fully collapses and we start over. And I would like to bring to your attention that starting over is full of more potential issues than just going back to our established roots. There are more ways to sneak in the ability for later perversion of precedents with the forming of a new nation.

People need to stop supplying their SSN. Stop providing license and registration because an officer asks. WE ARE NOT DRIVERS. Stop registering your vehicles. Stop applying for marriage licenses. Stop thinking you're a company.

On and on.

I'll leave you with this...

Be human.

i just saw an exchange on CNN between a latino and a redneck and the redneck handed it to em right in the face... he wasnt too intellectual about it but none the less, he countered everything the latino had to say.. towards the end the michigander interupts the latino and goes, "if the 12 million illegal immigrants didnt come here then americans would take those jobs, americans would flock to those areas and then they would have jobs" somethig to that affect... then the black cnn anchor who wears alot of make-up says something like, "ok "alberto" (i dont know the guys name) you can have the last word". the latino guy had his head kinda down and was lookin away form the camera... silence... then after a couple awkward seconds the black guy is like, "ok thanks for the lively discussion guys blah blah blah" the white michigander was like thank you good to be here" and not a word from the latino guy who was still just lookin away from the camera....

what i thought was kinda weird about it too also was that the latino was dressed up in a suit, slick hair, shave, trimmed facial hair all suave lookin and the white unemployed michigander wore a ripped t-shirt, scraggly hair, wild beard, had messed up teeth... like the media was trying to sway public opinon thru their different looks or something...

[edit on 5-5-2010 by TheCoffinman]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
....................
It would be nice if there was more attention paid to the Constitution and what it means, in public school, though.

Oh yeah...but do you even know what the Constitution says and means?...

Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states....

Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,....

www.usconstitution.net...

Hummm...does it say anything about "Liberal", or "Progressive" or even "Democrat" form of government?.... NOPE.... It CLEARLY says that the U.S. shall guarantee to EVERY STATE a REPUBLICAN form of government....

Phew you certainly haven't read the Constitution, and you just dug yourself a nice little hole with that statement you made...

Were you saying something about ignorant Americans?....


[edit on 5-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Very well put. Star for you. I can't remember reading much from or about Montesquieu, so I'll have to put him on my reading list.

Hobbes did not support a governmental structure like what we have here though. He believed that all power should rest with a monarch since loss of one power would, according to him, make the exercising of the rest ineffective. He also believed the only inalienable right the people had was the right to resist or disobey the government, especially when one's life is in danger. More importantly he believed that people only had the rights afforded to them by their sovereign, government in our case since we don't have a monarchy.

Leviathan
The liberty of a subject lieth therefore only in those things which, in regulating their actions, the sovereign hath pretermitted: such as is the liberty to buy, and sell, and otherwise contract with one another; to choose their own abode, their own diet, their own trade of life, and institute their children as they themselves think fit; and the like.

This is completely contrary to what has been claimed throughout the thread: that all rights are things we are born with and as such are inalienable. He also had this to say:

But it is an easy thing for men to be deceived by the specious name of liberty; and, for want of judgement to distinguish, mistake that for their private inheritance and birthright which is the right of the public only. And when the same error is confirmed by the authority of men in reputation for their writings on this subject, it is no wonder if it produce sedition and change of government. In these western parts of the world we are made to receive our opinions concerning the institution and rights of Commonwealths from Aristotle, Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romans, that, living under popular states, derived those rights, not from the principles of nature, but transcribed them into their books out of the practice of their own Commonwealths, which were popular; as the grammarians describe the rules of language out of the practice of the time; or the rules of poetry out of the poems of Homer and Virgil. And because the Athenians were taught (to keep them from desire of changing their government) that they were freemen, and all that lived under monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politics "In democracy, liberty is to be supposed: for it is commonly held that no man is free in any other government."

How do you reconcile his beliefs on rights with the belief that all rights are granted to human beings at birth while accepting his thoughts on natural law as the basis for our Constitution?