Opponents of Illegal Immigration, Follow the Laws Consistently!

[Agnapostate]

The European inhabitants of Iroquois-controlled sections of New England are in violation of Articles 73 and 74 of the Constitution of the Six Nations: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm


73. The soil of the earth from one end of the land to the other is the property of the people who inhabit it. By birthright the Ongwehonweh (Original beings) are the owners of the soil which they own and occupy and none other may hold it. The same law has been held from the oldest times.

The Great Creator has made us of the one blood and of the same soil he made us and as only different tongues constitute different nations he established different hunting grounds and territories and made boundary lines between them.

74. When any alien nation or individual is admitted into the Five Nations the admission shall be understood only to be a temporary one. Should the person or nation create loss, do wrong or cause suffering of any kind to endanger the peace of the Confederacy, the Confederate Lords shall order one of their war chiefs to reprimand him or them and if a similar offense is again committed the offending party or parties shall be expelled from the territory of the Five United Nations.

This Iroquois claim was affirmed by the Onandaga chief Canasatego in negotiations with colonial officials:


When you mentioned the affair of the land yesterday, you went back to old times, and told us you had been in possession of the province of Maryland above one hundred years, but what is one hundred years in comparison to the length of time since our claim began? Since we came out of the ground? For we must tell you that long before one hundred years, our ancestors came out of this very ground, and their children have remained here ever since, you came out of the ground in a country that lies beyond the seas; there you may have a just claim, but here you must allow us to be your elder brethren, and the lands to belong to us long before you knew anything of them.

Since the original colonies of the United States were largely based in New England, this has a substantial impact on pretensions of legitimacy and absolute national sovereignty. The conclusion?

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/illegalllllllimmigration.png

There is no way to remain logically consistent and oppose this. Just as so many of you would oppose the annexation of the Southwest by the Mexican government and enactment of their laws, and regard it as a contravention of the morally legitimate law, so do I oppose the British and British-American colonial legacy that came to replace Iroquois democracy, and spread out to poison other indigenous communities, and I regard the migration of Indians of other nations throughout North America as eminently more justifiable than the European encroachment in the Americas.

[Noir]

idgi,

Are you opposed to illegal immigration, if so why the hating on Arissona, if not then why are you making a special case for the illegal immigrants a few hundred years ago?

[Agnapostate]

It's a demand that other people who are noted opponents be logically consistent.

[Noir]

It's a demand that other people who are noted opponents be logically consistent.

Indeed, but my point is are you being logically consistent.

Are you in favour of or against illegal immigration?

[Agnapostate]

Indeed, but my point is are you being logically consistent.

Are you in favour of or against illegal immigration?

Since this rhetoric is a deliberate satire of opponents' jingoism, it is not a position of mine to be evaluated as logically inconsistent with others.

[Noir]

Since this rhetoric is a deliberate satire of opponents' jingoism, it is not a position of mine to be evaluated as logically inconsistent with others.

Wow, that's quite a tango you've got going on, why not stop the dancing and answer the question?

Are you in favour of illegal immigration or not?

[Agnapostate]

Wow, that's quite a tango you've got going on, why not stop the dancing and answer the question?

Are you in favour of illegal immigration or not?

No, I'm opposed to illegal immigration. As such, I'm in favor of eliminating the laws that criminalize it so that it's no longer illegal. But since you apparently weren't clever enough to get the original point, it's called irony. It need not reflect an actual position of mine.

[Noir]

No, I'm opposed to illegal immigration. As such, I'm in favor of eliminating the laws that criminalize it so that it's no longer illegal. But since you apparently weren't clever enough to get the original point, it's called irony. It need not reflect an actual position of mine.

Right, your opposed to it cus it's illegal, but don't think it should be illegal in the first place?

[Trigg]

Arizona = white supremacy?????

You do realize that the white non-hispanic population of that state is under 60% and almost 70% of the population is in favor of the new law.

Legal hispanics are against illegal immigration also, if they weren't the law never would have passed.

Keep ignoring the facts, you're good at it.

[Missileman]

No, I'm opposed to illegal immigration. As such, I'm in favor of eliminating the laws that criminalize it so that it's no longer illegal.

So a state should have no laws that protect its citizens from invasion by citizens of another state? Something tells me you're also a proponent of de-criminalizing the shit you've been smoking. Only a brain clouded by a couple bowls could propose something so patently stupid.

[Agnapostate]

Right, your opposed to it cus it's illegal, but don't think it should be illegal in the first place?

The opposition is to its illegality. If this decriminalization occurred, illegal immigration would be an impossibility, as it is for Cubans who reach shore. That said, while I advocate libertarian immigration policies myself, this is an exposition of the logical consequences of board members' advocacy of authoritarian immigration policy: the repatriation of their European selves.


Arizona = white supremacy?????

You do realize that the white non-hispanic population of that state is under 60% and almost 70% of the population is in favor of the new law.

This is an argumentum ad populum and a justification of tyranny of the majority. I'm sure there were majorities, even overwhelming majorities, in favor of Jim Crow laws in the rural south too.


Legal hispanics are against illegal immigration also, if they weren't the law never would have passed.

Well, going with your pattern of silly little anecdotes, my mother is a legal Hispanic (and a non-Mexican one, at that), and she opposes authoritarian immigration laws.


Keep ignoring the facts, you're good at it.

This is a comma splice, since there should have been a semicolon in place of the comma. Doesn't anyone who advocates English-only legislation know how to use English?


So a state should have no laws that protect its citizens from invasion by citizens of another state?

The United States, along with the other countries of the Americas, were constructed on the foundations of mass invasion and genocide in the wake of disease epidemics that facilitated this. As a result, there can be no morally plausible claim of absolute national sovereignty, since a thief can hardly complain when his or her property is stolen. And in this case, it's a matter of the stolen property being recovered, since the people called "illegal aliens" are Indians, far less alien than European interlopers.


Something tells me you're also a proponent of de-criminalizing the shit you've been smoking. Only a brain clouded by a couple bowls could propose something so patently stupid.

I'm more of a fence-sitter there. But on the topic, you strike me as someone puffing up a few rocks instead of grass.

[Noir]

The opposition is to its illegality. If this decriminalization occurred, illegal immigration would be an impossibility, as it is for Cubans who reach shore. That said, while I advocate libertarian immigration policies myself, this is an exposition of the logical consequences of board members' advocacy of authoritarian immigration policy: the repatriation of their European selves.

So you believe that the Europeans who came over are 'in' legal terms 'illegal immigrants' but that as there should never of been a law making it illegal 'in' the first place, their illegality is merely a technicality that should be overlooked.

The more you type the more it looks like in trying to expose hypocrisy on one side of the fence, you've also succeded in exposing yourself, allbeit on the other side.

[Agnapostate]

So you believe that the Europeans who came over are 'in' legal terms 'illegal immigrants' but that as there should never of been a law making it illegal 'in' the first place, their illegality is merely a technicality that should be overlooked.

The more you type the more it looks like in trying to expose hypocrisy on one side of the fence, you've also succeded in exposing yourself, allbeit on the other side.

Apparently, you have significant reading comprehension skills. I'll try explaining this to you one last time. The point about Euro-Americans being illegal immigrants trespassing on Native land is one made in order to point out an inconsistency of board members who claim to oppose "illegal immigration." It need not be and is not a stance of mine at all; it's a satirical mechanism for pointing out their inconsistency by means of irony. My entirely separate position is that border crossing should be decriminalized, but this point applies very strongly to those who insist on their jingoism.

[Noir]

Apparently, you have significant reading comprehension skills. I'll try explaining this to you one last time. The point about Euro-Americans being illegal immigrants trespassing on Native land is one made in order to point out an inconsistency of board members who claim to oppose "illegal immigration." It need not be and is not a stance of mine at all; it's a satirical mechanism for pointing out their inconsistency by means of irony. My entirely separate position is that border crossing should be decriminalized, but this point applies very strongly to those who insist on their jingoism.

Yes, I got that, however I always had it in mind that you wanted the desendents of those Europeans out of America, it seems I've got that wrong somewhere along the line, and that you think they've every right to be there, soz for the mix up.

[Missileman]

And in this case, it's a matter of the stolen property being recovered, since the people called "illegal aliens" are Indians, far less alien than European interlopers.


But alien, nonetheless, and as you said, a thief should have no complaint if something they've stolen is stolen from them.

[Trigg]

This is an argumentum ad populum and a justification of tyranny of the majority. I'm sure there were majorities, even overwhelming majorities, in favor of Jim Crow laws in the rural south too.



Well, going with your pattern of silly little anecdotes, my mother is a legal Hispanic (and a non-Mexican one, at that), and she opposes authoritarian immigration laws.


I doubt there were blacks in the rural south who were in favor of the laws. Unlike Arizona where legal hispanics are in favor of immigration laws.

No need for "silly little anecdotes". It is a fact that the total non-hispanic white population is under 60%. It is also a fact that 67% of the population voted FOR the law.

You can scream white supremacy until your little head pops off and it still won't change the FACT that legal hispanics in Arizona are in favor of the new immigration law.

[DragonStryk72]

The European inhabitants of Iroquois-controlled sections of New England are in violation of Articles 73 and 74 of the Constitution of the Six Nations: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm



This Iroquois claim was affirmed by the Onandaga chief Canasatego in negotiations with colonial officials:



Since the original colonies of the United States were largely based in New England, this has a substantial impact on pretensions of legitimacy and absolute national sovereignty. The conclusion?

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/illegalllllllimmigration.png

There is no way to remain logically consistent and oppose this. Just as so many of you would oppose the annexation of the Southwest by the Mexican government and enactment of their laws, and regard it as a contravention of the morally legitimate law, so do I oppose the British and British-American colonial legacy that came to replace Iroquois democracy, and spread out to poison other indigenous communities, and I regard the migration of Indians of other nations throughout North America as eminently more justifiable than the European encroachment in the Americas.

Except that their laws have changed, and so you are out of step with current day. For as much as you claim others for legal fetishism, you're reaching back to a no longer existent law to say we're not supposed to be here. Then you of course can't speak frankly, dancing around questions like a coward.

Can the USA handle the millions upon millions of people who would immediately move here were the immigration laws to be repealed? No bs, no sideline answer, this is a yes or no question.

[Agnapostate]

But alien, nonetheless, and as you said, a thief should have no complaint if something they've stolen is stolen from them.

Nope! They're Natives moving about Native land, since all Natives are genetically related, and the majority of Natives seek collective identity in response to their mutually shared experiences of genocide and dispossession. Since Europeans stole to gain, their descendants cannot plausibly defend that stolen property, much less against dispossessed Natives that were also robbed by Europeans.


I doubt there were blacks in the rural south who were in favor of the laws.

I'm sure there were.


Unlike Arizona where legal hispanics are in favor of immigration laws.

Since "Hispanics" are not a race and you have failed (as usual) to identify the racial characteristics of the people in question, this is of no relevance.


No need for "silly little anecdotes". It is a fact that the total non-hispanic white population is under 60%. It is also a fact that 67% of the population voted FOR the law.

There was no "vote"; it was not a referendum. This is a reference to a poll.


You can scream white supremacy until your little head pops off and it still won't change the FACT that legal hispanics in Arizona are in favor of the new immigration law.

Not only have you not documented this false claim with empirical validation, there are plenty of "Hispanic" white supremacists.


Except that their laws have changed, and so you are out of step with current day. For as much as you claim others for legal fetishism, you're reaching back to a no longer existent law to say we're not supposed to be here.

And since I anticipated this specific little mundanity coming up, I mentioned that most people here would regard an annexation by the Mexican government and the establishment of *their* laws as morally illegitimate, even if it were to be internationally recognized. I see no reason to regard the European presence in America as different, and neither does the Republic of Lakotah, for example.


Then you of course can't speak frankly, dancing around questions like a coward.

Your illiteracy has come around to bite you in the ass again, since you didn't seem to notice Noir's admission that he had misunderstood.


Can the USA handle the millions upon millions of people who would immediately move here were the immigration laws to be repealed? No bs, no sideline answer, this is a yes or no question.

Actually, it's a false premise, since the push/pull demand is created by institutional poverty from the permanent European apartheid dominance over Natives, and the establishment of trade relations that impoverish them further. But regardless, yes, they could be handled. I never knew a rightist could be so, uh..."Malthusian."

[Missileman]

Nope! They're Natives moving about Native land, since all Natives are genetically related, and the majority of Natives seek collective identity in response to their mutually shared experiences of genocide and dispossession. Since Europeans stole to gain, their descendants cannot plausibly defend that stolen property, much less against dispossessed Natives that were also robbed by Europeans.


Sorry pal...NA indians are all descended from Asia. They were all a bunch of squatters with no more right to the land than European settlers.

And FYI...we're all genetically related.

[Agnapostate]

Sorry pal...NA indians are all descended from Asia.

Actually, that applies to all Indians, since all are descended from a common ancestral founding population of Beringia.


They were all a bunch of squatters with no more right to the land than European settlers.

This comment is a statement that their arrival on land uninhabited by humans is equivalent to European theft of inhabited land, either claiming that they are equivalent to the existence of nothing, or the existence of non-human animals.


And FYI...we're all genetically related.

But a racial or ethnic group is composed of people with closer genetic relationships than others, being descended from more recent common ancestors than others.

[Noir]

"Your illiteracy has come around to bite you in the ass again, since you didn't seem to notice Noir's admission that he had misunderstood."

If nothing else you provide some pretty good lulz.

I "admitted" that I'd got you wrong, thinking that you thought that the Europeans who went to America did not have the right to be there.
However, now I know you think they have every right to be there.

So then, what exactly is your problem with the settlers anyway?

[Agnapostate]

I "admitted" that I'd got you wrong, thinking that you thought that the Europeans who went to America did not have the right to be there. However, now I know you think they have every right to be there.

Apparently, you're still off. I believe that America would have been decidedly better off without European contact. It's simply a satirical position that current Euro-Americans should be repatriated, since it's logically consistent with board members' positions on "illegal aliens" and "anchor babies." I'm pointing out the implications of their approach, since they're essentially all of some kind of European descent.


So then, what exactly is your problem with the settlers anyway?

That they caused the greatest demographic catastrophe in history and committed genocide against the indigenous population, perhaps?

[Missileman]

This comment is a statement that their arrival on land uninhabited by humans is equivalent to European theft of inhabited land, either claiming that they are equivalent to the existence of nothing, or the existence of non-human animals.

That's right...theft of uninhabited land is equivalent to theft of inhabited land.

[Agnapostate]

That's right...theft of uninhabited land is equivalent to theft of inhabited land.

How is that, when there are no people to "steal" uninhabited land from, and therefore no victims of the acquisition? As I said, your statement equates American Indians to nothing or to non-human animals.

[Missileman]

How is that, when there are no people to "steal" uninhabited land from, and therefore no victims of the acquisition? As I said, your statement equates American Indians to nothing or to non-human animals.

I didn't belong to them when they just move in, right?

[Agnapostate]

I didn't belong to them when they just move in, right?

It didn't belong to anyone, since there were no prior inhabitants that conceptualized it as theirs.

[Missileman]

It didn't belong to anyone, since there were no prior inhabitants that conceptualized it as theirs.

To the victor goes the spoils is as valid a legal basis for determining ownership as finders-keepers.

[Agnapostate]

To the victor goes the spoils is as valid a legal basis for determining ownership as finders-keepers.

Then you must have had no objection to the Wehrmacht's invasion of Eastern Europe and destruction of the Slavic population in preparation for "Aryan" settlement, or to the coming Mexican annexation of the Southwest that so many of your ilk predict.

[Missileman]

or to the coming Mexican annexation of the Southwest that so many of your ilk predict.

What ilk would that be...I've certainly never predicted anything of the sort. But if you'd like a prediction, I foresee a total crackdown on immigration in the very near future. I predict an end to the "anchor baby" loophole. I predict a renewed emphasis on border security with local and federal cooperation. Lastly, I see extremely painful penalties enacted for employing illegals that will put an end to the motives for the flow of illegals across our southern border.

[Agnapostate]

What ilk would that be...I've certainly never predicted anything of the sort.

I'm talking about this (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=12250). Regardless, you ignored my point. Do you regard the Wehrmacht's invasion of Eastern Europe and destruction of the Slavic population, as well as the Holocaust more generally, as a legitimate means of gaining property? Were those camp guards entitled to those gold fillings because they were able to extract them? Or does social Darwinism not count when it's applied to white people?


Lastly, I see extremely painful penalties enacted for employing illegals that will put an end to the motives for the flow of illegals across our southern border.

I employ an undocumented Mam immigrant from Guatemala, just because I like talking to him about 2012 while practicing my Mayan dialects, of course.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, it's a false premise, since the push/pull demand is created by institutional poverty from the permanent European apartheid dominance over Natives, and the establishment of trade relations that impoverish them further. But regardless, yes, they could be handled. I never knew a rightist could be so, uh..."Malthusian."

Oh, look, dodge the question like a coward. Really, we could handle it? We can't take on the numbers we have now, but sure, nothing bad could come of it. Seriously, you just proved how deluded you truly are. And once we quit stopping the criminals, terrorists and whatnot from entering the country, how would you propose we keep the peace. And what of the vast numbers of Asian immigrants we take each year?

Really, European society dominates China and Japan, who have us by the short hairs economically? China actually owns a portion of the US through the bonds we've sold them, so obviously that not really the case. Yeah, you can keep your delusion.

[Missileman]

I'm talking about this (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=12250).
It's nothing I subscribe to.


Regardless, you ignored my point. Do you regard the Wehrmacht's invasion of Eastern Europe
Yes


and destruction of the Slavic population,
Maybe


as well as the Holocaust more generally, as a legitimate means of gaining property?
No

[Agnapostate]

Oh, look, dodge the question like a coward. Really, we could handle it? We can't take on the numbers we have now, but sure, nothing bad could come of it. Seriously, you just proved how deluded you truly are.

I see the first few sentences of your moronic ranting contain no arguments.


And once we quit stopping the criminals, terrorists and whatnot from entering the country, how would you propose we keep the peace.

I believe I've posted six or seven studies on immigrants' lower crime rates than citizens that you have yet to refute. All recent "terrorists" that jump to mind either entered the country legally or were citizens.


And what of the vast numbers of Asian immigrants we take each year?

Do you predict an imminent collapse of society when the population naturally expands anyway over the next few decades and centuries?


Really, European society dominates China and Japan, who have us by the short hairs economically? China actually owns a portion of the US through the bonds we've sold them, so obviously that not really the case. Yeah, you can keep your delusion.

What the hell does China have to do with Native Americans? Try not to be so blatantly stupid in the future.


Yes

Maybe

No

Why? If the SS was *able* to grab those gold teeth, it sounds to me like might makes right. Isn't that the way the world works?

[Agnapostate]

I'm content to debate the merits and demerits of more authoritarian or libertarian immigration policy, such as the economic consequences, the legal consequences, etc. But when it comes to assertions of "national sovereignty," there's just something ludicrously ironic about white Europeans calling native Indians "illegal aliens." :laugh:

[Trigg]

:trolls:

[Agnapostate]

:trolls:

http://www.mediumdevice.com/images/oh-ic.jpg

[Agnapostate]

http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cartoon-8-15-gocomics-nick-anderson-8-13-pilgrim-anchor-babies.gif http://www.stolencontinent.org/poster_downloads/no%20amnesty_large.jpg

[fj1200]

The European inhabitants of Iroquois-controlled sections of New England are in violation of Articles 73 and 74 of the Constitution of the Six Nations: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

A shame then that they could not enforce their constitution and laws; may we not make the same mistake.

[Agnapostate]

A shame then that they could not enforce their constitution and laws; may we not make the same mistake.

"We"? Your will has no influence one way or the other on the matter. As for the government, that sentiment is roughly equivalent to claiming that it was a shame that a victim of theft could not protect her property, so the police should not steal it back from the thief. Thieves cannot legitimately defend stolen property.

[fj1200]

"We"? Your will has no influence one way or the other on the matter. As for the government, that sentiment is roughly equivalent to claiming that it was a shame that a victim of theft could not protect her property, so the police should not steal it back from the thief. Thieves cannot legitimately defend stolen property.

Your silly little thought exercise is just that. And you clearly did not pick up on my subtle dig (too subtle perhaps) that an inability (unwillingness?) to defend ones property could lead us down the road to ruin.

Oh, and a citizen has no influence? :rolleyes:

[Agnapostate]

Your silly little thought exercise is just that. And you clearly did not pick up on my subtle dig (too subtle perhaps) that an inability (unwillingness?) to defend ones property could lead us down the road to ruin.

This is simply a reiteration of your previously refuted point.

[fj1200]

This is simply a reiteration of your previously refuted point.

I guess we'll go ahead and subject the Gauls to the Holy Roman Empire then. :rolleyes:

Refuted. That's funny.

[Agnapostate]

I guess we'll go ahead and subject the Gauls to the Holy Roman Empire then. :rolleyes:

The Gauls ceased to be an independent ethnic group about a millennium prior to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps you meant the um, real Roman Empire?


Refuted. That's funny.

And true, at that.

[fj1200]

^Perhaps.

And... still funny.

[Agnapostate]

^Perhaps.

And... still funny.

And still accurate. Unless we're going to protect thieves from seizure of their stolen property because we don't want them to suffer as their victims did. :laugh:

[fj1200]

:spin:

[Agnapostate]

In a book called The Constitution of the Five Nations published in 1915, I find this said of the Iroquois Confederacy: "Here, then, we find the right of popular nomination, the right of recall and of woman suffrage, all flourishing in the old America of the Red Man and centuries before it became the clamor of the new America of the white invader. Who now shall call Indians and Iroquois savages!"

What are you waiting for? Feel free to tell me why U.S. immigration law should be applicable when it was only enacted as a violation of mass violation of Iroquois immigration law. If skurty's dreaded Mexican annexation of the Southwest took place and they prohibited U.S. immigration into the Southwest, you probably wouldn't recognize that as morally legitimate (and I certainly wouldn't), so why should I recognize U.S. immigration laws established through theft and genocide in the wake of massive illegal immigration as legitimate? :dunno: