Brewer: Most illegal immigrants are smuggling drugs

You were guaranteed a Republic not a people's republic. The land is not owned collectively and there is no trespass.

Yes there is.
We the people have decided that we want our Representative Government to enact such a law and to make it affective.
You're going to lose on this one; but you're more then welcome to continue kicking rocks.
 
I brought up "illegal trespasser" which is nothing but blatant propaganda and you have failed to support it.

You also brought up illegal immigrants and I did address the iillegal tresapass issue.
Just because you have nothing to support your angst against it, doesn't mean that it wasn't addressed or supported.
 
You also brought up illegal immigrants and I did address the iillegal tresapass issue.
Just because you have nothing to support your angst against it, doesn't mean that it wasn't addressed or supported.

Nothing to support my angst? Trespass is a crime against a person or his property. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is not such a crime. The people of Arizona do not own the land collectively and so there can be no trespass against them collectively.
 
Nothing to support my angst? Trespass is a crime against a person or his property. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is not such a crime. The people of Arizona do not own the land collectively and so there can be no trespass against them collectively.

Really!!

So it is your belief that you can't be held trespassing, except on the private property of a person and that there are no laws, regarding trespassing, on public land.
 
Really!!

So it is your belief that you can't be held trespassing, except on the private property of a person and that there are no laws, regarding trespassing, on public land.

Of course, the government may own pieces of land and act a steward of that land. It does not own all land.
 
How are they trespassing? It's propaganda based on collectivist/communist ideas about property rights.

I disagree. What right of self-determination do people in a country have if they have no right to determine who may or may not enter their country to assure their own security?


Obviously taken to an extreme authoritarian conclusion this could be a despotic power, but not all authority is authoritarian.

Granted, an anarchist will disagree. But that is simply another extreme with potentially perverse consequences.
 
I disagree. What right of self-determination do people in a country have if they have no right to determine who may or may not enter their country to assure their own security?

The right to self determination does not include the right to deny someone else the right of movement. Our founders certainly did not believe that the right to bar entry was fundamental.
 
The right to self determination does not include the right to deny someone else the right of movement. Our founders certainly did not believe that the right to bar entry was fundamental.

A uniform rule of naturalization, and necessary and proper laws to enforce it?
 
The right to self determination does not include the right to deny someone else the right of movement. Our founders certainly did not believe that the right to bar entry was fundamental.

The founders didn't have welfare as an issue either.
 
You are being purposefully obtuse. The government does not own all land and is not entitled to act as steward over all land.

Then you are of the idea that anyone should be able to go were ever they want, without anyone or any government placing any restictions on that movement?

If you truly believe it; then you should sneak into Mexico and see how much they agree with your thinking, when you are caught.
 
Back
Top