Quote:

We have a collective right to a secure border and immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants, without exception. That which is public property is owned collectively by the citizens of this nation. We establish and permit the existence of government to collectively manage those public resources, including land, water, roads and the resources held in the ground. These resources belong on a collective, indivisible basis to the citizens of this nation and illegal immigrants inherently violate those property rights simply by their presence. America is a nation of legal immigrants; unless you are a native American you are descended from immigrants. But virtually all, until recently, came here invited to both better themselves and society as a whole. An "uninvited" guest is not a guest or an immigrant, he or she is an invader and is initiating force upon every citizen of this nation by their mere presence, along with initiating force against those who are seeking to become citizens through legal means. Federationists must demand and support the arrest and deportation of all illegal invaders.

Do you have to focus on arrest and deportation? I think most people would be on the stop the inflow then get rid of welfare and they all leave bandwagon.

I have added the second; if that's sufficient, fine, but if not, then arrest and deport them.

Quote:

America is a nation of legal immigrants; unless you are a native American you are descended from immigrants.

. It may have been legal, but it sure was not ethical the way the Europeans took over the North American continent from the native inhabitants. California was a Spanish colony from the mid 1700s to 1821. From 1821 to 1847 California belonged to Mexico, then the area was taken by force in the Mexican-American war. Alta California encompassed an area now taken by the US states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. So IMHO, as far as those areas are concerned, We are the invaders and if you can't find any native americans, the Mexicans have a proper claim on that territory, we don't.

OK, OK, I know that some are going to argue that the US paid $15,000,000 (or $3,010,000,000 in today's dollars, using unskilled wages as a reference) for the land under the terms of the treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe, and acquired a bit more land in New Mexico and Arizona with the Gadsden Purchase, but to me that's like a gang of armed thugs kicking you out of your house and giving you half of its fair market value.

There is no such thing as a "collective right" -- to even propose the existence of such a thing (because the only way it could exist is by TRUMPING individual rights) is automatic fail.


"Creeping communism" -- everywhere a fella looks.