Tag Archives: borders

Uncategorized

Conversation With Border Patrol Checkpoint Guy

I had a conversation on Facebook with a guy who said he’s a federal agent. As the conversation went on, I started to think more and more that he’s actually a guy who works at the checkpoints. It started out with me posting this meme in the comments of a Facebook post. Here’s the conversation.



Fed:
if you think BP checkpoints infringe on your freedoms than you’re a moron plain amd simple. Everybody wants freedom until they have to do their small part to maintain it then they cry like you. Cry harder

Me:
How are checkpoints maintaining freedom?

Fed:
checkpoints take drugs off the streets and limit the flow of illegals traveling northbound into the interior. They have a good success rate with daily seizures and captures. You wanna live in a drug free society. You want your kids to not be kidnapped and trafficked for sex that kind of security isn’t fee. It requires you to spend about 3 seconds of your life answering a question. Hardly an infringement and btw the supreme court already ruled that nothing done at BP checkpoints is unconstitutional. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. A tiny sacrifice that allows agents 1 more chance to find bad things. And btw it’s hundreds of pounds a week in narcotics

Me:
your comment is exactly what the meme is responding to. You beg to give up your God-given freedoms because you’re scared.

Fed:
what God given right do checkpoints take away? Scared lol. Look bud I’m a federal agent. Instead first hand what comes across the border and instead the statistics. If you think it’s family units lookikg for jobs and better lives you are foolishly naive. Military age males describe about 9 out 10 brush apprehensions. Hundreds of pounds of fentanyl and heroin, meth, etc trafficked in and seiezed. If you think drug seizures and pedophiles being arrested is a bad thing just say so. El Salvador amd Venezuela have no room in their prisons so they release ppl and send them north. Murderers, rapists, cartel members, all coming here to exploit American freedom while “men” like you say bizz words like scared to justify your argument.

Me:
You’re a federal agent? It’s hard to get someone to see the truth whose paycheck depends on him not seeing the truth. The Supreme Court has ruled that black people can be enslaved and babies can be murdered in their mothers’ wombs. I have zero respect for that bunch of weirdos in black dresses.

What rights do checkpoints take away? My right to travel without being forced to answer questions.

Drug seizures are a bad thing. We learned from prohibition that making alcohol illegal was a bad idea. There was all kinds of violence resulting from prohibition that we don’t see anymore. There are drawbacks to legal alcohol, but giving away freedoms for socialist, big-government programs is a bad idea.

If we put checkpoints all over the place and stopped people, we could catch a lot of bad guys. That would be unconstitutional. Why is something that would be unconstitutional in Nebraska, constitutional because it’s within 100 miles of the border?

On the border, just as with all big-government, socialist programs, there are unintended consequences. Immigrants are forced to sneak across the border. It’s hard to sneak through the desert with a family. If the border were open, there would be problems, but God won’t bless a nation that trusts in socialism and giving away their freedoms. We are to do the right thing and leave the consequences to God.

Fed:
checkpoints take drugs off the streets and limit the flow of illegals traveling northbound into the interior. They have a good success rate with daily seizures and captures. You wanna live in a drug free society. You want your kids to not be kidnapped amd trafficked for sex that kind of security isn’t fee. It requires you to spend about 3 seconds of your life answering a question. Hardly an infringement and btw the supreme court already ruled that nothing done at BP checkpoints is unconstitutional. Ask not what your country can do for you butbwhay you can do for your country. A tiny sacrifice that allows agents 1 more chance to find bad things. And btw it’s hundreds of pounds a week in narcotics

Me:
your comment is exactly what the meme is responding to. You beg to give up your God-given freedoms because you’re scared.

Fed:
what God given right do checkpoints take away? Scared lol. Look bud I’m a federal agent. Instead first hand what comes across the border and instead the statistics. If you think it’s family units lookikg for jobs and better lives you are foolishly naive. Military age males describe about 9 out 10 brush apprehensions. Hundreds of pounds of fentanyl and heroin, meth, etc trafficked in and seiezed. If you think drug seizures and pedophiles being arrested is a bad thing just say so. El Salvador amd Venezuela have no room in their prisons so they release ppl and send them north. Murderers, rapists, cartel members, all coming here to exploit American freedom while “men” like you say bizz words like scared to justify your argument.

Me:
You’re a federal agent? It’s hard to get someone to see the truth whose paycheck depends on him not seeing the truth. The Supreme Court has ruled that black people can be enslaved and babies can be murdered in their mothers’ wombs. I have zero respect for that bunch of weirdos in black dresses.

What rights do checkpoints take away? My right to travel without being forced to answer questions.

Drug seizures are a bad thing. We learned from prohibition that making alcohol illegal was a bad idea. There was all kinds of violence resulting from prohibition that we don’t see anymore. There are drawbacks to legal alcohol, but giving away freedoms for socialist, big-government programs is a bad idea.

If we put checkpoints all over the place and stopped people, we could catch a lot of bad guys. That would be unconstitutional. Why is something that would be unconstitutional in Nebraska, constitutional because it’s within 100 miles of the border?

On the border, just as with all big-government, socialist programs, there are unintended consequences. Immigrants are forced to sneak across the border. It’s hard to sneak through the desert with a family. If the border were open, there would be problems, but God won’t bless a nation that trusts in socialism and giving away their freedoms. We are to do the right thing and leave the consequences to God.

Fed:
if you think open borders is a good idea than there’s no point in continuing a discussion. You are clearly far beyond naive. Even with these relaxed border policies we are facing cities like El Paso are in a state of emergency. Homeless shelters are maxed out out. Illegal immigrants recieving NTA papers get more money than American Citizens on SNAP. I believe in God as well but this is why there is a separation between church and state because not everybody believes in God and the honor system doesn’t work. In countries like Venezuela and Guatemala child sdx trafficking and rape is prevalent and now that problem comes here. Also comparing drugs and alcohol is absurd. Beer and liquor can certainly be consumed I’m moderation without issue but fentanyl cannot. Heroin cannot. Methamphetamine cannot. I’d these checkpoints weren’t successful they would close. Deemed a waste of money but because we find so much stuff we continue to operate. So again you things taking drugs off the street is bad cool. You think locking up child abductors is bad cool. When an illegal migrant rapes a family member of yours don’t cry about it.

Me:
open borders was one of America’s founding principles. Your argument is with the founding fathers.

Like I said from the beginning, you’re touting how dangerous these people are and how we need to surrender our rights for safety. I don’t mean you’re personally scared but you’re fear-mongering.

You can separate Christianity and state. You can’t separate religion and state. The only question is which god will be the god of the system?

Why are checkpoints that would be unconstitutional in Nebraska be constitutional within 100 miles of the border?

Fed:
it’s not fear mongering if the threat is real and credible. DHS doesn’t just make up numbers for fun and I see the seizures first hand. The issue is that an uptick in sexual assault, assault, and theft has occurred in border towns and border states since we relaxed the standards at the border and canceled the remaining in Mexico policy. Fera mongering would only hold water if nothing was ac5ually happening and the argument was that it “could”. I’ve literally pulled small minor girls out of locked tool boxes in ppl trucks who were being trafficked into the US. Kidnapped to be sold. Seen it first hand.
Also who’s to say it would be illegal in Nebraska? Just the farther into the interior you go the quicker they spread out and the odds of catching them becomes slim. So we justify within 100 Miles. It’s common sense

End of Conversation.

Of course it would be a dream come true to go person-by-person and present all of my persuasive arguments to each evil bureaucrat and persuade each one to stop committing the evil they do every day. But as I mentioned in the conversation, they get good benefits and they probably earn more money than they could at any other job. His lifestyle is dependent on him not thinking he’s abusing people. He has a very real motivation to think crossing an imaginary line is a sin and that perpetuating a black market in drugs is righteous. I’m still shocked that hardly anyone cares what the founding fathers thought. The meme is spot on in his case and he’s just not smart enough to see it.

Uncategorized

The Supreme Court Is a Joke

I don’t believe anything the government says. They may be right on some things or tell the truth sometimes, so you have to verify everything they say. Reagan said we would trust the Soviets, but verify. I say we don’t trust the U.S. government but verify.

We ought to be able to read the Constitution and have a good understanding of what the laws should be. It’s not written for dummies, but generally, someone with some effort should be able to generally apply it and come to an understanding of what their rights are. One principle is that the federal government is limited to powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Of course, the government and liberals hate that. It turns out conservatives hate it as well.

One way they’ve gotten around that, rather than amending the Constitution is to warp and bend the foreign commerce clause. That clause is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 and gives Congress the right “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes…” That seems quite clear.

Do you see anywhere where that clause gives Congress the ability to deal with individuals? If a foreigner were to arrive at a port or cross the border and look for a job, what does that have to do with a foreign nation, much less commerce? You’d have to really disrespect the Constitution to say that applies to individuals crossing a border. In conservative parlance, that sounds like a libtard interpretation of the Constitution. Conservatives would never put up with such foolishness when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

But, that is the exact basis that the Supreme Court cites to give Congress power to regulate immigration. In Fong Yue Ting v. The United States (1893), the Supreme Court ruled that Chinese immigrants can be deported because of that clause that says nothing about individuals or immigration.

Samuel Nelson, Supreme Court Justice from 1845-1872 stated: “No direct authority over aliens has been delegated to Congress by the Constitution.”

In reality, the Supreme Court has twisted and judged incorrectly time and again. They’ve ruled that babies can be murdered in the womb; black people aren’t fully human and on and on. I use their decisions when they suit me and reject them when they are clearly wrong. They aren’t to be trusted. They’re not an authority on anything without threats of violence. They’re nothing more than pedophiles in weird black dresses.

Uncategorized

Is the Border Like Your House?

Americans are steeped in socialism and statism. That definitely includes Republicans and conservatives and even those who hate socialism. They have socialist presuppositions and positions. Someone who hates socialism, but supports police is actually a socialist. Someone who hates socialist healthcare but supports the military is actually a socialist. Someone who hates socialism but wants the government to vet immigrants and travelers is actually a socialist.

The common analogy that socialists who don’t realize they’re socialists use is comparing the border to your house. They say, “You control who comes and goes from your house, so the government should also control who comes and goes from the country.” This belief reeks of socialist presuppositions. Here’s a response I posted, and I’m posting it here so I can come back and don’t have to retype it.

————————————————————————————————
You’re comparing the country to your home. Your home is private property. You have the right to control who comes and goes. Private property is a capitalist (and also biblical) idea that is incompatible with socialism, right?

To say that the government can control who comes and goes from the country is to say that the government or the commune has some kind of ownership over the country as a whole. That is a socialist belief. The government shouldn’t be allowed to control who comes and goes, because it doesn’t own the country. If you believe the government owns the country, you at least have some socialist presuppositions, whether you realize it or not.

The Bible teaches that the government should have zero control over someone who isn’t a criminal. Traveling or working in a foreign country is not a sin, therefore it’s none of the government’s business.
————————————————————————————————

Uncategorized

The Founding Fathers on Immigration

The found fathers listed immigration restrictions as a grievance against the King George in the Declaration of Independence. They wanted open borders.

“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

Someone pointed out to me that this isn’t necessarily saying they wanted open borders, just that they didn’t like the British hindering immigration; maybe they just wanted to limit immigration as they saw fit. I would agree that it’s not giving a lot of detail on what they wanted, but we can see what they wanted after they came to power. Not only did they keep the borders wide open, but they didn’t even give the federal government the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution. The U.S. had open borders until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and almost completely open borders until the 1920s, and open enough for most people to come in even until 9/11.

Theonomy

Great Immigration Conversation

It’s easy to point out the problems with conservative border policy. Changing someone’s mind is not so easy.

DL Hughes
Some of each. Press both buttons. Still, it ignores the real question about why they are invading our border. If they were honorable, they would stay in Mexico and start a revolution to overthrow their own corrupt government.
Nathan Conkey
Just like the Irish, English, Germans, Dutch and others, jolly dishonourable of them to do so.
DL Hughes
So wrong, Nathan. 12 million Germans (or other nationality) did not disrespect the US by sneaking across the border at night. Mexicans and those from Central America embarrass themselves with their presumption. If 12 million Chinese sneaked across our southern border, they would have been shot.

We welcome immigrants in the USA, just as it should be. However, people who come here should rightfully bring their education, good health and financial or intellectual capital–and do the paperwork to get here legally and honorably.

Invading Mexican hordes do not offer any of that. They bring, ignorance, disease and poverty to the US. People around the world should be unhappy about that… all the illegal aliens are stealing the opportunity from qualified legal immigrants to be here.
Nathan Conkey
Because honour is defined by compliance with Federal bureaucratic edicts, I understand.
DL Hughes
Honor is best defined by self-respect. 12 million Mexicans and people from Central Americans apparently don’t have that. They are willing to lie, cheat and steal to invade a land where they are not wanted. They know they are not wanted because of the Border Patrol, the fences and the fact many pay to get help to break the law.

Some Mexicans and people from Central America immigrate to the US legally. They are welcome, of course. The others are not.
Nathan Conkey
I never realised American Conservatives were so enamoured with arbitrary legislation invented by the big government brigade and put into force by bureaucrats. I though they wanted freedom. Very interesting.
Good job the huddled masses of Europeans were independently wealthy and well qualified, not like that dishonourable mass of Mexicans and Central Americans.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God, The Way Things Ought to Be

Radical Freedom of God’s Law

A society built on God’s law would be shockingly free. Conservatives  have been duped into advocating for border fences, when true conservatism ought to advocate the end of the border patrol and free immigration. Here’s some Milton Friedman advocating freedom and small government once again.

Our immigration laws are unjust and unbiblical and tyrannical. Normal people can help resist this tyranny by disobeying the law. Hire the best man at the best price for the job, even if you don’t know where he’s from.  At a border patrol checkpoint (if you are within 100 miles of the Mexican border), refuse to answer their questions. Don’t cooperate.