The UN and Sovereignty

[gonzojournals]

But I have now completely accepted that there is no remotely feasible way to do anything other than grant them amnesty and expand our legal immigration numbers while securing the border.

It wouldn't be that difficult to put them on trains to go across the border--- just no one is willing to do it

 

[Kamala Trump]

And again, this would be far less of an issue because the "under the table" payments would cease. Even brown people demand more money when they are legitimate.

It's not about legal status, it's market forces. More workers drives down wages.

If you do not allow for that growth, and attempt to limit it, people won't have jobs at all because of stupid economic policy. And yes, immigration effects macro economics.

Im not attempting to limit growth, I'm attempting to preserve a future EXPLICITY WITH CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZENS IN MIND. Growth means nothing to those who have their standard of living degraded.

IT FACILITATES ECONOMIC GROWTH is a pandora's box of dysfunctional antisocial thinking that will justify any and all forms of degradation and brutality. Why not cigarettes to children, if it's profitable?

 

[gonzojournals]

Why not cigarettes to children?

 

[Damocles]

It's not about legal status, it's market forces. More workers drives down wages.

Again, nobody said free immigration. Currently the numbers allowed is lower than the necessary growth rate. More open is not the same as unregulated. We wouldn't be overfull if we simply controlled the tap. More workers don't just drive "down" wages, they also create the growth that fuels the economy. Pretending they aren't needed will only serve to lose far more jobs than you think you are protecting and in the end will be far worse.

In other words, your policy sucks because it will kill americans.

Im not attempting to limit growth, I'm attempting to preserve a future EXPLICITY WITH CURRENT AMERICAN CITIZENS IN MIND. Growth means nothing to those who have their standard of living degraded.

IT FACILITATES ECONOMIC GROWTH is a pandora's box of dysfunctional antisocial thinking that will justify any and all forms of degradation and brutality. Why not cigarettes to children, if it's profitable?

Their standard of living will be far more degraded by a policy that does not allow for the increase from immigration. It is stupid to refuse to see that growth fuels the economy that creates their standard of living and thus cut off your legs to spite your arms.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Again, nobody said free immigration. Currently the numbers allowed is lower than the necessary growth rate. More open is not the same as unregulated. We wouldn't be overfull if we simply controlled the tap. More workers don't just drive "down" wages, they also create the growth that fuels the economy. Pretending they aren't needed will only serve to lose far more jobs than you think you are protecting and in the end will be far worse.

In other words, your policy sucks because it will kill americans.




Their standard of living will be far more degraded by a policy that does not allow for the increase from immigration. It is stupid to refuse to see that growth fuels the economy that creates their standard of living and thus cut off your legs to spite your arms.

WHo decides the necessary growth rate? if it's based on past numbers which were a result of illegal immigration, we may need to manage expectations, and tell rich people that the nation is not their personal profit center.

And stop fearmongering.

 

[Damocles]

WHo decides the necessary growth rate? if it's based on past numbers which were a result of illegal immigration, we may need to manage expectations, and tell rich people that the nation is not their personal profit center.

And stop fearmongering.

Well, zero is not enough. No matter how you look at it. You can base the immigration on the atual growth rate. It wouldn't even be that hard, the numbers are consistently figured.

Of course, now we are talking theory. You clearly haven't thought your policy all the way through. You are willing to bring America to its knees for your policy, I am not.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Well, zero is not enough. No matter how you look at it. You can base the immigration on the atual growth rate. It wouldn't even be that hard, the numbers are consistently figured.

Base it on the previous actual growth rate you mean, based on cheap labor, which ignore the impact on workers and only consider the corporate profit aspect?

Many things can change we could actually keep jobs for americans and pay them more to keep people coming into the industries and let wages fall over time as more AMERICANS are trained up, instead of seeking short profit and abandoning any concept of national loyalty. But this is only a conclusion you would come to if you valued americans as people.

 

[Damocles]

Base it on the previous actual growth rate you mean, based on cheap labor, which ignore the impact on workers and only consider the corporate profit aspect?

Many things can change we could actually keep jobs for americans and pay them more to keep people coming into the industries and let wages fall over time as more AMERICANS are trained up, instead of seeking short profit and abandoning any concept of national loyalty. But this is only a conclusion you would come to if you valued americans as people.

1. Profit is not evil, it is what has given us our position on this world to date.

2. Not allowing for it will cripple the economy to a point where people won't have jobs at all.

Whether you want it or not, it is vital to the continued health of the economy to allow immigration.

 

[Kamala Trump]

1. Profit is not evil, it is what has given us our position on this world to date.

Never said it was. But there are other consideration a state should have besides facilitating economic abstractions like the gdp.

2. Not allowing for it will cripple the economy to a point where people won't have jobs at all.

Whether you want it or not, it is vital to the continued health of the economy to allow immigration.

No. IT is not. It is a pack of ideological zealotry trying to convince americans to accept an invasion of our country.

That whole "people will starve" is in the best case scenario fearmongering, in the worst, it's a threat ("DO what we say or we will starve you").

 

[Timshel]

I am not going to bother with a point by point. You are fucking lying and attempting to misconstrue what I am arguing and there is no point in drawing that out further with more points of comment. Some of your responses are not even relevant to what they were directed.

Refusing to recognize what it says doesn't change what is. The reality is that a ratified Treaty has the power of law, it is WHY there is a 2/3 majority for ratification.

It is law not legislation, been over it again and again and again. It is just like anything in the constitution. If a law conflicts with it then judges are obliged to side with the treaty or consitution. However, a treaty can not determine enforcement powers or funding for these powers. Neither can a court ruling. You apparently do not comprehend the division of powers.

I never argued that, it was your strawman. I said that a Treaty has the power of law, then explained why this particular issue would not be considered a conflict with the constitution and therefore would have the power of law. If it said what they say is says.

Yeah you did. I said....

Treaties were not intended to take precedence over the constitution. The founders make this clear. The foreign policy powers were given to the feds so that 13 (now 50) different ambassabors and sets of agreements would not be needed.

And you responded with...

No, the founders state that it "must" have meant. I read what the founders said. What they make clear is that they wish they had written that portion a bit better.

You backed off of that later.

Only by that same court. It isn't being overturned now, and won't be unless the court is changed. The only ways to do that is by either impeachment (not going to happen) or by appointment. If you are going to change the court under the current system you must do it by one of those two means. And if you do it by impeachment, you better have the right person in the office to appoint replacements.

Wow, I did not know any of that.

And we expect to get these new judges without talking about what rulings we believe are wrong?

No, you said that they were not constitutional.

They are NOT constitutional. How do you think any future court will overturn previous rulings? They will reverse the previous decision and find the law/regulation (whatever) unconstitutional. They will do so because some defendant and lawyer felt the law/ruling/whatever was unconstitutional and decided to challenge it.

And you expect after you wait a couple generations to slip in a couple justices that they will change anything when people like you are engaged in shouting down any argument that challenges the constitutionality of previous rulings or laws? It's not going to happen, when fascists like you rush to argue that whatever the court says is consitutional.

Again, I am not denying the reality that certain ruling/laws are backed by government power. No matter how dishonestly or just ignorantly you misconstrue my argument, that's not it. I am arguing against their propriety under the constitution and the principles of limited government.

When did I say that the International Bureaucrats should enter the nation and do something about it? This is another strawman.

Where did I say you said that? Strawman of a strawman.

They have been totally ineffective, except when they have worked within the framework of human nature. Such as Medical MJ. The Ls haven't passed a single law on the subject, because they can't get elected.

"Worked within the framework of human nature?" Is that supposed to mean something?

[Blah, blah, blah I don't like your presentation.]

That's your method of avoiding the facts.

Nobody is talking like chicken little. That is complete horseshit. I am simply pointing out that the government is in violation of its charter. But according to you that is not possible.

And when your presentation of bowing and sucking Repub dick starts to work maybe I will take notes. Until then, you have nothing of merit to offer on tactics. As I have said, non compliance and civil disobedience have proven far more effective than your ideas of sitting around for a couple generations giving hand jobs.

 

[Damocles]

I am not going to bother with a point by point. You are fucking lying and attempting to misconstrue what I am arguing and there is no point in drawing that out further with more points of comment. Some of your responses are not even relevant to what they were directed.

LOL. Pot meet Kettle...

It is law not legislation, been over it again and again and again. It is just like anything in the constitution. If a law conflicts with it then judges are obliged to side with the treaty or consitution. However, a treaty can not determine enforcement powers or funding for these powers. Neither can a court ruling. You apparently do not comprehend the division of powers.

Previously we started with the fact that it is law, you said it was not, I said it was.

Yeah you did. I said....



And you responded with...

Which does not say that it takes precedence over the constitution. At that point you were arguing whether it was law at all. I was stating that it was, not that it took precedent over the constitution. Your argument was that it couldn't be law because it did. Mine was that it is law for the reasons I assigned earlier.

You backed off of that later.

No I clarified. It is a conversation, our comments are not made in vacuum and we are able to reiterate and clarify. Which is what was done. You misstated my position, I reiterated and clarified that because it is law does not mean it can override the constitution. In fact you can find an argument about that from me on the world courts on this very board explaining it to another person.

Wow, I did not know any of that.

And we expect to get these new judges without talking about what rulings we believe are wrong?

Same silly strawman, weak, weak and small. You are better than this.

They are NOT constitutional. How do you think any future court will overturn previous rulings? They will reverse the previous decision and find the law/regulation (whatever) unconstitutional. They will do so because some defendant and lawyer felt the law/ruling/whatever was unconstitutional and decided to challenge it.

At this time they are because of current ruling by the court that has that power.

And you expect after you wait a couple generations to slip in a couple justices that they will change anything when people like you are engaged in shouting down any argument that challenges the constitutionality of previous rulings or laws? It's not going to happen, when fascists like you rush to argue that whatever the court says is consitutional.

Man, you misrepresent my argument. Just because I say that they rule it constitutional doesn't mean I think they are right. Just that there are better ways of dealing with it than running around like Kermit the Frog and pretending people listen to you.

Again, I am not denying the reality that certain ruling/laws are backed by government power. No matter how dishonestly or just ignorantly you misconstrue my argument, that's not it. I am arguing against their propriety under the constitution and the principles of limited government.

Then you are finally admitting that what they say may be legally required based on the current rulings of the SCOTUS? Good. Now we can begin working on a plan to end what we see wrong with that. Just shouting "not constitutional" isn't working.

Where did I say you said that? Strawman of a strawman.



"Worked within the framework of human nature?" Is that supposed to mean something?

Yes, recognizing how people react to how you say something is important. PR, man. PR.

That's your method of avoiding the facts.

Nobody is talking like chicken little. That is complete horseshit. I am simply pointing out that the government is in violation of its charter. But according to you that is not possible.

No, according to me the current representatives do not agree therefore repeating this is worthless. The only change you can make is by changing the court, which you pretend to "know" but magically think can be done by just saying "bad", which you must believe because so far you've given no way that it can be changed otherwise yet bash me for pointing out the only ways it can be done.

And when your presentation of bowing and sucking Repub dick starts to work maybe I will take notes. Until then, you have nothing of merit to offer on tactics. As I have said, non compliance and civil disobedience have proven far more effective than your ideas of sitting around for a couple generations giving hand jobs.

And when your awesome presentation, like this paragraph here, turns off natural allies, then my point is made.

Libertarians are stupid because they refuse to acknowledge their actions turn people off to their points and that repeating "this is wrong" hasn't worked for them for generations. Their only wins? In the courts, acting withing the current social contract, within the framework of reality. Wish in one hand and s*it in the other, tell me which gets full faster.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Oh yes. THe world courts will explain it all away. LOL.

 

[Damocles]

Oh yes. THe world courts will explain it all away. LOL.

Do you read? I was arguing against them. Don't be such a douche.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Do you read? I was arguing against them. Don't be such a douche.

I thought you were citing them as a source of clarification?

 

[Damocles]

I thought you were citing them as a source of clarification?

I said you can find a thread where I argued that they could not have authority over the US because it would be unconstitutional, citing the Treaty section of the constitution as my source and the fact that no Treaty can violate the constitution, just like any other law. At least understand the context before chirping up.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I said you can find a thread where I argued that they could not have authority over the US because it would be unconstitutional, citing the Treaty section of the constitution as my source and the fact that no Treaty can violate the constitution, just like any other law. At least understand the context before chirping up.

They can't violate the constitution, but they become law, so when is that review done. Are treaties law until a court rules them unconstitutional? I wouldn't count on them doing their part to ensure america's freedom. I say we take these backdoors out of the constitution, just to be safe.

 

[Damocles]

They can't violate the constitution, but they become law, so when is that review done. Are treaties law until a court rules them unconstitutional? I wouldn't count on them doing their part to ensure america's freedom. I say we take these backdoors out of the constitution, just to be safe.

The scotus rules on constitutionality. Why are you asking questions the answers to which you learned in 7th grade Civics class?

 

[Timshel]

Previously we started with the fact that it is law, you said it was not, I said it was.

No, I never said it was not law I said it was not legislation. Maybe somewhere I ham fisted that, but I have made clear mulitple times my meaning and did so from the start. Treaty's cannot deal with the details of enforcement, funding, etc.

Which does not say that it takes precedence over the constitution.

Again, I said.... "Treaties were not intended to take precedence over the constitution. The founders make this clear."

And you said... "No, the founders state that it "must" have meant. I read what the founders said. What they make clear is that they wish they had written that portion a bit better."

Do you not understand what no means?

At that point you were arguing whether it was law at all.

No, clearly I was not. Look at the quoted words. I was arguing that it did not supercede the constitution and could not be used to grant new powers.

I was stating that it was, not that it took precedent over the constitution. Your argument was that it couldn't be law because it did. Mine was that it is law for the reasons I assigned earlier.

You are clearly lying. The quotes are right there. They are not our of context.

No I clarified. It is a conversation, our comments are not made in vacuum and we are able to reiterate and clarify. Which is what was done. You misstated my position, I reiterated and clarified that because it is law does not mean it can override the constitution. In fact you can find an argument about that from me on the world courts on this very board explaining it to another person.

No, it's possible that YOU misstated your position. I did not. And you continue to misstate mine above. The quotes above clearly contradict what you claim.

At this time they are because of current ruling by the court that has that power.

Man, you misrepresent my argument. Just because I say that they rule it constitutional doesn't mean I think they are right.

So, if they are not right they are wrong and the ruling/law is not constitutional but unconstitutional. Yet when I say this that is somehow wrong and you contradict your own claim multiple times.

We all have a RIGHT to challenge the constitutionality of a law/ruling. If we did not then no case could ever be brought to challenge a law/ruling.

Then you are finally admitting that what they say may be legally required based on the current rulings of the SCOTUS?

I have repeated this multiple times.

Again, when your tactics start working let me know. I don't believe they will since you desire to gag and argue against those who oppose the rulings/laws or advance the idea that they were unconstitutional and then expect them to somehow be magically be overturned by future courts cases (cases that can't even brought since no one is to challenge the constitutionality).

As far as turning off natural allies, that's not what you are doing by nitpicking the use of "unconstitutional" when you yourself agree that the laws/rulings are just that? Maybe, you need a course in remedial English to repair the brain damage you have caused from sucking up to dumbass Repubs.

 

[Kamala Trump]

The scotus rules on constitutionality. Why are you asking questions the answers to which you learned in 7th grade Civics class?

SO yes. They ARE law UNTIL they are stricken down. Do you believe the courts are an adequate protection against oppressive laws being passed being implemented through treaty? I know it's how it works, but is it sufficient, in your mind?

 

[Damocles]

No, I never said it was not law I said it was not legislation. Maybe somewhere I ham fisted that, but I have made clear mulitple times my meaning and did so from the start. Treaty's cannot deal with the details of enforcement, funding, etc.



Again, I said.... "Treaties were not intended to take precedence over the constitution. The founders make this clear."

And you said... "No, the founders state that it "must" have meant. I read what the founders said. What they make clear is that they wish they had written that portion a bit better."

Do you not understand what no means?

And I clarified. I can see how you misinterpret my meaning, hence the clarification. I do not, and have never, believed that Treaties supersede the constitution and have in fact argued against that very thing. They do however supersede all state law that violates Treaty standards. Hence my assertion at the beginning of this that if the law does indeed violate a Treaty then the machines must be removed until that Treaty is changed.

No, clearly I was not. Look at the quoted words. I was arguing that it did not supercede the constitution and could not be used to grant new powers.

Look at the beginning of the thread. My statements are clear, it is law. I then explain why it would currently be considered constitutional by current rulings of the SCOTUS. Don't pretend these were taken in a vacuum either.

You are clearly lying. The quotes are right there. They are not our of context.

The entire conversation is the context, I am not lying. Either we are progressing a conversation or you can't remember the past longer than 10 minutes.

No, it's possible that YOU misstated your position. I did not. And you continue to misstate mine above. The quotes above clearly contradict what you claim.

They do not. Again, at that point in the conversation, taken as a whole I was simply stating that Treaty is law, not that it supersedes the constitution. When I saw that was where you were going with it I agreed so we could get past that idiocy.

So, if they are not right they are wrong and the ruling/law is not constitutional but unconstitutional. Yet when I say this that is somehow wrong and you contradict your own claim multiple times.

Man you are disingenuous. Which court rules on constutionality? Is it you? I say work within reality, you pretend that just saying this fixes the problem.

We all have a RIGHT to challenge the constitutionality of a law/ruling. If we did not then no case could ever be brought to challenge a law/ruling.

Strawman. I never said you had no right to "challenge the constitutionality". I said, look at reality. It was this court that made the rulings I cited, they aren't going to overrule themselves. You either work with the clay you have or you pretend you have more of it. The pretend sculpture isn't as satisfying to the rest of the world.

I have repeated this multiple times.

Again, when your tactics start working let me know. I don't believe they will since you desire to gag and argue against those who oppose the rulings/laws or advance the idea that they were unconstitutional and then expect them to somehow be magically be overturned by future courts cases (cases that can't even brought since no one is to challenge the constitutionality).

I don't gag them, I point out reality to them. You are being plain disingenuous.

As far as turning off natural allies, that's not what you are doing by nitpicking the use of "unconstitutional" when you yourself agree that the laws/rulings are just that? Maybe, you need a course in remedial English to repair the brain damage you have caused from sucking up to dumbass Repubs.

Yup here it is again, that gains you all the pals in the world. Not everybody shares the Libertarian philosophy, representing it with solely jargon and not one idea definitely turns off natural allies.