>

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Uh Oh, Sessions Traveling To California For Major Sanctuary Announcement



Not good.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is headed to California to make a major immigration enforcement announcement.

According to the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, Sessions will be in the state capital on Wednesday morning to make a major announcement on the issue of giving sanctuary to undocumented immigrants.

Sessions is a serious nut job with a big time totalitarian streak. Let's see what totalitarian actions he announces. And how are the closed border, pro-secessionist libertarians going to react?

  -Robert Wenzel 

28 comments:

  1. The illegals are all criminal trash that need to be booted out of the country. They provide no value to society and are parasites. They are also part of the reason for the sorry wages we see and other problems.

    You libertardians who think unlimited immigration one way to the US are contemptible idiots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: He-Who-Fantasizes-About-White-European-Males,

      --- They are also part of the reason for the sorry wages we see and other problems. ---

      You miss no opportunity to showcase your economic incompetence, do you LTM?

      Delete
    2. I agree. There should be border control, much like how I control who enters my house. I am a libertarian. Now you know that not all libertarians believe the way that you asserted they do. In fact, I would say they aren't really libertarians if they don't understand how private property rights mean that one should have control over who enters ones property. This extends to a border.

      Delete
    3. @Captain pancakes

      So by this logic, shouldn’t sanctuary cities be allowed to decide who they admit without interference from the feds?

      Delete
    4. The border isn’t your property. It really is as simple as that. Hardcore right-libertarians will do backflips to try to get around this fact, but never succeed.

      Delete
    5. Re: Captain pancakes,

      --- There should be border control, much like how I control who enters my house. ---


      You get to control who enters your house but NOT MINE. If *I* want to invite an immigrant into my home, what business is of yours? How does this "border" provide YOU with justification to tell ME anything?

      The "border" is NOT a "property boundary" for such an idea would entail the State owns your and my land and that we're mere tenants. Be careful before you stake your reputation on such ridiculous sophistry.

      Delete
    6. You are right Captain, but fools like Torres and others here think you can import a bunch Afghan goat humpers or the entire population of Port a Potty, Haiti, and still have a libertarian society cuz you know magic dirt and 'great ideas'.

      Yet, few reading here can't see the negative correlation between a country's average IQ and that fine map of freedom index published by RW himself. It's clear that cognitive dissonance is not only an issue with leftist.

      Delete
    7. Yea, the state's borders are not necessarily the borders of private property. No shit. I'm making an imperfect analogy. Maybe if there was no state and the exterior borders of private properties formed the borders of a larger collection of private properties, stuck together and governed like some sort of stateless HOA, then obviously there would be fences and people who crosses the exterior border fences would be trespassing. That is obviously not the situation here, but the fact remains that absent the above situation, we have some sort of democratic used to be republic maybe that we have supposedly delegated the power of border enforcement to.

      Delete
    8. Re: Captain pancakes,

      --- I'm making an imperfect analogy. ---

      Imperfect is too mushy a word. Your analogy stinks.

      --- the fact remains[...] we have some sort of democratic used to be republic maybe that we have supposedly delegated the power of border enforcement to. ---

      There's no "we", Kemosabe. I didn't delegate my associations to you, or the government. The fact that you don't fancy immigranta is not justification to say that the State has a mandate.

      Your contention that "there's a democracy therefore..." implies that people's rights are subordinate to democratic decisions, something that, if it were true, you would learn to regret.

      Delete
  2. Please don’t lump us secessionists with the closed-border nuts :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. --- And how are the closed border, pro-secessionist libertarians going to react? ---

    With glee, Robert. They weren't libertarian to begin with, if they accept the supremacy of the Federal State over border matters while paying lip service to individual sovereignty.

    For us real AnCaps, the INDIVIDUAL has sovereignty. The State is a criminal enterprise with a false veneer of 'legitimacy' which Statists like Trumpistas, moral cowards and leftists accept as real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Immigration is a national defense issue. But don't worry, there always be plenty of Africans here in the US on the down low to serve your cuck needs Torres. I realize principle to you open border libetardians is more important than threat of untreatable TB and other turd world diseases that are making a comeback thanks to unchecked immigration.

      Delete
    2. Re: He-Who-Fantasizes-About-White-European-Males,

      --- Immigration is a national defense issue. ---

      "National defense"...

      Ha ha ha!

      Right. Good one. Your preference for White European Schlongs is not enough justification to say that immigration is a "national defense" matter. What other straws are you going to apply your grasp over, I wonder?

      --- untreatable TB and other turd world diseases that are making a comeback thanks to unchecked immigration. ---

      Right. Immigration will NEVER be "unchecked", He-Who-Fantasizes-About-White-European-Males. The MARKET limits the number of immigrants. Always has been.

      Delete
  4. Here is what happens when you have too much 'duh-versity':

    http://www.amerika.org/politics/in-aftermath-of-disastrous-flood-houston-keeps-sanctuary-city-status/

    "Most stories on diversity focus on disadvantages like crime, high education costs, lower average IQ and loss of competence. But much like Detroit, Houston and the American Southwest face a more profound crisis, which is that when minorities can vote, they vote against infrastructure and prefer instead to keep increasing the benefits, even as a budget crisis looms."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They vote against infrastructure?!?

      Oh the horror!!!

      Delete
    2. Lab Manager, I wouldn’t throw out a website that defends tariffs and tries to make the tariffs = jobs argument here at this web

      http://www.amerika.org/politics/trump-tariffs-and-manufacturing-employment/

      Also, most of us here are Libertarian/Anarchist, we hate the State and anything to do with it. We don’t want presidents, congresses, or any of it. Most of us also subscribe to the Austrian school of Economics. Low wages aren’t because of those dreaded illegals. Also, most of us here value humans for the very simple reason they are human. I have known and grew up around hundreds of illegals in Idaho in the farming and orchard communities, and I can say as a fact they did provide a needed value to our community.

      Delete
    3. Yea, I'm not anti immigrant although I think people should have a say as to who comes and goes where they live. I'd much rather there be smaller territories of private landowners who have some measure of more direct control over visitors. Rather than some bloated federal government that seems to almost want to bring in more voters to buy off with welfare. Of course productive, non shady immigrants should come here and add value, or maybe simply escape tyranny, I'm all for that too. But there should be control, vetting, of course state welfare should be ended, etc.

      Delete
    4. @Joshua: I would not object to a brasero type program, but this policy of unrestricted immigration is asinine. Few other countries in the world are this damned stupid. You are also oblivious to the fact that these other cultures suck and there is a reason why they are shit holes. Keep drinking the KoolAid. Too bad the rest of us who know better will suffer from this stupidity.

      Yes, I'm well aware there are too many laws and regulations and such, but letting people who are not assimilating is not smart.

      Delete
    5. Re: He-Who-Dreams-Of-European-White-Males-In-A-Disney-Setting,

      --- I would not object to a brasero type program, ---

      No one cares about your objections. You're not that important.

      --- this policy of unrestricted immigration is asinine. ---

      A) There's NO such policy and
      B) The Market already limits the number of immigrants and will, sans a direct government policy, always.

      The idea that "everyone is going to come here" is mere paranoid belief. Migration involves a cost for the migrant, which means is not something humans are willing to do on a whim.

      --- Too bad the rest of us who know better will suffer from this stupidity. ---

      People who are just a little less paranoid than you tend to crawl ubder their beds and cower in fear of daylight, but at least a danger to no one. The fact that you're out there pounding the keyboard paints a frightening picture of a person at the end of his tether.

      Delete
  5. @Evans: You are an idiot! The point of the article is that these people are not compatible with a culture that thinks in longer time frames and thus why their home countries suck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "people are not compatible with a culture that thinks in longer time frames"

      This is the conveniently forgotten point to much of this! Immigrants want to get their feathers ruffled when they are expected to converse in the language of the land or follow the legal and moral code of the land they came to.

      All the while maintaining an illegal status that they were aware of when they came here! Now, not all have this attitude and contribute greatly to this sovereign and the communities they live in. I have no problem with them. But too I will not rubber stamp an open border when it is not in anyones best interest to do so.

      I find it absolutely amazing that no one EVER mentions US Milcom aggression blow back as a compelling reason to be diligent about just letting anyone waltz in.

      As LM mentions it absolutely is a national security issue against those that would harm citizens for actions taken by its Empire building terrorist government.

      If anyone has a better compromise lets hear it!

      Delete
    2. Re: Shegottawideload,

      --- Immigrants want to get their feathers ruffled when they are expected to converse in the language of the land ---

      Liar.

      So far, and YouTube is my witness (blesssed be thee YouTube!), only xenophobic assholes get their feathers ruffled when they hear people in grocery stores (who may be themselves friends or family) converse in their native language, be it Korean, Spanish, German or Chinese.

      --- it absolutely is a national security issue ---

      Right. Just like the tariffs, which are also being touted under a national security concern. This canard is the right-wing socialist version of the "The children! Who thinks of the children!" rwd herring thrown around by their left-wing fellow travelers.

      Delete
    3. Love when libertarians talk about a shade of gray issue in black and white!

      Delete
  6. 75% of the Mexican immigrants are on welfare
    https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Marmite,

      The CIS engages in sophistry by lumping together American citizens with immigrants under the category "household".

      It's a lie that immigrants use more welfare than Ameeican citizens. The CIS was called out by CATO for playing fast and loose with its 'statistics'. CIS is the SPLC of the right-wing socialists - Trumpistas, for short.

      Delete
  7. “Jefferson emphatically asserted that while the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish the rules of naturalization – granting of citizenship status – regulating immigration and making rules relating to “Alien friends” was left to the states.”
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/02/17/thomas-jefferson-on-the-constitution-and-immigration/

    ReplyDelete