"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[88GT]

Refresh my memory as I didn't follow this case all that closely but didn't they come here legally, presumably filling out the proper paper work and jumping through the necessary bureaucratic hoops? How many of the folks pouring over our southern borders did that?

Yes, yes, yes, and that's the part that Kut ALWAYS ignores. They did this legally. They entered legally. They gained asylum legally. It was the U.S. that backtracked on the decision, reneged on the status, and then attempted to deport them. The homeschooling issue became (unfortunately, IMO) a cornerstone of the defense for their continued stay in the U.S. (whereas I think they should have argued that the U.S. hadn't provided sufficient justification to reverse its previous ruling, but I say that knowing next to nothing about immigration law as it relates to asylum issues; that may not have been a viable defense at all).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Refresh my memory as I didn't follow this case all that closely but didn't they come here legally, presumably filling out the proper paper work and jumping through the necessary bureaucratic hoops? How many of the folks pouring over our southern borders did that?

They came here legally and overstayed their visas.

 

[Henry]

I've actually said that, without any reservations, earlier. I don't belief a "higher power," endows people with rights. "Rights," unfortunately originate with men.

That right there is a troubling and disturbing statement; particularly from one wielding the power of the state.

If rights come from "man", man can eliminate them.

A discussion for another day.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, yes, yes, and that's the part that Kut ALWAYS ignores. They did this legally. They entered legally. They gained asylum legally. It was the U.S. that backtracked on the decision, reneged on the status, and then attempted to deport them. The homeschooling issue became (unfortunately, IMO) a cornerstone of the defense for their continued stay in the U.S. (whereas I think they should have argued that the U.S. hadn't provided sufficient justification to reverse its previous ruling, but I say that knowing next to nothing about immigration law as it relates to asylum issues; that may not have been a viable defense at all).

Refresh my memory as I didn't follow this case all that closely but didn't they come here legally, presumably filling out the proper paper work and jumping through the necessary bureaucratic hoops? How many of the folks pouring over our southern borders did that?

I'm not ignoring anything. They came here legally and overstayed their visas. They challenged their pending deportation, and were granted asylum... HOWEVER, the case wasn't concluded. The govt appealed, and they lost. So there was no reneging, the system went through it components. Is it "reneging" when a person who was initially guilty is found innocent on appeal?
If it was SOOOOOO important to gain asylum in the US, why didn't they apply in the THREE months they were tooling around the nation? Obviously, it wasn't that big a deal.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That right there is a troubling and disturbing statement; particularly from one wielding the power of the state.

If rights come from "man", man can eliminate them.

A discussion for another day.

Yes, man can eliminate them.... and routinely does. I'm not saying you have to like it (I don't), but you need to recognize it. I'm a religious person, and there's nothing that convinces me that rights are endowed. That logic is baffling actually.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not ignoring anything. They came here legally and overstayed their visas. They challenged their pending deportation, and were granted asylum... HOWEVER, the case wasn't concluded. The govt appealed, and they lost. So there was no reneging, the system went through it components. Is it "reneging" when a person who was initially guilty is found innocent on appeal?
If it was SOOOOOO important to gain asylum in the US, why didn't they apply in the THREE months they were tooling around the nation? Obviously, it wasn't that big a deal.

Even if all that were true, how can this possibly be compared to the illegal immigration across the southern borders? They followed the paperwork and however they lost their permission to be here, they went home. If only the illegal aliens did the first, maybe that particular source of consternation would be mitigated.

 

[hoosierdoc]

If you, personally, lived in 1814, you could do that?

Show me the law that forbids it?

i cannot personally, in 2014, fly a 747 drunk, but there's a law against it. Next point?

by your logic, is Haiti the most restrictive society on the planet because the have nothing? You are obviously making your point about access to things. We're discussing limitations of actions.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Even if all that were true, how can this possibly be compared to the illegal immigration across the southern borders? They followed the paperwork and however they lost their permission to be here, they went home. If only the illegal aliens did the first, maybe that particular source of consternation would be mitigated.

Who went home?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Show me the law that forbids it?

i cannot personally, in 2014, fly a 747 drunk, but there's a law against it. Next point?

I don't know if I should show you have weak your argument is.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I don't know if I should show you have weak your argument is.

Please don't . I just couldn't stand it if you did.

how about instead of proving me a buffoon you instead explain your obtuse point you are taking issue with those who are countering it.

 

[88GT]

Even if all that were true, how can this possibly be compared to the illegal immigration across the southern borders? They followed the paperwork and however they lost their permission to be here, they went home. If only the illegal aliens did the first, maybe that particular source of consternation would be mitigated.

They didn't go home. The Obama administration made such an asinine decision with appealing the asylum decision that the political backlash was too much. DHS granted indefinite deferred status to them, essentially allowing them to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

If we want to ask questions about the importance of choices made, why is it that the Obama administration felt it was necessary to appeal the legal and proper (duly executed) decision of a court when it plans on giving more than asylum status to millions of ILLEGALS? Why did the Obama administration change it's mind by allowing DHS to let the Romeikes remain indefinitely when it had "won" the appeal to have them deported? If it was SOOOOOO important to deport them, why didn't they enforce it when they had the opportunity?

Not to mention the error in the appellate decision that said the homeschooling prohibition in Germany doesn't have roots in Nazi law. Because it absolutely does. The statute used to fine and persecute the Romeikes and other homeschoolers in Germany is exactly the Nazi law that was enacted under Hitler to keep the citizenry from independent, anti-state thought.

Moreover, this is exactly what the modern German nazi state has ruled regarding religious freedom and homeschooling. I'm going to save myself the trouble of re-typing it all and just link to the same responses I've given every time we have to re-hash this issue.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-forbidden-may-deported-us.html#post4488390

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-forbidden-may-deported-us-2.html#post4589001

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You want to drink and drive with your kids unrestrained in your car? Wow, I'm sorry that the government won't allow you to do that.

Yeah, that's the man..............keeping me down.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please don't . I just couldn't stand it if you did.

Before I address this, I just want to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. Americans were more free in 1814, that 2014? You really want to go with that 'eh?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Before I address this, I just want to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. Americans were more free in 1814, that 2014? You really want to go with that 'eh?

Sitting in the land that is now Indiana, in 1814, I had less legal restrictions on my actions than I do in 2014, yes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They didn't go home. The Obama administration made such an asinine decision with appealing the asylum decision that the political backlash was too much. DHS granted indefinite deferred status to them, essentially allowing them to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

If we want to ask questions about the importance of choices made, why is it that the Obama administration felt it was necessary to appeal the legal and proper (duly executed) decision of a court when it plans on giving more than asylum status to millions of ILLEGALS? Why did the Obama administration change it's mind by allowing DHS to let the Romeikes remain indefinitely when it had "won" the appeal to have them deported? If it was SOOOOOO important to deport them, why didn't they enforce it when they had the opportunity?

Not to mention the error in the appellate decision that said the homeschooling prohibition in Germany doesn't have roots in Nazi law. Because it absolutely does. The statute used to fine and persecute the Romeikes and other homeschoolers in Germany is exactly the Nazi law that was enacted under Hitler to keep the citizenry from independent, anti-state thought.

Moreover, this is exactly what the modern German nazi state has ruled regarding religious freedom and homeschooling. I'm going to save myself the trouble of re-typing it all and just link to the same responses I've given every time we have to re-hash this issue.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-forbidden-may-deported-us.html#post4488390

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-forbidden-may-deported-us-2.html#post4589001

For the record, I don't like Barry's amnesty eo, and I don't like immigration in general, for ALL groups. But seriously, academic oppression as a legit reason for asylum???? Come the hell on.

 

[HoughMade]

If I was smart, I'd just stay out of this....but here goes.

There are ways we (collectively) have more freedom than 1814. There are many ways we have less. It is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify. What are the "freedom points" for hunting, essentially, wherever you want, or having minimal intrusion into family life versus the "freedom points" for women and certain races NOT having freedom to vote?

If you guys want to try to come up with a system, have at it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sitting in the land that is now Indiana, in 1814, I had less legal restrictions on my actions than I do in 2014, yes.

And what about me, would I have had less legal restrictions in Indiana in 1814, than 2014?

 

[Henry]

Yes, man can eliminate them.... and routinely does. I'm not saying you have to like it (I don't), but you need to recognize it. I'm a religious person, and there's nothing that convinces me that rights are endowed. That logic is baffling actually.

No, man can only suppress them.

Worth the watch/listen....unless you want to pick up a copy of Locke's writings.

[video=youtube_share;4orlWZeF6sg]http://youtu.be/4orlWZeF6sg[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

If I was smart, I'd just stay out of this....but here goes.

There are ways we (collectively) have more freedom than 1814. There are many ways we have less. It is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify. What are the "freedom points" for hunting, essentially, wherever you want, or having minimal intrusion into family life versus the "freedom points" for women and certain races NOT having freedom to vote?

If you guys want to try to come up with a system, have at it.

Vote? Lol, I think that was the last those groups were worried about in 1814.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, man can only suppress them.

Worth the watch/listen....unless you want to pick up a copy of Locke's writings.

[video=youtube_share;4orlWZeF6sg]http://youtu.be/4orlWZeF6sg[/video]

I am well versed in Locke and most of the Enlightenment Theories. Man can do more than suppress a right, he can downright eliminate it.