Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

Citizen of Israel vs Nazi Checkpoint

599 posts in this topic

That is not what Nazi means. You misuse a destinct term for shock value.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it's an illegal alien's life or death, it can't be Nazi because they're decreed by the federal government to be here illegally?

Yes that's what Nazi means to me. Stepping on the sovereignty of the states and the rights of the people, violating the Constitution and our rule of law.

So the US. Border patrol are planning on exterminating the Jewish race and establishing an empire across Europe to provide themselves, the master race, with Lebensraum? That's what Nazi means to me. When you see the U.S. federal government beginning to do that, you might have an argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questioning whether this is an effective method of guarding against illegal Immingrants is an entirely fair argument. it's the misuse of rhetorical terms, and the reliance on someone who everyone seems to agree is an irritating clown, that reduces the effectiveness of the argument, though. I think that's why you've had difficulty convincing people of the strength of your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what Nazi means. You misuse a destinct term for shock value.

I know the First Amendment to the US Constitution is a tough one, but there's all kinds of ways to use the term. For instance here's another - the US government stinks of Mussolini's fascism, something I remember the Nazis were quite fond of. If that has shock value and we find it surprising then good.

Bottom line, there's no reason to tolerate unlawful checkpoints. If checkpoints were effective at their intended role, the States can handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questioning whether this is an effective method of guarding against illegal Immingrants is an entirely fair argument. it's the misuse of rhetorical terms, and the reliance on someone who everyone seems to agree is an irritating clown, that reduces the effectiveness of the argument, though. I think that's why you've had difficulty convincing people of the strength of your argument.

Stop making up stories about "everyone". The thousands of votes on Youtube shows the grandest proof of what the real breakdown is on what "everyone" really thinks.

You can keep repeating that he's an irritating clown, I don't know what difference it's going to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the First Amendment to the US Constitution is a tough one, but there's all kinds of ways to use the term. For instance here's another - the US government stinks of Mussolini's fascism, something I remember the Nazis were quite fond of. If that has shock value and we find it surprising then good.

Bottom line, there's no reason to tolerate unlawful checkpoints. If checkpoints were effective at their intended role, the States can handle it.

Mussolini was fond of the Nazis, bro. You have no idea what you are talking about. Especially not costitutional law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mussolini was fond of the Nazis, bro. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Especially not costitutional law.

Enlighten me. What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Enlighten me. What am I missing?

Read up on history.

And you tell me what I would be missing, since you constantly say that I could not comprehend it. You are twisting your own constitutuional laws all the time. You cannot even comprehend what the "right to silence" really stands for.

Edit: Pardon me, I think you could, but you don't want to.

Edited by FLOMBIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop making up stories about "everyone". The thousands of votes on Youtube shows the grandest proof of what the real breakdown is on what "everyone" really thinks.

You can keep repeating that he's an irritating clown, I don't know what difference it's going to make.

Democracy according to how popular something is on Youtube. That sets an encouraging precedent for the future of civilisation.

it's not just me that keeps repeating that he's an irritating clown, nearly everyone seems to agree.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should try to use destinct terms correctly. Then we all could take you more seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the First Amendment to the US Constitution is a tough one, but there's all kinds of ways to use the term. For instance here's another - the US government stinks of Mussolini's fascism, something I remember the Nazis were quite fond of. If that has shock value and we find it surprising then good.

Well, strictly speaking I think Hitler saw the "support" of his ally as more of a liability than anything else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youtube is full of people being awkward and difficult with police and officials for some kind of personal satisfaction.

I no longer find it interesting or even entertaining, it is all a bit of a yawn now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should try to use destinct terms correctly. Then we all could take you more seriously.

Whether you like my use of the word Nazi or not, it does not supplant the rule of law. And don't worry about me, just take the rule of law seriously.

Chief Justice White: "In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the context of this quote?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the context of this quote?

A landmark decision that set the Constitutional precedence of our laws concerning the freedom of movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A landmark decision that set the Constitutional precedence of our laws concerning the freedom of movement.

Name of the decision? Link? How old is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, and you would argue with this decision against the border patrol checkpoints in court?

Chief Justice White: "In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right."

Because this is not infringed by the checkpoints at all. If I would get in there, and carry my legal decuments, which I am ought to as a non-citizen to the US, I'd be free to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, and you would argue with this decision against the border patrol checkpoints in court?

Chief Justice White: "In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right."

Because this is not infringed by the checkpoints at all. If I would get in there, and carry my legal decuments, which I am ought to as a non-citizen to the US, I'd be free to go.

Again,

Chief Justice White: "In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right."

This is very non-controversial in the US, btw. People actually expect these rights here. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? How is this infringed?

Edit: You know, I was thinking about us having a similar thing in Germany, or Europe. And I could indeed find one thing: You might know that we do not have borders between the souvereign nations forming the Shengen Agreement (free to go, you know ;)) But the respective countries are allowed to have random passport controls on trains, for instance. This rarely happens, but I do see the necessity of those: Illegals are caught this way. Does it prohibit my movement? Not in the slightest.

The same goes for these checkpoints. Which the Nazis did not have, btw.

And you know, if you meet the atrocities of the Nazis on an almost daily basis, you don't handle this term so lax. It's a slap in the face for all who suffered under those b*******.

Edited by FLOMBIE
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? How is this infringed?

Because they stopped him for no reason, therefore they violated his right to travel freely.

I'll give you another reference.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause has enjoyed a long association with the rights to travel and migrate interstate. The Clause derives from Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation. The latter expressly recognized a right of "free ingress and regress to and from any other State," in addition to guaranteeing "the free inhabitants of each of these states . . . [the] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." While the Framers of our Constitution omitted the reference to "free ingress and regress," they retained the general guaranty of "privileges and immunities." Charles Pinckney, who drafted the current version of Art. IV, told the Convention that this Article was "formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation." Commentators, therefore, have assumed that the Framers omitted the express guaranty merely because it was redundant, not because they wished to excise the right from the Constitution. Early opinions by the Justices of this Court also traced a right to travel or migrate interstate to Art. IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause....Similarly, in Paul v. Virginia, the Court found that one of the "undoubt[ed]" effects of the Clause was to give "the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them...."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you like my use of the word Nazi or not, it does not supplant the rule of law. And don't worry about me, just take the rule of law seriously.

Chief Justice White: "In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right."

Nazi stands for National Socialist Party, a Political Party in Germany in the 1920's, 30's and 40's.

About your quote. The LEO's are not infringing on what the Chief Justice says. If they are a citizen of the country they are allowed freely on their way, and the officers are taking their word at face value with out requesting any further documentation.

However what the video in the OP shows is a man who clearly states he is not a citizen of any of the states and is in fact a foreigner from the sovereign nation of Israel, so that quote is not in play in this circumstance.

EDIT:

That second quote you have clearly states Citizen of the state. Which the OP Video he is clearly in plain english stating that he is in fact not a citizen.

Edited by Thanato
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That second quote you have clearly states Citizen of the state. Which the OP Video he is clearly in plain english stating that he is in fact not a citizen.

Possible double citizenship and officer's use of common sense that the man is jerking around after he takes the bible?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible double citizenship and officer's use of common sense that the man is jerking around after he takes the bible?

The officer has to take what the man says at face value. If he says he's a citizen of Israel he has to assume that it is the Sovereign nation of Israel. Especially when asked multiple times. 'Are you a US Citizen' and he says he's a citizen of israel.

Edited by Thanato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your job doesn't confer you your rights.

And yet you still have a right to do your job and carry out the duties you are given...

We shouldn't have to show papers simply because we exist. Everybody's got to exist somewhere. That is no reason for suspicion.

This ties in with your previous comments that there shouldn't be any check points.

But in saying this, you seem to contradict yourself...Earlier in the thread, Thanto asked you a direct question, which in fact was....see below..

I have a question. Do you support illegal immigration in the United States?

And to that you then answer with.....

No, do you support the Bill of Rights? How?

So Thanto notes you are not in support of illegal immigration into the US... As seen clearly on this page - http://www.unexplain...c=251504&st=120

You have contradicted yourself in here... One min you are clearly against illegal immigrants entering your country, and now you claim no one should have to show papers as to who they are...Not only that, you told me that there shouldn't be any need for officers and people who work for the government...You may as well have all laws abolished, and let everyone do as they like, and that includes letting in illegal immigrants... You seriously cannot make your own mind up...

So far you have shown that

1 - You contradict yourself.

2 - You cannot pay full attention to a video you post, you see things no one else see's...You constantly claimed the man was pulled over when clearly your video shows him stopping at a check point like everyone else has to...

3 - You think by rabbiting on about rights rights rights, means you know it all, and you do not feel those who are doing their jobs as officers should be allowed to do it.. ....

4 - You tried several times over to make this thread about you....constantly !

5 - You don't want anyone crossing over to your country to show any papers, just come on in we don't care.

6 - To top it all off, you want thousands more like the man in the video, to make complete and utter fools of themselves and harass officers.

7 - You would rather Americans deny being an American citizen just to make a point.... Now isn't that just clever?

8 - When asked a few times - Why do you think they have checkpoints? You fail to answer..You don't seem to understand why these things are in place, and why people need to show papers when entering your country..This includes going through customs in an air port..

Enlighten me. What am I missing?

The point.

Edited by Beckys_Mom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.