GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Father of slain Muslim US soldier to Donald Trump: 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one'

Joe Obenberger · 07-29-2016, 03:30 PM

It would be hard to convince me that anyone with anyone with a child who goes into the military is willingly sacrificing the life of that child. When our children start wearing a uniform, we pray that they survive, instead. The death of his son is certainly his profound loss. But a sacrifice, as I've always understood the word, is made willingly and voluntarily. I do not believe that this gentleman intended that his son's life be taken in action, but to the contrary, that his son would live a long and happy life. To mistake loss with sacrifice may be rousing rhetoric, but it cheapens the virtue of sacrifice in some small, but real, way.

I have read the Constitution. Perhaps he has not read it himself. It is allocated to Congress to create uniform rules concerning naturalization. Article I, Section 8.

The Constitution grants no one the right to enter the United States. (Though I suppose that such a right extends by implication to US Citizens.) The borders of the United States belong to the United States exclusively and no non-citizen possesses any right to cross those borders to enter the US by virtue of any right arising under the Constitution. It has never been the law here, deriving from the Constitution, that all foreigners have an equal right or opportunity to cross those borders. Since immigration was first controlled our laws have always played favorites among those who wish to come here, sometimes concerning geography, sometimes involving character and background, and sometimes by virtue of ethnicity and race. I didn't write any of those laws and I am saying nothing about whether I agree or disagree with any of them. I am only speaking to their legal legitimacy. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has ever been undermined by any US Court - and the right to control admission into the US for any reason - or for no good reason at all - seems to be under the fairly arbitrary control of US law. It is one thing to suggest that a US immigration policy is wrong or immoral or whatever. But it is just plain wrong to suggest that the Constitution limits the power of the US government to limit immigration from specified countries - even if the intent is to affect the immigration of adherents of one religion or another.

07-29-2016, 03:30 PM
Joe Obenberger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 466	It would be hard to convince me that anyone with anyone with a child who goes into the military is willingly sacrificing the life of that child. When our children start wearing a uniform, we pray that they survive, instead. The death of his son is certainly his profound loss. But a sacrifice, as I've always understood the word, is made willingly and voluntarily. I do not believe that this gentleman intended that his son's life be taken in action, but to the contrary, that his son would live a long and happy life. To mistake loss with sacrifice may be rousing rhetoric, but it cheapens the virtue of sacrifice in some small, but real, way. I have read the Constitution. Perhaps he has not read it himself. It is allocated to Congress to create uniform rules concerning naturalization. Article I, Section 8. The Constitution grants no one the right to enter the United States. (Though I suppose that such a right extends by implication to US Citizens.) The borders of the United States belong to the United States exclusively and no non-citizen possesses any right to cross those borders to enter the US by virtue of any right arising under the Constitution. It has never been the law here, deriving from the Constitution, that all foreigners have an equal right or opportunity to cross those borders. Since immigration was first controlled our laws have always played favorites among those who wish to come here, sometimes concerning geography, sometimes involving character and background, and sometimes by virtue of ethnicity and race. I didn't write any of those laws and I am saying nothing about whether I agree or disagree with any of them. I am only speaking to their legal legitimacy. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has ever been undermined by any US Court - and the right to control admission into the US for any reason - or for no good reason at all - seems to be under the fairly arbitrary control of US law. It is one thing to suggest that a US immigration policy is wrong or immoral or whatever. But it is just plain wrong to suggest that the Constitution limits the power of the US government to limit immigration from specified countries - even if the intent is to affect the immigration of adherents of one religion or another. __________________ Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue. Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964