America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by frankj1. 139 replies replies.
3 Pages<123
Thousands walking north to our border.
bgz Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
victor809 wrote:
You're paraphrasing dumb memes. Don't do that.
There's other dumb memes in opposition to this. I'm not going to bother paraphrasing it because it's just as dumb to do so.

If the argument devolves to memes we may as well give up.


Hmmm, haven't seen the memes. Don't frequent facebook much these days. My wife shows me memes from time to time, but usually they're somehow related to mom-life (kinda like thug-life, except for they target crazy wine guzzling moms).
RMAN4443 Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
What happens when they get to the den and take over your chair and the remote??
tailgater Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
dstieger wrote:
put a lock on the fridge and print them directions to Home Depot?


Casa depot?

tailgater Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
OK.
So it's not an "invasion" in the traditional sense.

What should we do?

Do we let them all in?

What about next time, when it's 70,000 instead of 7,000?

Or the time after that?



There is a reason we have laws. Rules for entering our country. Borders that we protect.

Those reasons demand that we enforce our laws.

If that means a military presence, good.
When I cross borders legally I typically see a police presence.
Shouldn't that be increased when the crossing is illegal?


And the best question of all:
Why would ANYONE enter America legally if all they need to do is claim "asylum"?

For the record, having a gang-banging boyfriend beat you up for kicks is not cause for asylum.

Abrignac Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Didn’t Mexico offer asylum to those in the caravan? Wouldn’t that solve their problem? I guess not when one uses the cover of asylum to justify illegal immigration.
tailgater Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The thing is, unemployment is so low that America has to do something quickly.

We either kick people off their assistance, or we'll need more immigrants to fill in the bottom of the workers food chain.

Illegal entry will do nothing but clog up the system and prevent us from bringing in more legal immigrants who are willing to work AND follow our laws.

Speyside Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
The military cannot operate on US soil to enforce domestic laws. Posse Comitatus act.
DrafterX Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I'm not gonna tell... Not talking
deadeyedick Online
#109 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 16,961
Abrignac wrote:
Didn’t Mexico offer asylum to those in the caravan? Wouldn’t that solve their problem? I guess not when one uses the cover of asylum to justify illegal immigration.


According to recent news only about 100 accepted Mexico's offer. Why stop in Mexico when the mother load is further up the road.
Abrignac Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Speyside wrote:
The military cannot operate on US soil to enforce domestic laws. Posse Comitatus act.


So it’s against the law for the IS to use our military to prevent people foreign nationals from invading our sovereign space?


bgz Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
From my understanding of the law, if they are truly seeking asylum, then Mexico is the place to do it because it's closer.

Further, Mexico already offered to hear their asylum claims and most of them refused, in which case their claims are not valid in the US because a third party country (relative to their own country) already offered it to them.

Thus they have no legal ground to request asylum from the US.
Speyside Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Anthony see my southern border post. This law confuses me in this particular instance. I am not giving an opinion. My opinion is they need to be turned back. But that particular law, well, it confuses me as to how it is properly applied.
dstieger Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Speyside wrote:
The military cannot operate on US soil to enforce domestic laws. Posse Comitatus act.


Not familiar with details of the act, but it would seem strange to me if maintaining borders, and immigration restrictions probably aren't construed to be domestic laws
dstieger Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
GhettoNigFabulous wrote:
What a bunch of bull****. No way all these dip****s are “walking” thousands of miles. They are being transported by democratic socialist scum bags to flout our laws. .. Trump better stop this ***

You're not the only person I've heard say that. Sounds pretty crazy. But I got to thinking this morning that maybe you are on to something. Maybe this IS a political stunt. Trump has milked immigration fear for over two years to great success motivating big swaths of his base. This invasion might be just what midterm Republicans need right before election. Could get lots of otherwise non-voters to the polls.


Do I believe any of that? Of course not, but it's no more fanciful than the opposite conspiracy
ZRX1200 Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
It is political season:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37753/trump-plans-end-birthright-citizenship-joseph-curl
ZRX1200 Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/confirmed-open-borders-group-behind-illegal-alien-caravan-is-linked-to-soross-open-society/?fbclid=IwAR1F8TKsuoFwwPgJl2wRALeoWzRmBo6_vEBIUlgZZXW1V0edcs7Vts-mDHw
bgz Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
ZRX1200 wrote:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/confirmed-open-borders-group-behind-illegal-alien-caravan-is-linked-to-soross-open-society/?fbclid=IwAR1F8TKsuoFwwPgJl2wRALeoWzRmBo6_vEBIUlgZZXW1V0edcs7Vts-mDHw


Might be time to sanction that Soros guy.

I didn't know how bad it really was, this guy just totally devastates currencies... one of the sources that helped me to this opinion was a CNN article. They actually seemed to praise him for it.

He threw 10 billion dollars at shorting the British Pound, OMG!!!

Gameplan, throw a long short on a currency, cause chaos in a host country, crazy profits.

This guy is a world currency manipulator, he's dangerous.
ZRX1200 Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
One of the “news” people yesterday was taking about attacks on him as being anti-Semitic LMAO.......it’s rich comedy
dstieger Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
ZRX1200 wrote:
It is political season:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37753/trump-plans-end-birthright-citizenship-joseph-curl


So....is it a Trump classic throw away line to energize voters? Or does he really plan to try to do something executively? I think its a coin flip at this time. In fact, it probably depends on how it gets received. If he really does try to pursue it, I'm anxious to see how Trumptuckerbannonhannity tries to talk his way out of the 14th amendment. Also love the line about being the only country in the world...yada yada.....I haven't researched personally, but IIRC the op news a couple of years ago, there's nearly three dozen countries with similar citizenship laws...not least of which are Canada and Mexico.

I wouldn't be at all opposed to a discussion about changing the first provision of the 14th amendment, but I think executive action on anchor babies is likely to be clearly unconstitutional
DrafterX Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Well, sounds like we're at least going to get a couple hundred miles of shiny new Concertina wire fence along da border... Thanks to the US Military.. Laugh
deadeyedick Online
#121 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 16,961
dstieger wrote:
So....is it a Trump classic throw away line to energize voters? Or does he really plan to try to do something executively? I think its a coin flip at this time. In fact, it probably depends on how it gets received. If he really does try to pursue it, I'm anxious to see how Trumptuckerbannonhannity tries to talk his way out of the 14th amendment. Also love the line about being the only country in the world...yada yada.....I haven't researched personally, but IIRC the op news a couple of years ago, there's nearly three dozen countries with similar citizenship laws...not least of which are Canada and Mexico.

I wouldn't be at all opposed to a discussion about changing the first provision of the 14th amendment, but I think executive action on anchor babies is likely to be clearly unconstitutional


Not sure we need to change the constitution at all. If a new case was brought before the Supremes now the ruling might be different than last time.
ZRX1200 Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Landmines
DrafterX Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Or we could just a couple hundred thousand volts thru da river... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
deadeyedick wrote:
Not sure we need to change the constitution at all. If a new case was brought before the Supremes now the ruling might be different than last time.


Amendment 14
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part of that are they going to interpret differently?
DrafterX Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
They were just kiddin when they wrote that... Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/10/30/armed-migrants-in-caravan-opened-fire-on-mexican-cops-say-authorities/
tailgater Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
dstieger wrote:
Amendment 14
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part of that are they going to interpret differently?



The "all persons" part.

One could logically assume that the person had to be here legally.

There is much grey area to be discussed as well, such as people who arrived legally but aren't anymore (expired visa, etc).
And how do we define visitors, versus residents.
A trip to Disneyland shouldn't be a stepping stone to citizenship.

The 14th amendment should apply only to people who legally reside in the US.



ZRX1200 Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Amen.
dstieger Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
tailgater wrote:
The "all persons" part.

One could logically assume that the person had to be here legally.

There is much grey area to be discussed as well, such as people who arrived legally but aren't anymore (expired visa, etc).
And how do we define visitors, versus residents.
A trip to Disneyland shouldn't be a stepping stone to citizenship.

The 14th amendment should apply only to people who legally reside in the US.




"Should" is a totally subjective modifier not found in the amendment above. For that matter, neither is 'visitor '....so no need to define it.
I'm all for changing the amendment. I just disagree that there's a lot of room for interpretation
Speyside Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
The 14th amendment was written in 1868. The intent was to insure recently freed slaves were recognized as citizens and afforded all rights and protections of a citizen. I believe that Dave is right, the amendment is very clear and not open to interpretation. That being said I think the amendment needs to be altered to eliminate unforseen loopholes. Our forefathers certainly never foresaw anchor babies, or intended to make them citizens.
frankj1 Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
The "all persons" part.

One could logically assume that the person had to be here legally.

There is much grey area to be discussed as well, such as people who arrived legally but aren't anymore (expired visa, etc).
And how do we define visitors, versus residents.
A trip to Disneyland shouldn't be a stepping stone to citizenship.

The 14th amendment should apply only to people who legally reside in the US.




parents may be here illegally, but this states "born" in the US.
the kid is covered.

been wondering if Trump might be stripping himself of citizenship and therefore the Presidency...wasn't his mama from Scotland?

The Prez is an Anchor Baby!

You won't read this on Breitbart...HA!
frankj1 Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
dstieger wrote:
Maybe this IS a political stunt. Trump has milked immigration fear for over two years to great success motivating big swaths of his base. This invasion might be just what midterm Republicans need right before election. Could get lots of otherwise non-voters to the polls.


Do I believe any of that? Of course not, but it's no more fanciful than the opposite conspiracy


Agree with much, Dave.

this morning on NPR was info on the current status of the "invaders".

the report said that the throng is dwindling rapidly, that they are still about a thousand miles from the border, and at least a month away from getting there.

I'm fine with sending troops, it is a border for a reason after all...but for so many to pretend this isn't a political move whose sole purpose is to sell fear for the mid-terms is either denial or disingenuous.

And this ploy should slow down the talk of biased media...Trump manipulated them into carrying and publicizing this issue well beyond it's significance at this point in time as it may never materialize as a problem. Seems like he would like that talk better than Stock Market panic.
frankj1 Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
One of the “news” people yesterday was taking about attacks on him as being anti-Semitic LMAO.......it’s rich comedy

there is a very loose basis for that nonsense, personally I don't subscribe. He was very young when kids were recruited/forced to "out" Jews, so it's true he was around when and where this crap happened...and he was not raised to be especially devout, iirc from what little reading I have done years ago. His age at the time has been misrepresented, even fake photos of him have been used as evidence of him in uniform.

Later in life he seems to have become more than just Jewish by birth or culture.
deadeyedick Online
#134 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 16,961
dstieger wrote:
"Should" is a totally subjective modifier not found in the amendment above. For that matter, neither is 'visitor '....so no need to define it.
I'm all for changing the amendment. I just disagree that there's a lot of room for interpretation


Apparently you are not familiar with all the tap dancing that goes on with constitutional court cases. Interpretation by a previous Supreme court was what got us to anchor babies in the first place. If you illegally step over the fence and drop a baby he/she is a citizen? That does not make much sense to me nor I doubt the large majority of Americans.
ZRX1200 Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
The author was very clear.

And the court hasn’t actually ruled on it.
frankj1 Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
The author was very clear.

And the court hasn’t actually ruled on it.

on what Jamie?
Brewha Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
frankj1 wrote:
parents may be here illegally, but this states "born" in the US.
the kid is covered.

been wondering if Trump might be stripping himself of citizenship and therefore the Presidency...wasn't his mama from Scotland?

The Prez is an Anchor Baby!

You won't read this on Breitbart...HA!

And Ted Cruz in a Canadian.
I hear that these immigrants and anchor babies are all criminals.......



Hmmm....Think
tailgater Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
dstieger wrote:
"Should" is a totally subjective modifier not found in the amendment above. For that matter, neither is 'visitor '....so no need to define it.
I'm all for changing the amendment. I just disagree that there's a lot of room for interpretation


I think it's illogical to assume that "all persons" would be intended to include people here illegally.

Shouldn't ALL laws presume such basic guidelines?


If a rule is made for patrons in an adult nightclub, wouldn't the rule be designed for persons 21 and over?
Certain assumptions are inherent in rules and laws all the time.

frankj1 Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
I think it's illogical to assume that "all persons" would be intended to include people here illegally.

Shouldn't ALL laws presume such basic guidelines?


If a rule is made for patrons in an adult nightclub, wouldn't the rule be designed for persons 21 and over?
Certain assumptions are inherent in rules and laws all the time.


the scope of who is included is more specific than it seems when arbitrarily cut off at "all persons"
Clearly it defines all persons in a certain category...ie born or naturalized. I came up with that because that's what it says...

Not all persons standing within the borders, or any other 'all persons" that don't relate to the specifics being addressed by the amendment (and Spey did add some historical perspective re: slaves)

so you are correct, it is illogical to believe it includes people here illegally, because it does not include them as written, even seems to exclude them.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123