What should be done about illegal immigration?

The sig line you've got there goes remarkably well with that statement, dys.....

0 Replies

That's because you guys don't understand it. Haven't seen a census form yet with "Palestinian" listed as a race. Have you?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

OGIONIK wrote:
I have one question to ask. i dont even need you to answer turthfully.

If YOU were born in mexico, would you stay there living in filth, or break a law and swim your ass across a river to a higher standard of living and a government not corrupt beyond belief?

i bet every person that is pro-deportation totally evades the question.

but do you best to keep people from living better lives.

If you were born in poverty and there was close by a very rich person living in a mansion. Would you break into his house and set up housekeeping? If you did what would you expect to happen. You would be given squatters rights or get booted out on your ass.

Perfect analogy? Rolling Eyes

The average IA breaks into nothing. How about would you hop over the mansion owner's fence, if that was your only means onto his property, to accept a job from the mansion owner like the vast majority of millions of IA's have done for generations? The answer from any intellectually honest person should be 'of course'. Constantly disparaging Mexicans who cross borders to accept jobs as 'thieves' is the equivalent of saying black people are thieves, the Irish are drunks or the Jews eat babies. (What word best describes people who peddle such BS? Idea

)

I think Thomas put it best: You can't play by the rules if the rules say you cannot play.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

au1929 wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
I have one question to ask. i dont even need you to answer turthfully.

...................

I think Thomas put it best: You can't play by the rules if the rules say you cannot play.

Like, DUH! Whoever made this clown a REFEREE?

If the rules say you can't play, you stay OUT of the playing field. That's how it is - get over it.

0 Replies

Speaking of IAs, don't forget the drug dealers, terrorists, crooks, prostitutes, TB carriers, et al., who are breaking into the country.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Speaking of IAs, don't forget the drug dealers, terrorists, crooks, prostitutes, TB carriers, et al., who are breaking into the country.

We've had people of no identifiable nationality or origin dying in US hospital quarantine sections, tended by physicians dressed approximately like astronauts, of diseases we cannot even IDENTIFY, let alone CURE.

Right now we have a man with extremely drug-resistant TB under armed guard in isolation - and the number of scares in our food supply is multiplying, because our illegals mostly do work there and most of them have never had a VACCINATION.

Maybe a few more of us must die before they're all booted out?!

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Question, If you owned the mansion would you invite them to stay or toss them out?

I don't know. Maybe I would maybe I wouldn't. My point is -- and this is where your analogy limps -- that if my neighbor rents out his apartment to them, I have no standing to complain. Likewise, if I decide to rent out my mansion to them, he has no standing to complain.

au1929 wrote:

As for paying for their stay. That is indeed questionable. Based upon all the burden they place the areas in which they live. In many instances it is negative balance.

That's why I asked you, what if you let them come, but deny them government services so they have to pay their way? In that case the balance can't be negative, because all their transactions happen between consenting grown-ups on a value-for-money basis.

au1929 wrote:

What gauls me most of all is that they have the audacity to demand and demonstrate for their "rights". What imaginary rights do they have?

Well for one thing, the First Amendment gives them the right to peacably assemble and to petition Congress for redress of their grievances. Then they have the right to hold and bear arms, not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in times of peace, ... well, you get the idea. I needn't recite the Bill of Rights to you.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Question, If you owned the mansion would you invite them to stay or toss them out?

I don't know. Maybe I would maybe I wouldn't. My point is -- and this is where your analogy limps -- that if my neighbor rents out his apartment to them, I have no standing to complain. Likewise, if I decide to rent out my mansion to them, he has no standing to complain.

au1929 wrote:
As for paying for their stay. That is indeed questionable. Based upon all the burden they place the areas in which they live. In many instances it is negative balance.

That's why I asked you, what if you let them come, but deny them government services so they have to pay their way? In that case the balance can't be negative, because all their transactions happen between consenting grown-ups on a value-for-money basis.

au1929 wrote:
What gauls me most of all is that they have the audacity to demand and demonstrate for their "rights". What imaginary rights do they have?

Well for one thing, the First Amendment gives them the right to peacably assemble and to petition Congress for redress of their grievances. Then they have the right to hold and bear arms, not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in times of peace, ... well, you get the idea. I needn't recite the Bill of Rights to you.

Quote:

Well for one thing, the First Amendment gives them the right to peacably assemble and to petition Congress for redress of their grievances. Then they have the right to hold and bear arms, not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in times of peace, ... well, you get the idea. I needn't recite the Bill of Rights to you

No such "right" is granted to criminals.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

No such "right" is granted to criminals.

Please show me where the constitution says -- or where the Supreme Court has decided -- that criminals don't have human rights.

0 Replies

Of courts criminals have rights, in fact, the constitution grants some rights exclusively to criminals.

The right to not incriminate one self.
The right to not be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy).
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

And the courts have added to this list... including the idea that illegally gathered evidence is inadmissable in court (i.e. can't be used to prove a criminal commited a crime).

0 Replies

You never know, eBrown ... maybe HighSeas will surprise us with a Supreme Court precedent to back her up. Give her a chance. Smile

0 Replies

If we're talking about the rights of criminals, it's a little hard to extend that to illegal immigrants. We're talking about people for whom being anywhere in the country is a crime, after all. It's not like they're suddenly law-abiding citizens if they're in the middle of a street march or working for a newspaper or something.

That's not to say that illegal immigrants have no rights whatsoever. Specifically, the courts have usually held that they have certain rights analogous to the rights a citizen has, especially in situations where an officer of the law cannot easily distinguish between a citizen and an illegal immigrant - thus they have Miranda rights, for example.

But there are definitely rights they do not have! Take working, for example - each citizen (and legal alien not on a visitor's visa) has a common-law right to work. Not a guarantee that they'll be employed, but they are allowed to exchange labor for objects of value... you know, the whole traditional underpinning of capitalism. An illegal immigrant is -not- allowed to do this, and it's illegal for the immigrant and for the employer.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

But there are definitely rights they do not have!

The allegation of au1929, however, was that they have no rights, and in particular that they have a right to demonstrate for any. Do you agree with au on that?

0 Replies

quote="Thomas"]

au1929 wrote:

Question, If you owned the mansion would you invite them to stay or toss them out?

I don't know. Maybe I would maybe I wouldn't. My point is -- and this is where your analogy limps -- that if my neighbor rents out his apartment to them, I have no standing to complain. Likewise, if I decide to rent out my mansion to them, he has no standing to complain.

Who said anything about renting out an apartment. They broke in and moved in. Which is essentially what the illegals are doing?

au1929 wrote:

As for paying for their stay. That is indeed questionable. Based upon all the burden they place the areas in which they live. In many instances it is negative balance.

That's why I asked you, what if you let them come, but deny them government services so they have to pay their way? In that case the balance can't be negative, because all their transactions happen between consenting grown-ups on a value-for-money basis.

we are talking of those illegally here. Not those who enter according to the rules. In addition even if here illegally it would be illegal not to afford them medical aid or schooling to their children. As for letting them stay without government services. I am not for letting anyone stay who jumped the line.

au1929 wrote:

What gauls me most of all is that they have the audacity to demand and demonstrate for their "rights". What imaginary rights do they have?

Well, for one thing, the First Amendment gives them the right to peaceably assemble and to petition Congress for redress of their grievances. Then they have the right to hold and bear arms, not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in times of peace, ... well, you get the idea. I needn't recite the Bill of Rights to you.[/quote]

That is ridiculous from the start. The bill of rights is not for those who are illegally here. but for American citizens and those here legally. Odd you feel they do not have to obey the law but when convenient you say they are covered by our laws.

0 Replies

Thomas

They have no legal right other than be unceremoniously sent back from whence they came. That is their only right.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

They have no legal right other than be unceremoniously sent back from whence they came. That is their only right.

If that's what you think, you need to re-read the constitution.

au1929 wrote:

Who said anything about renting out an apartment. They broke in and moved in. Which is essentially what the illegals are doing?

No it's essentially not.

au1929 wrote:

That is ridiculous from the start. The bill of rights is not for those who are illegally here. but for American citizens and those here legally.

False. The bill of rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of the US government.

au1929 wrote:

Odd you feel they do not have to obey the law but when convenient you say they are covered by our laws.

I'm not saying they don't have to, I'm saying I don't care if they don't.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

They have no legal right other than be unceremoniously sent back from whence they came. That is their only right.

Do you feel the same way about Jews in Palestine? The argument seems to be fairly similar.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

au1929 wrote:
They have no legal right other than be unceremoniously sent back from whence they came. That is their only right.

If that's what you think, you need to re-read the constitution.

You are correct they do have rights as long as they are on American soil. Howeveer, being in the US illegally is a deportable offense

au1929 wrote:
Who said anything about renting out an apartment.They broke in and moved in. Which is essentially what the illegals are doing?

Thomas wrote
No it's essentially not.

I disagree. It exactly mirrors the actions of an illegal alien.

au1929 wrote:
Odd you feel they do not have to obey the law but when convenient you say they are covered by our laws.

Thomas wrote
I'm not saying they don't have to, I'm saying I don't care if they don't.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

au1929 wrote:
They have no legal right other than be unceremoniously sent back from whence they came. That is their only right.

Do you feel the same way about Jews in Palestine? The argument seems to be fairly similar.

Not similar since the UN voted in favor of the establishment of the State of Israel. The Jews are not in Israel illegally.

Note: It's establishment was a response to the barbarism of your bretheran

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Thomas wrote:
au1929 wrote:
They have no legal right other than be unceremoniously sent back from whence they came. That is their only right.

Do you feel the same way about Jews in Palestine? The argument seems to be fairly similar.

Not similar since the UN voted in favor of the establishment of the State of Israel. The Jews are not in Israel illegally.

Note: It's establishment was a response to the barbarism of your bretheran

What an absurd thing to say.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know