What should be done about illegal immigration?

I now recognize Bill by his smile. We had a kid in the neighborhood who was retarded. He had the identical smile.

McGentrix wrote:

I guess being against illegal immigration wasn't a racist issue then was it? Considering the Irish and Scottish are the same race and all.

Yes McWhitey... this is why the term racist gave way to bigot quite a while back.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I guess being against illegal immigration wasn't a racist issue then was it? Considering the Irish and Scottish are the same race and all.

Yes McWhitey... this is why the term racist gave way to bigot quite a while back.

reduced to petty insults? Never thought I'd see the day you acted as assish as Setanta.

Considering the Irish and Scottish are the same race and all.

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.

Thomas - I won't even quote your incoherent response to the above post, but in it you appear to conflate "constitutionally granted rights" with....."human rights" (sic).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I guess being against illegal immigration wasn't a racist issue then was it? Considering the Irish and Scottish are the same race and all.

Yes McWhitey... this is why the term racist gave way to bigot quite a while back.

reduced to petty insults? Never thought I'd see the day you acted as assish as Setanta.

Quote:

Thomas - I won't even quote your incoherent response to the above post, but in it you appear to conflate "constitutionally granted rights" with....."human rights" (sic).

If one truly believes that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are inherent ones, and not ones which are granted by the state, then there is no real difference between the two.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I guess being against illegal immigration wasn't a racist issue then was it? Considering the Irish and Scottish are the same race and all.

Yes McWhitey... this is why the term racist gave way to bigot quite a while back.

reduced to petty insults? Never thought I'd see the day you acted as assish as Setanta.

Apologize to the Hispanic community as blatantly as you insulted them with your "Beaner" BS, and our relations will return to normal, bruised, but not broken. Until then; you leave me little choice but to consider you a bigot. I'm not cool with people who refer to my friends as Chinks, Spics, Beaners, Jigs, Niggers etc. Not cool.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I guess being against illegal immigration wasn't a racist issue then was it? Considering the Irish and Scottish are the same race and all.

Yes McWhitey... this is why the term racist gave way to bigot quite a while back.

reduced to petty insults? Never thought I'd see the day you acted as assish as Setanta.

Apologize to the Hispanic community as blatantly as you insulted them with your "Beaner" BS, and our relations will return to normal, bruised, but not broken. Until then; you leave me little choice but to consider you a bigot. I'm not cool with people who refer to my friends as Chinks, Spics, Beaners, Jigs, Niggers etc. Not cool.

This is beyond grotesque - Chinks et al are "not cool", but you address another poster as McWhitey in the selfsame post? Illiterate idiot is the very least you show yourself to be, and racist to boot.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Thomas - I won't even quote your incoherent response to the above post, but in it you appear to conflate "constitutionally granted rights" with....."human rights" (sic).

If one truly believes that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are inherent ones, and not ones which are granted by the state, then there is no real difference between the two.

Cycloptichorn

This is not a matter of belief, Cyclop, it's a matter of 2 distinct subsets of laws. We've signed the UN human rights convention, and we've adopted the US Constitution, but they're still 2 different things!

High Seas
In looking it up I found I was wrong. As long as they are on US soil they are covered by rights granted in the constitution. You will find that I had previously ackowleded my error.

HokieBird wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Securing our border using deadly force forces noone to get blown up by land mines. It only makes the consequences more severe for their illegal incursion.


Cycloptichorn

Consequences - as in, death? Yeah, I'd say that's damn "severe".

Doesn't sound like he's "recanted" 100%. "Rephrased" maybe.

I'm not sure why you're trying to stir the pot with me, but it's immaterial to me either way.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Securing our border using deadly force forces noone to get blown up by land mines. It only makes the consequences more severe for their illegal incursion.


Cycloptichorn

Consequences - as in, death? Yeah, I'd say that's damn "severe".

Doesn't sound like he's "recanted" 100%. "Rephrased" maybe.

I'm not sure why you're trying to stir the pot with me, but it's immaterial to me either way.

It's not everyday we learn of someone who thinks the solution to illegal immigrants is blowing them to bits with landmines. I find your rephrased opinion no less shocking.

High Seas
In looking it up I found I was wrong. As long as they are on US soil they are covered by rights granted in the constitution. You will find that I had previously ackowleded my error.

HokieBird wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Securing our border using deadly force forces noone to get blown up by land mines. It only makes the consequences more severe for their illegal incursion.


Cycloptichorn

Consequences - as in, death? Yeah, I'd say that's damn "severe".

Doesn't sound like he's "recanted" 100%. "Rephrased" maybe.

I'm not sure why you're trying to stir the pot with me, but it's immaterial to me either way.

It's not everyday we learn of someone who thinks the solution to illegal immigrants is blowing them to bits with landmines. I find your rephrased opinion no less shocking.

Do you always speak with the royal 'we?'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Securing our border using deadly force forces noone to get blown up by land mines. It only makes the consequences more severe for their illegal incursion.


Cycloptichorn

Consequences - as in, death? Yeah, I'd say that's damn "severe".

Doesn't sound like he's "recanted" 100%. "Rephrased" maybe.

I'm not sure why you're trying to stir the pot with me, but it's immaterial to me either way.

It's not everyday we learn of someone who thinks the solution to illegal immigrants is blowing them to bits with landmines. I find your rephrased opinion no less shocking.

Do you always speak with the royal 'we?'

Cycloptichorn

I'd be willing to give up the 'royal we', if you'd agree to give up all that 'sighing'.