Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution

Again, the meaning of the 14th Amendment and its application to folks who are non-citizens was clarified in court decisions from 1886 regarding Chinese immigrants and in at least two more decisions during the late 19th century. Nothing modern and certainly not a function of distortion by liberals.It is certainly the case that the original meaning of the constitution was substantially amended by the ratification of the 13-15th and 19th amendment. After all, the founding fathers never intended to treat blacks and women equally under the law. Let's recall that the treatment of blacks as secondary citizens was actually written into the constitution. But let's also recall that for huge portions of our history, there really was no such thing as illegal immigration. If you got here as a free person, and were not a black or Native American, you were entitled to at least 5th amendment rights. The exclusion of folks via immigration law is something we got serious about a bit after the civil war. (In fact, around the time of that Yick Wo v. Hopkins I have cited several times) All of which ought to put your attempt at history into some perspective.I know you don't like that result, but that is the law. What is modern is the attempt by wingnuts do define illegal immigrants as illegal persons without rights. That wishful thinking has never been the law. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Again, marc, try a little honesty.First no one here does not accept the fact that Trump is President.Second, more voters voted for Clinton than voted for Trump.

That's right, because I don't agree that an undocumented immigrant is only guilty of a misdemeanor. That makes a joke of any effort the U.S. border patrol puts fourth in keeping them out. It turns border enforcement into a game, with little slap-on-the-wrist punishments as little more meaningful than five yard penalties in a football game. I don't see burdening ourselves to show blind trust to foreigners to be a U.S. founding principle. Is there something in....a Federalist Paper you could show me? Why should we treat foreigners in a way that they might not find respectable, if they don't understand them, if they've never been exposed to them? Because they can speak English, because they have some idea, however slight, of what U.S. morals are and a little about how free markets work. There is a big difference between the worse U.S. citizens versus non U.S. citizens from who-knows-where. Because the kids didn't commit a crime doesn't mean their parents should be rewarded for committing the crime of conceiving them as illegal immigrants. Otherwise word spreads in other countries, "go to the U.S. and have children" Never mind if you won't be able to support them!" The U.S. didn't come into existence automatically, and it won't be preserved automatically. I think you're taking its existence for granted. A lot of people on the political left in the U.S. do today. It's happened before, the Roman Empire as only one example, and it can take hundreds of years for a fallen civilization to recover. It's been estimated that it was a thousand years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times. A one world government? That would cause ISIS to dissolve? That's what the Democrats in the south said when slavery ended. It worked out though, didn't it? The movement of money out of the country? Undocumented workers often send money back to their home country. Many of them contribute to the economy in big ways all right, they bring in the illegal drugs. That you don't see the danger in these things parallels the carelessness of the Romans 2000 years ago.

They were part of the original founding of the U.S. Why are only the first 10 called the Bill of Rights? Why aren't all of them to this day called that? There is a distinction between the first 10 and the rest. Free health care. Unemployment "benefits". Free college tuition. Countless routine living expenses that Democrats constantly clamor for the government to provide for them. Non documented workers pay MORE taxes than legal ones? Do they pay income tax without SS numbers? Show me your research.

So you dont believe in the whole Constitution. Just parts you lke. That is seditious talk.
Maybe you should learn some basic history. There were more amendments proposed. Only ten were ratified by the states. The 27th amendment was included with the original 10 but was only affirmed in 1992.
Oh yeah and the scholars that support your seditious reasoning?
United States Bill of Rights - WikipediaNow show me the free healthcare. Unemployment benefits are not free, they are paid for by a tax on companies, which in turn is a tax on workers because it gives employers less money to pay workers. Are you saying there should be no unemployment benefit? We should let those that lose a job due to no fault of their own should live in the streets and starve?Show me this free college tuition. I do think college should be part of basic education. Do you think K-12 education is free liberal stuff? Examples? Now I didn't say that did I. How about you actually argue against the argument I am making, not a strawman you built.The research has been done. There are more taxes than just federal income tax. You conservs like to forget that when you have a weak argument.https://www.usnews.com/...d-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

There is not a matter of opinion about such a statement. The question you are "disagreeing" on is a matter of law. The law is that repeated attempts to reenter the country after being deported can be charged as felony, but otherwise, entering the country illegally is, under US code a misdemeanor.Overstaying a visa, which is how the vast majority of illegal immigrants get here is a civil offense, which is not a criminal offense and thus does not even constitute a misdemeanor. In short, simply being here illegally is not a crime at all.Your arguments in this thread are passionate but they are not based on the law. They instead reflect what you would like the law to be. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Which is why in the OP I included the section on Civil Lawsuits.

quote:

---

Article [VII] (Amendment 7 - Civil Trials)

​

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

---

If deportation should cause damage greater than $20.00 can a civil trial by jury be demanded?Note, that this is part of the US Constitution even marc seems to think legitimate.

Unfortunately for plain readers, the case law on this particular provision is so riddled with exceptions established by the courts as to make it useless. You cannot request a jury trial in a deportation case primarily because this amendment has been held to apply to civil trials for money damages for matters that were tried in civil courts back at the founding of the country. Regardless of the fact that sums of money may be at risk, deportation cases are primarily about equity rather than money damages.

Jim Hoft, AKA the stupidest man on the internet, makes Breitbart look like a real news organization.

Curiously your opinion is not the law. Trying to keep people out is a joke, it will never work.Unless, perhaps, you would like to see them executed for the high crime of wanting a better life? If you truly accept those founding principles as critical to the formation of the US then it should be no burden to apply them to anyone in the US. Others are doing this job already. So now they have to be tested to see which ones to treat badly and which ones to respect as human beings? Fascinating. Presumably the children should be treated the worst then? So nobody that doesn't speak English can be an American. How's your Navajo? Like the morals of American White Christian Terrorists?And of course no other country is capitalist ... Agreed. The immigrants generally are better educated on the constitution and laws, and more ready and willing to work hard to make a living. First time I ever heard of conceiving children being illegal, are you sure that's what you meant? Which curiously is the law.Never mind that the parents are hard working people wanting to start a new life. So we need to close our borders to all comers and live like reinactors in our daily lives ... show home movies to preserve the ideal way to live, stuck forever in 1950 America?OR we recognize that things change, and that's why the constitution gets amended and laws get changed to adapt to changing times. You mean the period of time that the churches suppressed information and burned books? When people were burned at the stakes for being heretics? Ah yes, the creation of the EU is what was behind ISIS forming, good catch. So we should "JimCrow"the immigrants? Seems you knowledge of American history is a little lacking here. The decline of the Romans was due in large part to the fact that they poisoned their people with lead used to line aqueducts and make drinking vessels (pewter is made with lead and other toxic heavy metals).And I do see the parallel to lead poisoned water in Flint and many other cities (lead used to seal cast iron pipes in virtually all city older sections as well as in old solder on copper pipes), and certainly in the dumbing down of America by Americans that want to believe myth rather than reality.Enjoy

Please expand on your Rome analogy. I don't understand the parallels you are trying to draw. I am not sure if that is caused because how you are trying to express them or the total, utter lack of historical knowledge you seem to possess.

What about including the internet in the 1st amendment on free speech, or including modern guns in the 2nd amendment on bearing arms? Would you also call those "deteriorations"?

quote:

---

That's right, because I don't agree that an undocumented immigrant is only guilty of a misdemeanor.

---

Do you know that you can easily (in New York anyway) find LOTS of "illegal" immigrants who actually served LEGALLY in the U.S. military?I think I have personally known these types of people in every state I have lived in. I have to think a little. I knew many in South Carolina for example. I know of many right now here in N. Y. City. Yup, I sure do. Right now.

quote:

---

Democrats in the south said when slavery ended

---

You also said Democrats caused welfare benefits to exist, which - in your opinion - should disqualify immigrants from having the right to come here (or something).Democrats also brought about forced segregation in 1896, which, among other factors, caused a "Great Migration" of blacks to leave the south for northern states from 1930 to 1970.But before slavery ended, the constitutional definition of what makes a citizen didn't cover people who were simply born here. That changed after the Civil War. The 14th amendment clarified language previously interpreted differently.There were major changes in the 1950s and 60s as well when it came to constitutional interpretation and clarification.

quote:

---

Undocumented workers often send money back to their home country. Many of them contribute to the economy in big ways all right, they bring in the illegal drugs. That you don't see the danger in these things parallels the carelessness of the Romans 2000 years ago.

---

I wondered that if welfare programs were ended, then would you find another excuse. Now drugs are an issue. If they were made illegal, would you still not be complaining and making further excuses to make your argument?Don't most economists agree that those who left the South for the North (in the Great Migration) made higher wages than if they remained? (Welfare aside)Also, the North became much larger (and richer) than the South because of the flood of immigrants from after 1800. In 1800 the population was under 5 million but it was over 75 million by 1870. The Irish settled in both the North and South, but Germans settled mainly in the North. Germans were anti-slavery. They settled in Western Maryland and helped flip that states position by the time of the Civil War. They settled in northern Virginia and that caused the split that resulted in West Virginia. Their settlement in the mountain chains that run down Tennessee and Kentucky too.ADDITIONALLY
(relative to your "movement of money out of the country" issues)Trump is placing a 25% (or 20%, I forget) tax on all imports coming into the country, so we will see how the destruction of foreign economies (like Japan) helps our finances. Nice to see how this $120 billion tax on Americans helps too. (Just like conservative estimates by the CBO show that removing all illegal immigrants will reduce the economy by 1.2% by 2020, while many think it is a good thing)We will see evidence of these claims that foreign people (inside and outside the U.S.) and their money somehow hurt us.You won't blame the shadowy "international bankers" when interest rates rise on our massive $20 trillion debt and we get a real disaster on our hands?Will you hold nationalistic policies responsible?Will YOU take responsibility for your own policy preferences becoming actual REAL WORLD policy and thus affecting the outcomes (for better or for worse)?

I'm not surprised. It shows how messed up the whole immigration system is in the U.S. It didn't get that way overnight, and it can't be fixed overnight. There have recently been vids getting attention on the net of Bill Clinton, during the 90's, sounding warnings about the problem of illegal immigration. It was all hot air of course, something we're all too used to from career politicians. Trump isn't a career politician, and I think illegal immigration is a big part of why he was elected. Not sure what your point is, but one thing's for sure, the Democrat party today in very few ways resembles what it was in the 1960's, and before. I'm not necessarily in favor of suddenly ending all government programs that I don't agree with. It only makes sense that they should often be toned down gradually, to keep a sudden ending from being too big of a jolt to either the economy, or some peoples' lives. But a "toning down" is neither easy nor cheap. It's a heavy price that must be paid for past government experimentation - past exercises that replaced what worked with something else that sounded good at the time. Often by individuals in government who paid no price for being wrong. The problem drugs that illegal's are bringing are already illegal. Your point? (those were completely different economic times) "Destruction"? I don't think the U.S. holds in it's hand the ability to destroy foreign economies of major economic nations like Japan. It would be offset by far more than 1.2% if common sense reforms of current burdensome government regulations could take place. Including the cost of another terrorist attack? Each political ideology will blame the other for the upcoming financial crash. It will be very complicated.

So are you running away from the whole Roman argument?