Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

What this is about is doing the common sense thing, according to the circumstances of the accusation. Circumstances can vary widely. The accuser can be one policeman, only influenced by what he saw, or influenced by what he and a crowd saw. Or the accuser can be judge who issued a warrant for any number of reasons. I don't know the exact legal requirements for what constitutes an "accused" person, and I know they're supposedly considered innocent until proven guilty, but that often doesn't stop them from being jailed while they're still "innocent". All accusations are not equal, and must be judged on a case by case basis.Someone who is obviously an illegal immigrant, who was caught committing a crime, or who's accusation is immediately involved with preserving order and security, I'm sorry, my heart doesn't bleed for him to suddenly have brand new constitutional rights that he's never had before in his life.Does that answer your question? Or do his brand new constitutional rights supersede the rights of all the U.S. citizens around him at a crime scene?

I believe the EXACT opposite, but you already knew that you're just trolling. And you're a moderator here? Why am I not surprised?(I'm jealous of DavidJay, he's been getting all the suspensions lately, cm-on, let me have it! I'll toss and turn all night!)

5th Amendment;

quote:

---

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Let me guess, in between the words "person" and "shall", you pulled the words "including anyone in the world who illegally enters the U.S. no matter how they did it", out of thin air?14th amendment;

quote:

---

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.

---

So you believe when it said "any person" later in the text, without specifying that it was referring to U.S. citizens, that means the founders intended for it to include illegal aliens who entered the U.S. no matter how they did it?The above was section 1 only, do you find welcoming references to illegal immigrants in sections 2 thru 5? I have to ask, since liberals seem to find no rights for the people to keep and bear arms in the second amendment.As I've said before, the only reason I come to this funny place is to try to get some understanding of how the liberal mind works. Seldom does anyone seem to want to help me. They just troll, and don't answer my questions.

I must have missed it. Could you link me to that?

Here's an explanation of my interpretation; That amendment was written about the end of slavery. There was no intent involved to include illegal aliens. Let's look at the first sentence;

quote:

---

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.

---

That was intended to give new citizenship rights to former slaves, and it was a pre-cursor to what was about to follow. If this amendment was written to include BOTH former slaves and anyone else in the world who made it into the U.S. by any means, there would be NO REASON for that sentence to be in there. It has always been common knowledge, that, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers etc. that the Constitution and Bill of Rights had great pains taken in their writings to be brief and concise. 100 years later, the same pains were taken with new amendments. They wouldn't have wasted that sentence if it was not absolutely necessary for it to be in there. And it didn't in any way point towards illegal aliens, it pointed away from them.Now for the next sentence;

quote:

---

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

---

Why do you think it said "citizens"? Why didn't it say "inhabitants"?Now for the final part;

quote:

---

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.

---

Here it just says "person" twice, but it addresses liberty and property. Something no rational person expects a criminal illegal to have.I don't advocate cruel and unusual punishments for illegals. But it costs money to lavishly provide them with speedy trials and air conditioned jail cells and all the other things todays U.S. citizen criminals enjoy. There can be downgraded, cheaper methods to deal with them. At $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. can't afford anything more.As I've said elsewhere with no meaningful response, the liberal left has 2 choices, they can try to say the current U.S. Constitution is outdated and should be replaced, (an honest assessment of their opinion) or they can try to twist and distort the current U.S. Constitution and claim it's a socialist document. I'm glad they've chosen the latter, it's part of the reason why Republicans now have 2/3 of the governorships, majorities in the House and Senate, and the presidency. Today's voters are waking up more and more to the dishonesty of Democrats.

The Constitution isn't amended to express sentiments, it's amended to make changes. That amendment was passed by Congress in June of 1866. The grass had barely taken root on the graves of 620,000 men who were killed in the very recent war. Or on Lincoln's grave. The stench probably wasn't completely gone from the carcasses of one million dead horses and mules. Countless thousands of black people who were born here or brought here against their will were wandering around wondering what to do. If you think the Congress at that time thought; "hey while we're at it here, we've been entirely too harsh for the past 80 years on illegal aliens. So while we're taking care of ex-slaves, let's make sure to include foreigners in this amendment too. We won't have to specify who they are, it will be understood in the future. Our legal system will easily be able to accommodate them, no matter what."The 1866 Congress was not thinking about illegal immigrants AT ALL when that amendment was written. But today's liberals care nothing about ~intent~, it's just about what other words they can fit between the lines of what actually was written. How they can take advantage of amendments from different times for different intents to make brand new socialist changes that no past amendment author could possibly anticipate, and try to further complicate the amendment to prevent it.Have you ever had jury duty? $12.50 a day, big bucks. Some people with certain jobs get their regular pay for doing it, courtesy of the company they work for. Others don't, like myself. But they still sacrifice their time and do it. It adds up to a LOT of sacrifice by the U.S. economy. It doesn't need to be further burdened by illegal immigrants who've been told of the big prize they get if they can make it into the U.S. by any criminal means.Page not found - The Western JournalAll the people referred to in this link are completely innocent until proven guilty in court, right? These could just be tax-paying U.S. citizens walking home from work, right?

It was a completely different world back then. World population was much lower, transportation was much slower, there were no terrorist threats. There was no free stuff to be had in the U.S. Immigrants came here for opportunity to work and earn. Some of today's LEGAL immigrants still do, but now, since we have one complete political faction today urging them to come illegally, strictly for that faction's political gain, we have too many coming only for free stuff, with no intent to learn the language, no education on how free markets work, no concern of what new diseases they might be bringing with them etc. Many of them do know enough about free markets to know that it's a big bonus for them to bring illegal drugs.You seem to think that only Democrat political gain is all that's going to happen with unlimited illegal immigration. You take for granted what we now have, and see no fragility involved with it. The U.S. didn't come into existence easily and effortlessly, and it doesn't maintain what we have easily and effortlessly. There are many things the U.S. society can do that can temporarily satisfy emotions and sound good, that can do irreversible damage to what we have.The terrorist attack of 9-11-01 was far harder on the U.S. economy than many people realize. It's only going to take a couple more attacks like that to put the U.S. in a downward spiral that will make the 1930's look like a walk in the park. That attack, less than 16 years ago, is almost completely forgotten now. Too similar to Hollywood's movies I guess. I think it's unsupportable that the 1866 Congress INTENDED for it to apply to foreign immigrants that purposely came here illegally. I think that awful war was the only thing on their minds, and that they probably felt it wasn't necessary to specifically refer to it to awaken future spoiled generations with little comprehension of U.S. history, what their intentions actually were.

You've GOT to be kidding, right? Contradict?? That amendment was written to make a CHANGE, a change in the citizenship of former slaves!!