Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 9:47 PM
357 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,774 Year: 25,380/21,208 Month: 1,007/2,338 Week: 128/450 Day: 52/34 Hour: 5/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5859
60
6162
...
67Next
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Taq
Member
Posts: 7192
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 886 of 992 (810112)
05-23-2017 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by marc9000
05-23-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
marc9000 writes:

That amendment was written about the end of slavery. There was no intent involved to include illegal aliens.

If it was limited to slavery then it would have said that it was limited to slavery. No such text exists in the amendment, so it covers more than slavery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 2:57 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1812
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 887 of 992 (810116)
05-23-2017 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by marc9000
05-23-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
Marc writes

That amendment was written about the end of slavery. There was no intent involved to include illegal aliens.

Says you and what army? It's like you cannot read. But you can devine the thoughts to match your own warped viewpoint.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 2:57 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 888 of 992 (810120)
05-23-2017 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by marc9000
05-23-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
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.

Your assertion makes no sense, marc9000. The sentence is in there because it expresses a sentiment that at one time when just about everyone except Native Americans and Africans born in the United States had an easy path to citizenship. The Supreme Court had held that despite the words in the 5th Amendment, black folks had no rights and no claim to citizenship. The 14th amendment made it clear, without even mentioning folks of African descent, that the Dred Scott decision was no longer the law.

And Now it is clear that the 14th amendment applies to everyone including you. You don't prove your citizenship by tracing your ancestry back to the Mayflower or to some parent who is a naturalized citizen. Instead, you simply show a birth certificate with the details of your own birth. You don't even have to prove that your own parents were citizens.

Again, as far as the words of the 14th amendment are concerned, you are questioning something that the Supreme Court resolved back in 1886. All we can take from this is that you don't like the results. To wit:

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.

Yeah, but that's the law. If mere financial convenience were enough to overturn the law, then don't complain when your house gets robbed.

Here it just says "person" twice, but it addresses liberty and property. Something no rational person expects a criminal illegal to have.

Quite obviously that is not the law.

marc9000 writes:

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

Honest, eh? I see otherwise.

It appears to me that you are not much enamored by the current state of the Constitution. Folks here are not making up a new interpretation of the law; they are instead citing an interpretation that is well over 100 years old, and only a few years older than the 14th amendment is itself.

You've already told us the relative disrespect you and your fellows have for the amendments beyond the 11th. Here you show specifically your disrespect for the 14th amendment. No surprise there.

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.

Apparently, that state of affairs still exists despite the fact that Democrats are approximately equally numbered. There are lots of reasons for that, and I agree that some of those are because of the democrats stand on immigration. But there are other reasons. For example the US Supreme Court just today overruled NC's attempt to racially gerrymander the state to stack the legislature in a state that is approximately equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

A few years ago folks were predicting the demise of the Republican party; No you assert the end of the Democrats. Both predictions are likely foolish.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 2:57 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 889 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 9:30 PM NoNukes has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 889 of 992 (810124)
05-23-2017 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 888 by NoNukes
05-23-2017 8:19 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
Your assertion makes no sense, marc9000. The sentence is in there because it expresses a sentiment that at one time when just about everyone except Native Americans and Africans born in the United States had an easy path to citizenship.

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.

http://conservativetribune.com/tx-rancher-reveals-discovery

All 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2017 8:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by jar, posted 05-23-2017 9:48 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 891 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2017 10:59 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 893 by Taq, posted 05-24-2017 11:00 AM marc9000 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29430
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 890 of 992 (810125)
05-23-2017 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 889 by marc9000
05-23-2017 9:30 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
Even illegal immigrants pay taxes, hold jobs, raise families, attend schools...

The US Constitution does not say all people in the US legally have a right to due process. It says ALL Persons. Period. No qualifier. All Persons.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2017 11:09 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 891 of 992 (810126)
05-23-2017 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 889 by marc9000
05-23-2017 9:30 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
The 1866 Congress was not thinking about illegal immigrants AT ALL when that amendment was written

Again, the Congress could easily have simply said Africans or colored folks or slaves if the sentence was limited to that. And further, even you use the 14th Amendment to prove your own citizenship despite the fact that you are not of African descent.

But today's liberals care nothing about ~intent

Again, the interpretation you don't like was not invented by liberals. It is the interpretation that been used by the Supreme Court dating from shortly after the 14th Amendment was written.

Can you show me where the Court has ever interpreted the 14th amendment in the way you wish it were? Our forefathers were not the rabid anti-immigrant folks that current wing nuts are. In fact, other than foreign arms trying to occupy this country militarily, the only folks not welcome to immigrate to this country at the time of the 18th amendment were those that white folks had racial animus towards. Immigrants, at least those who were willing to assimilate, were welcome. Other than laws against undesirables like Asians, there were no immigration laws.

Yet you would have us believe that the 14th amendment could not apply to anyone except former slaves without naming them in any way. I submit that such a belief is completely unsupportable. At least not without using arguments that you would never use in say a 2nd amendment case. People of all races and of all political persuasions have claimed protection under the 14th amendment. And rightfully so.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : correct grammar plus ABE:


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 894 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2017 8:14 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 892 of 992 (810128)
05-23-2017 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 890 by jar
05-23-2017 9:48 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
It says ALL Persons. Period. No qualifier. All Persons.

There is a qualifier. All person with its jurisdiction, but even illegal aliens meet that requirement.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by jar, posted 05-23-2017 9:48 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7192
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 893 of 992 (810162)
05-24-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 889 by marc9000
05-23-2017 9:30 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
marc9000 writes:

The Constitution isn't amended to express sentiments, it's amended to make changes.

You contradict yourself just a paragraph later:

"The 1866 Congress was not thinking about illegal immigrants AT ALL when that amendment was written."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2017 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2017 8:18 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 894 of 992 (810179)
05-24-2017 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 891 by NoNukes
05-23-2017 10:59 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
Our forefathers were not the rabid anti-immigrant folks that current wing nuts are. In fact, other than foreign arms trying to occupy this country militarily, the only folks not welcome to immigrate to this country at the time of the 18th amendment were those that white folks had racial animus towards. Immigrants, at least those who were willing to assimilate, were welcome. Other than laws against undesirables like Asians, there were no immigration laws.

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.

Yet you would have us believe that the 14th amendment could not apply to anyone except former slaves without naming them in any way. I submit that such a belief is completely unsupportable.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2017 10:59 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2017 8:43 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 895 of 992 (810180)
05-24-2017 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 893 by Taq
05-24-2017 11:00 AM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
marc9000 writes:

The Constitution isn't amended to express sentiments, it's amended to make changes.

You contradict yourself just a paragraph later:

"The 1866 Congress was not thinking about illegal immigrants AT ALL when that amendment was written."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by Taq, posted 05-24-2017 11:00 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 896 of 992 (810181)
05-24-2017 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 894 by marc9000
05-24-2017 8:14 PM


Re: Sessions' DoJ vs Immigration Lawyers
It was a completely different world back then.

Yes it was.

You seem to think that only Democrat political gain is all that's going to happen with unlimited illegal immigration.

You certainly did not get that idea from anything I said.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2017 8:14 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29430
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 897 of 992 (811041)
06-04-2017 11:44 AM


And reality intrudes again
The Wall is needed because...

yet the reality is that organizations that were set up to provide shelter to illegal immigrants are all laying off employees and shutting down since there are so few illegal immigrants coming in.

source

So far about a thousand jobs lost.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 898 of 992 (811043)
06-04-2017 1:40 PM


The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again...and Again
22 killed in the Manchester attack, 7 so far in the London attack with many critically injured in the hospitals. Theresa May advises beefing up security and punishments. Trump says it's a reason to speed up his travel ban.

I think it's interesting that nothing has been said about this here. The only worthy news is anything that can be used to criticize Trump apparently, but criticizing Islam, no way.


Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2017 1:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 902 by ringo, posted 06-04-2017 2:35 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 905 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2017 3:45 PM Faith has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5098
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 899 of 992 (811044)
06-04-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 898 by Faith
06-04-2017 1:40 PM


Re: The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again...and Again
Faith writes:

I think it's interesting that nothing has been said about this here. The only worthy news is anything that can be used to criticize Trump apparently, but criticizing Islam, no way.

What is there to say? 3 fundamentalist, religious cunts indiscriminately murdered and maimed a lot people in London yesterday claiming that they were doing it for Allah.

This is what religion does - creates fanatical loons.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 1:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 2:21 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 901 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 2:34 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 900 of 992 (811050)
06-04-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 899 by Tangle
06-04-2017 1:51 PM


Re: The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again...and Again
So are you one of those UK people who are in favor of admitting lots of these "fanatical loons" into the country?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2017 1:51 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2017 2:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 906 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2017 5:40 PM Faith has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5859
60
6162
...
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017