Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,879 Year: 4,136/9,624 Month: 1,007/974 Week: 334/286 Day: 55/40 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 43 of 169 (800302)
02-21-2017 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by herebedragons
02-21-2017 1:10 PM


Re: Do the protections of the IV and V Amendments even apply outside the US?
Has Mexico formally requested extradition?
Yes. It was denied. The US refused to prosecute the agent as it was not in US jurisdiction. Mexico charged the agent, the US refused to extradite. The fifth circuit said the action was not reasonable so the family could sue, the appeals courts overturned it arguing that even if the allegations against the agent were true, the agent has qualified immunity anyway.
Seems to me that if the US government is right and
a) it wasn't in US jurisdiction
b) Mexico has no right to try the agent
c) The family cannot sue
Then only two interpretations remain.
1) The border is a quasi legal badland - and US border agents are fair game.
2) This was an act of war.
The arguments in the case seemed strange to me - there was some concern that if the boy's family could sue - then victims of drone strikes could argue the same precedent and this was presented as a problem. Seems like an argument of political convenience rather than one of law, but it came up.
Also argue was that since the area was maintained by both countries, the law of both countries should apply.
the transcript

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 02-21-2017 1:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 46 of 169 (800565)
02-26-2017 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
02-25-2017 11:24 PM


No it's not clear at all, if you include the first sentence, realize that where you started actually follows it, and then take into consideration what was going on in the U.S. at the time the 14th amendment was written. This amendment was adopted in 1868, it was written explicitly concerning the end of slavery. The only "persons" it was actually referring to that were not "born or naturalized" in the U.S. were other former slaves who were dragged here against their will from Africa. It's dishonest, revisionist history to claim that those who worded the 14th amendment had later, undocumented immigrants in mind when they were referring to "persons". Sure, activist courts later on agreed with you, that's how the "living, breathing" Constitution is today a shadow of its original intent.
What the original framers intended can be inferred all you like, and of course it is useful to understand. However, they had the opportunity to write the amendment be explicit and very temporally based and say 'former slaves'. Instead they used 'persons'. This includes all persons - 'any person'. There were people in the US that were there who were not former slaves nor US citizens. Traders, government officials, visitors and immigrants among them.
If you want there to be an exception for undocumented workers, you just need a new amendment. Until then, as written, you are wrong. The courts disagree with you, and both Conservative and Liberals agree the courts' interpretation is the interpretation that counts, legally. There are some exceptions to this, but I think the consensus is that you are wrong.
How much of your tax dollars go to support illegal immigrants? Do you know?
Illegal Immigrants To Get Billions In Tax Credits Under Obama's Amnesty
I assume those billions are not coming exclusively out of your pocket. Let's do some simple maths.
4,000 million for tax credits.
300 million people
Assuming everyone's tax burden is the same that would make your annual contribution about 40/3 dollars or about $13.
When we include ACTC - that pushes it up to $26-30. That's more than $2 a month!
What I CAN'T BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND is why so many of you are so happy at the flood of immigration coming into this country.
I'm not sure 1 - 2 million a year net is a flood.
How do you think it will benefit you? How do you think it will benefit the country?
More people means more work gets done, enriching both US citizens and the economy. There are diminishing returns and upper limits - but the US is a big place, there's a while to go yet.
Won't it be a competition for the free stuff?
Liberals, despite your characterisation aren't trying to get 'free stuff'. And no, migrants on the whole put more into the economy than they take out. Even the illegals contribute by taking the money they earn working and spending it on stuff - to the benefit of domestic commerce and paying sales tax as well.
I know you feel sorry for the poor dears, that they really need us, and all of that. But don't you see the other pressing problems this country has?
The 'poor dears' would be the refugees. Yes, I feel sorry for them. The attitude you are broadcasting was directed at the Jews in the 30s and 40s. You should have felt sorry for them, but instead they died.
As for other pressing problems - well that's the point isn't it? There are other pressing problems. Immigration isn't really as big a concern as all that. The way the right act and talk its a HUGE problem and spending an additional 10,000 x $50,000 (or whatever their salary is) on ICE agents for $500,000,000 a year is not really the best use of your money. The illegal immigrants in California contribute about $3 billion in tax money - $12 billion nationally (Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy).
Given the US military's recent spectacular successes, you could look to cut some money from that $900 billion funding it receives (talk about BIG government!). The 'tremendous' alleged cost of illegal immigrants could easily be offset I'd have thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 02-25-2017 11:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 169 (800682)
02-26-2017 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
02-26-2017 7:41 PM


Black Lives Matter
such criminal gangs as Black Lives Matter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 02-26-2017 7:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 02-26-2017 8:35 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 65 of 169 (800685)
02-26-2017 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
02-26-2017 8:35 PM


Re: Black Lives Matter
BLM is racist thugs.

I'd ask for evidence, but I know it's futile. In any case start a new thread if you want the opportunity to discuss this brand of nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 02-26-2017 8:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024