Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 2 of 169 (800020)
02-19-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
02-19-2017 10:02 AM


The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non U.S. citizens. It does not apply in any way until a persons citizenship is confirmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 10:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 11:50 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2017 12:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 5 of 169 (800035)
02-19-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
02-19-2017 11:50 AM


Please provide the link to the part of the US Constitution that states that?
quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This refers only to the U.S. It doesn't say "we the people of the world", or "ordain and establish this Constitution for the world". It really goes without saying that it's none of the U.S. business what goes on in other countries with those countries' citizens, provided there's no generally agreed upon threat to the U.S. mainland or it's citizens.
Most would agree that non-U.S. citizens should not be allowed to vote in U.S. elections, and most would also agree that even an illegal immigrant should not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment within the U.S.
More and more as transportation and communications make the world smaller and smaller, and as the political left's comprehension of the Constitution and intent of the framers gets fuzzier and fuzzier, it's not surprising that some would wonder if the Fourth Amendment, OBVIOUSLY intended only for citizens, would apply to illegal immigrants. It's not a simple discussion if one has to overcome all the re-writing of history that has been going on in the Democrat party for several years now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 11:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2017 2:17 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 3:44 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-19-2017 11:42 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 11 of 169 (800053)
02-19-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
02-19-2017 2:25 PM


This is a wake-up call for me, I didn't know it was getting this bad in the U.S. - that even liberals are so out of touch with reality to believe that the U.S. is responsible, and bears the burden, of applying it's constitution and principles to foreigners, any foreigner that seeks them, or gets near the U.S. mainland. Even when the U.S. government knows nothing about them, or what their intentions are.
Maybe there could be a new constitutional amendment; When the U.S. national debt surpasses $20 trillion, it's time to re-think all the money and attention we lavish on illegal immigrants as we bend over backwards to grant them all U.S. constitutional guarantees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 02-19-2017 2:25 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 5:40 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 12 of 169 (800054)
02-19-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Theodoric
02-19-2017 2:17 PM


This is fascinating, do you believe that non-U.S. citizens who never get near the U.S. and have no interest or desire to, also have U.S. constitutional rights? That.....everyone everywhere has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the U.S. government have to enforce that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2017 2:17 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2017 5:13 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 9:53 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 13 of 169 (800057)
02-19-2017 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
02-19-2017 3:44 PM


And again, what does that have to do with any of the parts of the US Constitution I posted?
(this place is an exercise in word processing) I was generalizing what parts of the constitution could be considered for a not-yet-vetted immigrant. And there aren't many.
Again, I posted the text of the IV Amendment. Where in it does it say or even imply that it applies only to citizens?
quote:
Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Persons, houses, papers, effects" - within the U.S. maybe??
Warrants, places, things, within the U.S. maybe?
You don't see an implication that it was referring to citizens? And ~I'm~ accused of not being honest. It is beyond amazing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 3:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2017 4:53 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 15 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 4:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 21 of 169 (800078)
02-19-2017 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
02-19-2017 4:53 PM


People in the U.S. would include non-citizens in the U.S. Why would it be odd for the Amendment to cover them, the houses they rent or own, or their papers or effects ?
Because every house they own or rent, every paper and effect having anything to do with them, would be illegal because their presence in the U.S. is illegal.
If a person breaks into a store and steals one thing and doesn't get caught, does that mean from then on that it's perfectly legal for him to steal anything he wants in that store?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2017 4:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 7:48 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 23 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 7:50 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2017 11:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 24 of 169 (800083)
02-19-2017 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by herebedragons
02-19-2017 5:40 PM


marc, you are completely misrepresenting what is being said about the constitutional rights of non-citizens. The Constitution is quite clear that ALL persons within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Constitutional right to due-process, to not be subject to illegal search and seizures, and to all protections that the Constitution provides for the dignity and justice that is deserving of all human beings.
"all persons within the jurisdiction" - where do you find those words? I don't think the founders were even giving any thought to people who broke U.S. immigration laws to get here, the world was far less populated then. They didn't mention it because it went without saying that they were referring only to people legally here.
No one is saying that illegal aliens should enjoy ALL the privileges that citizens do, only those that have been extended by the Constitution - those related to "all men are created equal" and "equal protection under the law" and the rule of law in general. The United States is based on the rule of law, and the rule of law applies to ALL persons within the jurisdiction of our country.
They didn't even apply it to black people in those days, they sure wouldn't have thought so for foreigners who BROKE THE LAW in getting here.
Your trying to make it that people are saying that all people everywhere have Constitutional rights and that, for example, we should enforce the 2nd amendment on all people of all nations is just absurd.
It makes it hard to define exactly what's absurd if people illegally entering the U.S. get rewarded for breaking the law.
All this rhetoric about "make America great again" makes me wonder what period in our history are they referring to; during what period in our history were we "great" that we wish we could get back to?
When we as a country were not in debt, when we built an interstate system, when we manufactured things without having to answer to a self-serving EPA, when we were energy independent with our own coal and oil, much more.
How about...
quote:
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
That's not part of the constitution. It wasn't even part of a government proclamation when the statue of Liberty was erected in...1886 I think it was.
quote:
This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
It's not quite forgotten now! The left has revived it to suit their revisionist history. Thankfully, it's not yet been renamed the "Statue of Immigration. It's still the statue of liberty, and logically, that would include the liberty of not having to pay tax dollars to prop up illegals who come to this country for free stuff, or to scope out new ideas for terrorist attacks.
THIS is the greatness of America! During the period between 1880 and 1920, 20 million immigrants entered the U.S.! Was that wave of immigration "great" because it was mostly white Europeans that were immigrating?
No because it was a time period when there were no terrorist threats, no free stuff for immigrants, no congestion in cities that didn't have simple solutions, and no national debt.
Why now do people think we should close our borders to the tired, the poor, the huddled masses who are yearning to breathe free? Just because they are not white Europeans who are the tired, poor and yearning to be free?
No, because many of them are not Europeans and don't know or care a thing about the language or culture of the U.S. Because there are still many people who remember what happened on 9-11-01. Or realize what today's technology can do to an entire country in the hands of ONE immigrant. It is a different world than it was 100 years ago. The U.S. is of no use to poor, tired, huddled masses of LEGAL immigrants if it's destroyed by illegal immigration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 5:40 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 9:31 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 25 of 169 (800084)
02-19-2017 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by herebedragons
02-19-2017 7:48 PM


So, marc... would it then be acceptable for you to take their things or destroy their property or even attack or kill them personally since everything having to do with them is illegal and they are not protected by the Constitution?
No it wouldn't be up to individuals except as prescribed by law. It would be be up to our law enforcement, on both the state and federal levels, to reverse everything they did while they were here, including entering the country. There are very humane, yet firm and effective, ways to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 7:48 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 28 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 9:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 44 of 169 (800563)
02-25-2017 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by herebedragons
02-19-2017 9:31 PM


You do know there are amendments to the Constitution right? And they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the original section?
"Just as much"? Many conservative constitutional scholars consider all the amendments from number 11 on to be not quite as much as the first 10. Those, distorted by activist courts in later years, are how revisionist history gets written.
14th Ammendment:
quote:
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.
Source: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
I see your link left off the first sentence of the 14th amendment, as did you in your quote. Let's get the context of the whole thing;
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.
Unless you want to try and argue that non-citizens (illegal or legal) are not actually 'persons', then the Constitution is pretty clear that even illegal aliens have the Constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States.
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.
marc9000 writes:
That's not part of the constitution.
Never said it was. I said that attitude, that concept is what has made America great.
No, but you implied that it's a far more prominent part of U.S. history than it actually is. It was dreamed up by one person at a fundraiser. If it made America great before, times have now changed to the point that a careless look at it now could destroy America.
you old enough to remember the lines at gas stations in the 70's due to oil the embargoes of OPEC? Domestic production of oil and gas is higher than ever and our dependence on foreign oil is lower than it has been in over 30 years.
I sat in those lines. Whatever increase that has happened in domestic production, and lower dependence on foreign oil happened
IN SPITE of those on the left who revise U.S. history, not because of them.
marc9000 writes:
a time period when there were no terrorist threats, no free stuff for immigrants, no congestion in cities that didn't have simple solutions, and no national debt.
Did you not have to take a US history class in high school or what?
Yes, I learned about the Homestead Acts, where the U.S. government gave land away to applicants, simply for occupying and using the land that the government had plenty of, to give away. It's not happening today. But I don't remember a thing about terrorist threats in the U.S. back then. The U.S. really is a different place now than it was 150 years ago, when the 14th amendment was adopted.
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
But the bigger point is... even illegal immigrants within our borders have Constitutional rights.
I only sometimes donn my Kevlar underwear and helmet and wade into this amazing place mainly for one reason, to try to somewhat understand how the far left thinks. I can somewhat understand the lefts desire for big government and free stuff, the emotional fears of global warming, the jealousy of the successful and all of that. 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. How do you think it will benefit you? How do you think it will benefit the country? Won't it be a competition for the free stuff? 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2017 9:31 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2017 12:46 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2017 5:09 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2017 5:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 45 of 169 (800564)
02-25-2017 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
02-20-2017 9:53 AM


When you go to a foreign country (assuming you do) do you desire to be treated as
A.An American citizen entitled to special privileges such as openly bearing arms and freely saying whatever you want, or
No.
B.A person with the same legal rights of the citizens of that country, or
If I'm there legally, yes.
C.A lesser person, someone that can be tossed in prison for no reason and with no recourse to justice.
If I'm there illegally, yes.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Why do you like illegal immigrants being here? That's what I'd love to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 9:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 02-26-2017 6:43 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2017 8:26 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 90 of 169 (800775)
02-27-2017 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
02-19-2017 11:42 PM


The fourteenth amendment says that these rights apply to all persons and not just to citizens. You can opine on what persons mean if you want, but the federal courts have already given the official answer.
This is a pretty good example of how the original meaning and intent of the framers deteriorates over time. Originally, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were no declared Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants. Then with the end of slavery, the 14th amendment was written to allow Africans who were brought here against their will to have a new start. They were designated as "persons", not "former slaves", to keep any hateful white people of the late 1860's from claiming their children, or wives who weren't officially sold as slaves weren't included in the 14th amendment. Then we have cases like you referenced, Zadvydas v. Davis, which were not crystal clear, open and shut cases. Here's the dissenting opinions, one of them by the hardly conservative Anthony Kennedy;
quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the majority. Scalia stated that an alien who has no legal right to be in the United States has no right to release into the country that is trying to expel him or her. Scalia quoted Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissent, in asserting that "Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will."[italics in original][2]
Justice Anthony Kennedy also dissented. Kennedy said that the majority disregarded congressional intent and then rewrote the statute. He posited that Congress gave the Attorney General the express authority to order continued detention, and added that the majority misapplied the concept of statutory construction, noting that the court could only distinguish between plausible interpretations. If there were two or more interpretations, then the court is bound to accept the one that does not create a constitutional issue, but Kennedy states that this was never the situation in this case.[citation needed]
Zadvydas v. Davis - Wikipedia
"...disregarded congressional intent and then rewrote the statute." When we take amendments that were written long after the U.S. Constitution was established, bend and shape them a little bit, then add a court case with certain circumstances that can inspire a little sympathy and emotion at that particular time, then throw in a few liberal supreme court justices, suddenly illegal immigrants have society-burdening legal rights that are actually found nowhere in U.S. foundations or tradition, or in the imaginations of U.S. founders.
But you say that's the "official answer", so that's the way it is and Faith and I are WRONG because we can't accept it. Is there a difference between that and the way that you and most everyone here can't accept the official answer of who the voters wanted to be president back in November 2016?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-19-2017 11:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2017 9:26 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 92 by jar, posted 02-27-2017 9:42 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2017 12:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 93 of 169 (800778)
02-27-2017 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
02-26-2017 8:26 AM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
RAZD writes:
C.A lesser person, someone that can be tossed in prison for no reason and with no recourse to justice.
marc9000 writes:
If I'm there illegally, yes.
Fascinating. So if I'm a "legal" visitor to a country and then commit a felony, I should be entitled to a higher legal status than an "illegal" visitor that has committed no crime once in the country (being undocumented is a misdemeanor not a felony).
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 also happen to believe that "and justice for all" means an equal and fair treatment of people under the law. How we Americans treat others is a reflection of how well we abide by our founding principles -- is it real or is it lip service?
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?
To begin with people can't be "illegal" -- they can commit illegal acts, but even then they are considered innocent until proven guilty. We don't hear people talking about an American committing theft as being an "illegal" person.
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.
The term you need is "undocumented" which is a broader category with a lot of nuances. The "Dreamer" kids are undocumented, but they were brought by parents -- the only crime they committed was being born on the wrong side of the border and staying with their family.
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!"
Because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, because America is (or was) a beacon of hope for people around the world. Because America prided itself once on being a land for refugees to come and seek asylum from horrors of war and famine in other countries.
Because they are human beings with human rights.
So I expect people to come to America to find their dreams, and that the more desperate they are, the more willing they will be to use whatever means possible to get here. Because that is what people do when they can no longer live in their home country. I accept that as part of the price of being a land of freedom and liberty and justice and equality ... not just words ( ... that ALL men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights ... with liberty and justice for all).
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.
Because I believe in a borderless world. When I grew up in Michigan we could cross the border to Canada with a cursory crossing, no documents required. Canadian coins and US coins were freely intermingled in our pockets.
A one world government? That would cause ISIS to dissolve?
Because every time states have tried to do without immigrants their crops rot in the fields because very few American will dirty their hands picking them. Georgia and Alabama tried it, the crops rotted in the fields.
That's what the Democrats in the south said when slavery ended. It worked out though, didn't it?
Because undocumented workers contribute to the economy in big ways, not just in the products of their labor, but in their consumption of goods -- the economy is made by the movement of money, not holding on to it, and the more people there are moving money from one pocket to the next the better the economy is.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2017 8:26 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2017 12:36 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2017 9:45 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2017 11:29 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 103 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-07-2017 3:49 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2017 11:42 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 94 of 169 (800779)
02-27-2017 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Theodoric
02-26-2017 5:09 PM


Where in the Constitution does it say just the first 10 amendments are important?
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.
What free stuff?
Free health care. Unemployment "benefits". Free college tuition. Countless routine living expenses that Democrats constantly clamor for the government to provide for them.
If you were not so blinded by hate you would do actual research and see that immigrants actually pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. Non documented immigrants even more so. They are actually subsidizing your lifestyle.
Non documented workers pay MORE taxes than legal ones? Do they pay income tax without SS numbers? Show me your research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2017 5:09 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 02-27-2017 11:11 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 104 of 169 (801681)
03-08-2017 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by LamarkNewAge
03-07-2017 3:49 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
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.
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.
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.
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 wondered that if welfare programs were ended, then would you find another excuse.
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.
Now drugs are an issue. If they were made illegal, would you still not be complaining and making further excuses to make your argument?
The problem drugs that illegal's are bringing are already illegal.
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.
Your point? (those were completely different economic times)
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.
"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.
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)
It would be offset by far more than 1.2% if common sense reforms of current burdensome government regulations could take place.
We will see evidence of these claims that foreign people (inside and outside the U.S.) and their money somehow hurt us.
Including the cost of another terrorist attack?
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)?
Each political ideology will blame the other for the upcoming financial crash. It will be very complicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-07-2017 3:49 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 106 of 169 (801718)
03-09-2017 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Theodoric
03-08-2017 11:42 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
I'd be terrified to see how today's liberal atheists have re-written history to blame todays conservatives on the deterioration of morals, ethics and values that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Razd's earlier reference to their pollution gave me a hint, they didn't have an EPA!!!! That's what it was!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2017 11:42 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 03-09-2017 10:35 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 108 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2017 10:57 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 109 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-09-2017 11:55 AM marc9000 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