Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 1:25 PM
365 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 359 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,818 Year: 27,424/21,208 Month: 1,337/1,714 Week: 180/365 Day: 22/62 Hour: 3/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10065
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 91 of 169 (800776)
02-27-2017 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
02-27-2017 9:14 PM


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

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.


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 90 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 9:14 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29619
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 92 of 169 (800777)
02-27-2017 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
02-27-2017 9:14 PM


Reality intrudes again marc.
marc writes:

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?

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 9:14 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


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 responded

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

  
marc9000
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


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 responded

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 95 of 169 (800780)
02-27-2017 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by marc9000
02-27-2017 10:22 PM


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.

So you dont believe in the whole Constitution. Just parts you lîke. 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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Now 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?

Countless routine living expenses that Democrats constantly clamor for the government to provide for them.

Examples?

Non documented workers pay MORE taxes than legal ones?

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


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 10:22 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10065
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 96 of 169 (800781)
02-28-2017 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
02-27-2017 10:13 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
That's right, because I don't agree that an undocumented immigrant is only guilty of a misdemeanor.

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.


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 93 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 10:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 02-28-2017 6:35 AM NoNukes has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29619
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 97 of 169 (800785)
02-28-2017 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by NoNukes
02-28-2017 12:36 AM


Very Importnat point.
NN writes:

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.

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2017 12:36 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2017 7:27 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10065
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 98 of 169 (800793)
02-28-2017 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
02-28-2017 6:35 AM


Re: Very Importnat point.
If deportation should cause damage greater than $20.00 can a civil trial by jury be demanded?

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.


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 97 by jar, posted 02-28-2017 6:35 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3993
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 99 of 169 (800795)
02-28-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
02-27-2017 8:07 PM


Re: Racist Thugs in Action
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...rumps-assassination-video

Jim Hoft, AKA the stupidest man on the internet, makes Breitbart look like a real news organization.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 02-27-2017 8:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 100 of 169 (800803)
02-28-2017 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
02-27-2017 10:13 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
That's right, because I don't agree that an undocumented immigrant is only guilty of a misdemeanor. ...

Curiously your opinion is not the law.

... 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.

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?

I don't see burdening ourselves to show blind trust to foreigners to be a U.S. founding principle. ...

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.

... Is there something in....a Federalist Paper you could show me? ...

Others are doing this job already.

... 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?

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?

Because they can speak English, ...

So nobody that doesn't speak English can be an American. How's your Navajo?

... because they have some idea, however slight, of what U.S. morals are and a little about how free markets work. ...

Like the morals of American White Christian Terrorists?

And of course no other country is capitalist ...

... There is a big difference between the worse U.S. citizens versus non U.S. citizens from who-knows-where.

Agreed. The immigrants generally are better educated on the constitution and laws, and more ready and willing to work hard to make a living.

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. ...

First time I ever heard of conceiving children being illegal, are you sure that's what you meant?

... 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!"

Which curiously is the law.

Never mind that the parents are hard working people wanting to start a new life.

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. ...

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.

... 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.

You mean the period of time that the churches suppressed information and burned books? When people were burned at the stakes for being heretics?

A one world government? That would cause ISIS to dissolve?

Ah yes, the creation of the EU is what was behind ISIS forming, good catch.

That's what the Democrats in the south said when slavery ended. It worked out though, didn't it?

So we should "JimCrow"the immigrants? Seems you knowledge of American history is a little lacking here.

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.

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


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 10:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 101 of 169 (800810)
02-28-2017 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
02-27-2017 10:13 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
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.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 10:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(4)
Message 102 of 169 (800814)
02-28-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
02-27-2017 9:14 PM


This is a pretty good example of how the original meaning and intent of the framers deteriorates over time.

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"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 9:14 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 993
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 103 of 169 (801554)
03-07-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
02-27-2017 10:13 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
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)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 10:13 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2017 8:15 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


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 yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 105 of 169 (801684)
03-08-2017 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
02-27-2017 10:13 PM


Re: there are no "illegal" people
So are you running away from the whole Roman argument?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2017 10:13 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by marc9000, posted 03-09-2017 10:24 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017