Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Trump's Immigration Plan


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Trump's Immigration Plan Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 11:06:09 AM   
itsSIRtou


Posts: 836
Joined: 3/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You bitch at me, scream that because I am a man I have no right to be concerned that Planned Parenthood deliberately kills late term babies in a very painful way to maximize their value when sold for parts

Well, you arent an American so STFU about our politics in that case eh

George Stephanopoulos is a proven Hillary shill. Why should we trust his assertions




u've already proven

1.) ur a trump "Shill"
2.) ur a self-admitted "right-wing asshole"
3.) u've been proven to of been talking out of ur ass by more than just Me.
4.) when u get proven wrong, u think getting a name calling match with no credible points to answer with will win ur lame arguments
5.) u live in Idaho..... (that explains the condemned sign. LOL!!)

with all the above true....... why should ANYBODY trust ur assertions more than a man who:

1.) didn't donate as much to the Clintons as trump has.
2.) actually checks his sources....unlike u.
3.) does not regurgitate crap he gets from his political party as truth..... like u have been proven to do.
4.) and is a respected Journalist by both sides of the political spectrum..... because he is a PROVEN & FAIR Journalist.

sanity u aren't even respectable here.

again.....why should ANYBODY trust ur assertions??






_____________________________

I will allways be a knight, instead of a prince.

What would the internet be like if we couldn't say trump is a moron?

The Republican party complains government doesnt work for people, and then makes darn sure it cannot.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 11:31:04 AM   
itsSIRtou


Posts: 836
Joined: 3/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Stephanopoulos is a Hillary shill?

So what is Donald J Trump, listed by the Clinton Foundation as contributing between $100,000 and $250,000?

Sure, you can claim that the questions were loaded, but George didn't report the story. He asked questions, and Trump dodged them.

Face it. He has no plan. It's all rhetoric.


What you're missing is that Barack H. Obama threw the border wide open via management aka his illegal executive orders

Meaning Trump is correct and you are in error




well every district & appeals court The GOP has filed an injunction in to stop ANY of the POTUS executive orders on immigration has been soundly defeated. Because they ARE 100% LEGAL FOR HIM TO GIVE.

even by judges the bush's put in during their time in office........meaning u are wrong sanity.....again.


_____________________________

I will allways be a knight, instead of a prince.

What would the internet be like if we couldn't say trump is a moron?

The Republican party complains government doesnt work for people, and then makes darn sure it cannot.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 2:28:15 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
Here is your complete post. I was unable to find the link you said was there


You're right. It wasn't in that post. I think it was in the other 14th amendment thread.

I do apologize.

Here it is.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Thegunnysez)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 2:33:22 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

1. The Naturalization Act of 1790 didn't last very long. It was superceded by the one in 1795, and the one in 1798, and the one in 1802.

Since none of them changed the status of blacks, what is your point?


You fell back on the Naturalization Act of 1790 for credence to your claim that immigration was limited in 1868, making blacks illegal immigrants. Obviously, if the Act wasn't even in force in 1795, it wasn't in force in 1868. Nice googling, but try comprehension next time.

quote:

quote:

2. Limiting naturalization is not the same as limiting immigration.

Tourist are not immigrants. Immigrants had a protocol to follow to naturalization. This starts with the naturalization act or 1790.


You're comment in no way refutes my statement that naturalization and immigration aren't the same. Since the Naturalization Acts were about naturalization and not immigration, they don't apply in this thread.

quote:

quote:

3. You failed on that one.

I have proved that blacks were precluded from citizenship.


No you didn't.

quote:

quote:

ETA: The quoted section was from the article I cited in that same post. Had you read my link, you'd have had a clue what my reference was.

No it is not.


Correct, and that has been addressed.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Thegunnysez)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 2:35:47 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

Sorry. You asked how a bill's intent and how it's written could oppose each other. And, I gave you a very clear, and recent, example.

Since SCOTUS did not write the bill it would be impossible for them to know the intent. The best they can hope for is to infer. The records of the debates re: the amendment would be the intent.


Since the SCOTUS ruled that the intent of the law was the proper way to enforce the law, it sure seems they had to do some digging to figure the intent, doesn't it? And, since the intent of the law did not align with the wording of the law, my example is spot on.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Thegunnysez)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 4:51:50 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Same bollocks, different day.

Edits to add a link to the facts, since you seem unable to find them.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/



Right - same bollocks

Every day I have to educate mindless, ignorant leftists such as yourself

DHS admits new surge of illegal immigrant families


Fuck the new surge, look at the overall figures........ down under Obama.

Now you can continue with your daily bullshit.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 6:21:40 PM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

1. The Naturalization Act of 1790 didn't last very long. It was superceded by the one in 1795, and the one in 1798, and the one in 1802.


Since none of them changed the status of blacks, what is your point?



You fell back on the Naturalization Act of 1790 for credence to your claim that immigration was limited in 1868, making blacks illegal immigrants. Obviously, if the Act wasn't even in force in 1795, it wasn't in force in 1868. Nice googling, but try comprehension next time.


The Naturalization act of 1790 bars blacks from entry to the country.
This was the law of the U.S. until after the Civil War. This changes with the amendments 13,14,15

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 6:34:23 PM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

quote:

2. Limiting naturalization is not the same as limiting immigration.


Tourist are not immigrants. Immigrants had a protocol to follow to naturalization. This starts with the naturalization act or 1790.



You're comment in no way refutes my statement that naturalization and immigration aren't the same.



Since I never said they were I fail to see your point.


quote:

Since the Naturalization Acts were about naturalization and not immigration, they don't apply in this thread.

The immigration and naturalization act of 1802 requires the names and all particulars of those who enter the U.S.. Upon completion of this form the immigrant was given a receipt which was dated so that they would have a record of the date they entered to prove that they had been here 5 years before they could apply for naturalization. So, yes in contradiction of your assertion that the U.S. had no immigration and naturalization policies before you are clearly mistaken.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 6:37:09 PM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

quote:

3. You failed on that one.


I have proved that blacks were precluded from citizenship.



No you didn't.


It is stated quite clearly in the naturalization acts cited that immigration was limited to white people.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/24/2015 6:54:47 PM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

Sorry. You asked how a bill's intent and how it's written could oppose each other. And, I gave you a very clear, and recent, example.

Since SCOTUS did not write the bill it would be impossible for them to know the intent. The best they can hope for is to infer. The records of the debates re: the amendment would be the intent.


Since the SCOTUS ruled that the intent of the law was the proper way to enforce the law, it sure seems they had to do some digging to figure the intent, doesn't it? And, since the intent of the law did not align with the wording of the law, my example is spot on.




Since SCOTUS did not write the bill it would be impossible for them to know the intent. The best they can hope for is to infer. The records of the debates re: the amendment would be the intent.
Your example is clearly an attempt to avoid the issue. If you really want to know the intent of the 14th then lets read all the discussion. You wish to limit the discussion to the two inputs you offered and no others. You wish to conflate that with the SCOTUS decision in another case you disagree with. Simply saying something is equivalent is not proof that it is.
Lets give a look at the quote you gave us re: one of the sponsors of the amendment. to wit:

'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.'
You may verify this with a grammarian but the words (foreigners-aliens) are adjectives modifying "families of ambassadors etc. For those words to mean what you want them to mean those words would be separated with (and/or). While I agree that this quote and the other support my position I still feel that we need to address all of the 240+ opinions to get a full understanding of their intent.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 6:03:14 AM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
Here is your complete post. I was unable to find the link you said was there


You're right. It wasn't in that post. I think it was in the other 14th amendment thread.

I do apologize.

Here it is.



No worries...it is easy to loose track...thank you.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 7:09:17 AM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Stephanopoulos is a Hillary shill?

So what is Donald J Trump, listed by the Clinton Foundation as contributing between $100,000 and $250,000?

Sure, you can claim that the questions were loaded, but George didn't report the story. He asked questions, and Trump dodged them.

Face it. He has no plan. It's all rhetoric.


What you're missing is that Barack H. Obama threw the border wide open via management aka his illegal executive orders

Meaning Trump is correct and you are in error


Obama and his middle initial has nothing to do with Trump donating to the Clinton Foundation, which is your reasoning for slamming Stephanopoulos.

It's like there's blood coming out of your... where ever.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 7:30:38 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

People didn't risk machine gun fire for better jobs.


Once the machine guns and mines and barricades were in place very few took the chance. The wall was quite effective at restricting unauthorized border crossings. You might want to check to see how many of the exit visas were denied during the existence of the wall.



It acually was very ineffective. I lived within a mile of the wall in the 1980s. Germany received a constant stream of people who left East Germany. Worse - the wall *reduced* the stream just enough to build up the pressure, and eventually it failed catastrophically.

The other problem with the East German wall was that it was so expensive that it bankrupted the country; it took about a quarter of their military. In the USA, if you do the math, you'll find that a similar border would take all of the Army to "secure".

Same thing in North Korea today - South Korea's biggest problem is funding for the programs to integrate North Korean refugees, and North Korea is impoverished because of the military expenses.

We really need to let go of the American approach of trying to solve problems with brute force. It got us into nothing but trouble on far too many issues.

(in reply to Thegunnysez)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 7:52:12 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

That was my question earlier. Why aren't these people being prosecuted? We are talking mega dollars here.


Three reasons. One is that it's too expensive. Remember that the enforcement rhetoric comes from the same people who cut budgets to the bone. During the height of the "cut the budget" craze, INS was one of the prime targets, based on the reasoning that non-citizens couldn't vote when paperwork started taking years instead of weeks to process. Unfortunately, at the time INS was also in charge of enforcement. To this day, there are very few agents actually doing enforcement.

The second reason is that when we can't even "win" the "war on drugs" despite draconian penalties, it's unrealistic to assume that enforcement would even work.

The third is politics. Politicians aren't interested in actually solving the problem - not on a topic where *promises* that sound good but are ineffectual has provided them with a consistent and reliable stream of votes for the last 40 years or so, ever since the immigration crisis started.

(in reply to Thegunnysez)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 8:02:11 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
It looks like there are some other controlling documents that speak to fines and prison time.
quote:

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

This seems to have some stiffer penalties.


Now, I'm wondering if "Sanctuary Cities" are running afoul of the Federal law you cited. Can you imagine the shit mess they'd be in?!?



They aren't. In the contrary - those cities who cooperate with ICE are in a a bigger mess, because they are violating the fourth and fifth Amendment. You can't hold somebody without a warrant.

The problem isn't with the cities, but with ICE. All they would have to do is get a proper warrant, and San Francisco, or any other "sanctuary city" would be happy to hold the person for them.

But ICE doesn't do that - they issue informal requests. Complying with those is actually illegal.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 8:11:50 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

People who choose to not play by the rules that are set, should not get to jump in front of those who are doing it correctly. It's a slap in the face of those that follow the rules.

How many Mexicans followed the rules last year?


I give up, how many?


25,000. Exactly. Because that's the quota for Mexico (same as for any other country, whether Liechtenstein or China). And you needed qualifications; most Mexicans aren't eligible.

And they have been waiting for usually approximately a decade or more.

Sure, we have the right to set any rules we like on immigration. But if we set rules that are basically impossible to follow, we shouldn't be surprised if people don't follow them.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 8:16:48 AM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:



It acually was very ineffective. I lived within a mile of the wall in the 1980s. Germany received a constant stream of people who left East Germany. Worse - the wall *reduced* the stream just enough to build up the pressure, and eventually it failed catastrophically.


How many people left East Berlin by breaching the wall?
The constant stream of people who left East Germany left legally with exit visas.


(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 8:21:11 AM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

That was my question earlier. Why aren't these people being prosecuted? We are talking mega dollars here.


Three reasons. One is that it's too expensive.



How expensive is it to arrest the chairman of the board and the board of any corporation that has illegals on it's payroll?
They do not go after the employers because they do not want to.

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 8:22:24 AM   
Thegunnysez


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/17/2015
Status: offline
quote:




25,000. Exactly. Because that's the quota for Mexico (same as for any other country, whether Liechtenstein or China). And you needed qualifications; most Mexicans aren't eligible.


Do you have a cite for this?

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: Trump's Immigration Plan - 8/25/2015 8:23:01 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Section 1 is the birthright provision. It can be argued that the jurisdiction portion of Section 1 is what can keep babies of illegals from being citizens. They belong to their parent country/nation. http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution


BS. If illegal immigrants were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, they couldn't get traffic tickets. They couldn't get tried in US courts. Some lawyers are getting paid to have a particular opinion, but that doesn't mean that it would hold up in court.

quote:


Even Samoans are not US Citizens. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A927D0D5D8A8FB0B85257E5B004F530D/$file/13-5272-1555940.pdf and they have been a US Territory with their own congressman for a long time now.


Samoa is not part of the US territory (just like Guam, Puerto Rico and formerly the Philippines); it has a special status with more autonomy than US states - including the possibility of leaving the USA altogether (which the Philippines have done). All that means that Samoans are under Samoan jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply there (neither does it in Guam or Puerto Rico, but Congress decided to extend citizenship there anyway).

BTW, Samoans are US nationals even though they aren't citizens.

quote:


So the kids are illegals who need to go thru the appropriate process. They should not be allowed to anchor their law breaking parents


This "anchoring" is a plain lie. Under current law, parents do not get any immigration benefits from having US citizen children. AFTER the child turns 21, the parents are allowed to get in line and wait for up to another 25 years (depending on the quota backlog) until they'd be able to actually see any benefit.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Trump's Immigration Plan Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109