quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I support Legal Immigration The more the merrier. Illegals tho should be mine field finders fighting ISIS

I don't know that I agree with Cloudboy's analysis, but I certainly don't agree that illegals should be mine field finders. There are plenty of illegals whose only crime was illegal entry. While I don't think they should be granted legal status in the US, I don't think they should be abused, either.

Is it abuse or a preventative step.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Which do you support: literal translation of the law (the words used are what matter), or the spirit of the law (the intent of those that wrote the law)?

Don't you feel that both are necessary? We know that the slaves were illegal aliens. We know the framers of these three amendments were not unaware of the issues involved. Notice how native Americans are dealt with in these three amendments. The framers wanted to tailor the law to the need. That need being the enfranchisement of the offspring of illegal aliens while at the same time preventing the enfranchisement of native Americans.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

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?!?

Do you feel that would be more productive than the feds going after employers?

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?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I support Legal Immigration The more the merrier. Illegals tho should be mine field finders fighting ISIS

I don't know that I agree with Cloudboy's analysis, but I certainly don't agree that illegals should be mine field finders. There are plenty of illegals whose only crime was illegal entry. While I don't think they should be granted legal status in the US, I don't think they should be abused, either.

Is it abuse or a preventative step.

Abuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

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?!?

Do you feel that would be more productive than the feds going after employers?

Why can't they go after both?

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?

quote:

14th Amendment

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:


Gunny
How would a civil forfeiture law be utilized against someone who has committed a misdemeanor?

The police use it against the innocent to take their money and possessions on mere suspession

quote:

so it would apply to those that are breaking the law as well. The innocent have to pay money to lawyers to get even a portion of it back if they do at all. So why not

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

You are a wingnut. Try living in the real world. The land mine idea makes you a lunatic. Did you even read the ^^^ George Will Article or not? The GOP has forfeited the executive. Game over.

quote:

No, I don't feel both are necessary, especially when they oppose each other.

quote:

I don't know that slaves were illegal aliens. Please cite your source demonstrating that we knew them as illegals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:


Gunny
How would a civil forfeiture law be utilized against someone who has committed a misdemeanor?

The police use it against the innocent to take their money and possessions on mere suspession

No...The police do that to the ignorant. If you have a real lawyer it takes a court order to seize your property.

quote:

so it would apply to those that are breaking the law as well. The innocent have to pay money to lawyers to get even a portion of it back if they do at all. So why not

Because it is illegal.

quote:

Why can't they go after both?

quote:

I give up, how many?

quote:

From the more left leaning ACLU it happens all the time. I agree it shouldn't be legal but it does happen.

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.

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