S/O: Illegal Aliens (For or Against)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15:58. I added more typos so you would have talking points.

You have proven yourself a worthy advisory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not at all uncomfortable. You cannot.reasonably equate the Holocost to America's need and right to protect its boarders. Your feeble attempt to make this connection does a disservice to every man, woman and child who were murdered in the Holocost. Antisemite.

First, it's Holocaust (and borders, but I digress). Second, you're the only one to mention the Holocaust. I merely pointed out that much of the rhetoric used in the immigration debate is similar to the rhetoric employed regarding Jews in 1930s Germany. If you don't believe me, go check for yourself. Whether it proceeds beyond rhetoric . . . well, I have faith in the majority of the American populace that it won't get there. (Note: that majority does not include you.)

Not pp, but you're kidding yourself. You quote Hitler talking about the "Jewish problem" and then say that no one is mentioning the Holocaust? LOL; you're a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interpretation of the 14th amendment only. The supreme court has never ruled that this amendment is applicable to the children of illegal aliens. The framers of the 14th clearly stated that it should not apply to illegal alien children--that's why they included language about the person being under a "foreign power." Let the court make a ruling and if they refuse to follow common sense and rule of law then we need a national vote.

Here's the relevant text of the 14th amendment. I've even highlighted the passage that deals with this question:

"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"

I don't see any basis for an alternative interpretation, but hey, I never claimed to be the sharpest guy around. Please enlighten me.

Followup: Refusing to follow the rule of law? So if the Supreme Court finds that kids born in the US are citizens - which exactly tracks the statutory text, by the way - they have failed to follow the rule of law? Can you really say that with a straight face?

Sidebar: Isn't it funny how someone's refusing to follow common sense so often coincides with you disagreeing with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not at all uncomfortable. You cannot.reasonably equate the Holocost to America's need and right to protect its boarders. Your feeble attempt to make this connection does a disservice to every man, woman and child who were murdered in the Holocost. Antisemite.

First, it's Holocaust (and borders, but I digress). Second, you're the only one to mention the Holocaust. I merely pointed out that much of the rhetoric used in the immigration debate is similar to the rhetoric employed regarding Jews in 1930s Germany. If you don't believe me, go check for yourself. Whether it proceeds beyond rhetoric . . . well, I have faith in the majority of the American populace that it won't get there. (Note: that majority does not include you.)

Not pp, but you're kidding yourself. You quote Hitler talking about the "Jewish problem" and then say that no one is mentioning the Holocaust? LOL; you're a joke.

That was someone else. More than one person thinks you're ignoring historical realities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, 15:03 , aka BItch, have you ever typed on an android, but I digress. 5he need to start you rebuttal with a reference to typos indicates that you recognize the weakness in your actual arguement.

And yet, you fail to address the actual argument. At all. Have you provided anything substantive to this discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The illegals violate civil law when they enter the US. Then, they violate criminal law when they obtain illegal documentation (forgery, identity left) and lie on their I-9 when they obtain employment. Illegals cannot live in the US without becoming criminals. They just start off civil law violators. So the use of "criminal" to describe illegal aliens is not inaccurate.


Very astute observation. I agree 100%.

I wonder where the "google lawyers" and the wikipedia "researchers" are now?

[Anonymous]

No one ever talks about how illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants.

I spend months out of the year working in the poorer parts of Asia and the Middle East and the local nationals that I meet and work with, many of them are quite educated, are always asking me how they can immigrate to the USA. A lot of them get taken on Green Card lottery scams. I always tell them that their best bet is too learn to speak Spanish, somehow make it to Mexico and then walk across the border.

Talk to an Indian H1B guest worker who is trying to move here legally about illegal l immigration and you will get an earful. In may cases illegal immigrants have more rights and protections than they do.

[Anonymous]

I keep hearing about how legal immigrants are so dead-set against those who come without paperwork. In my large circle of immigrant friends, I don't have ONE who will admit to this point of view. They all say that they were lucky to be sponsored by a family member or employer, but don't begrudge anyone without their luck the chance to make a better life. This includes my legal-immigrant husband and his large immigrant family. Maybe I just hang out with more decent humans than some of you do.

[Anonymous]

PP Perhaps you just hang out with a less honest group of humans.

[Anonymous]

PP I don't think you understood the cartoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The illegals violate civil law when they enter the US. Then, they violate criminal law when they obtain illegal documentation (forgery, identity left) and lie on their I-9 when they obtain employment. Illegals cannot live in the US without becoming criminals. They just start off civil law violators. So the use of "criminal" to describe illegal aliens is not inaccurate.


Very astute observation. I agree 100%.


I wonder where the "google lawyers" and the wikipedia "researchers" are now?

Where are all of "they are not criminals" posters today? No rebuttal?

[Anonymous]

Lying on I-9 forms, using stolen and/or fraudulent SS numbers, using stolen and/or fraudulent IDs are all felonies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Lying on I-9 forms, using stolen and/or fraudulent SS numbers, using stolen and/or fraudulent IDs are all felonies.

How many people do you personally know who have done this? Or are you going off of what Lou Dobbs tells you?

[Anonymous]

Do you know nothing about employment law? An I-9 is a condition of employment. An illegal alien does not have the necessary "legal" documentation.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:15:58. This is a discussion of whether or not we are pro immigration. I am. It is a discssion of whether we are pro ILLEGAL immigration. I am not. Please stay on point.

I am not in favor of illegal immigration either, and I doubt that anyone is. The question is what to do about it. The two easiest solutions to think of are "Throw them out" and "Ignore the law". The first is logistically impossible and the second is politically impossible, so the issue is how do we find a reasonable middle ground?