Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ignorance? Bwaaahhaaaaaa.....I didnt vote for the guy who has so destroyed our justice system and is in the process of destroying our economy through the green new deal.If a person overstays their VISA, and they end up in an Administrative process, are they here illegally? I believe you are not qualified to comment on immigration issues. Ignorance disqualifies you from being able to credibly do so.
If a person commits murder, but hasn't been convicted of murder, did he commit murder?If a person overstays their VISA, and they end up in an Administrative process, are they here illegally? I believe you are not qualified to comment on immigration issues. Ignorance disqualifies you from being able to credibly do so.
Yes, and will continue to commit murder till he/she/it is caught. My problem is allowing the murderer a second and third chance at life, while those lives he took dont get the same rights. There are no repeat offenders for those who have been executed.If a person commits murder, but hasn't been convicted of murder, did he commit murder?
It is the standard view in Western Thought1: "RIghts come from DUTIES." -
This is complete nonsense. Even as an opinion, it is far out there.
2: "Fetus and embryo are biological terms" -
Human beings are biological entities. They are not spirits or other-worldly beings.
3: Your third item is so far out there I am lost on how to reply.
Not the only view? Thank you.It is the standard view in Western Thought
De Officiis Or on Duties on Obligations
CICERO
De Officiis Or on Duties on Obligations
Simple. What does the Constitution say with regard to the rights of citizens versus the rights of aliens?So the question of rights as every US citizen enjoys is coming front and center.
Where is the line on tricky circumstances?
What rights do non-citizens have?
Recently a judge determined that aliens may carry firearms. (Armed insurrection or invasion?) Why is the Federal Government giving illegal immigrants money, food, and lodging? How about legal immigrants who lawfully go through the process? Why are they shipping illegal immigrants around from state to state?
What rights does a fetus have vs an embryo vs a child vs an adult?
Is there a gradual attainment of rights?
What about those with dual citizenship? What rights do they have vs not have?
What about banking laws? Paying taxes? Owning real estate? Voting in elections?
What say you?
Where's the line?
It was a blockbuster in its time and huge during the time of the American Founders. I know of nothing else liket that in historyNot the only view? Thank you.
Is that the "originalist" view?I consider illegals as non-protected as far as US Constitutional rights go.
IMHO they gave up any protections when they broke the law by entering the country uninvited.
They should not be counted in the census either.
According to what I've read some consider the right to have a firearm "god given."The ruling the judge on illegals and guns is crazy. if you are here illegally you should only have the most basic of rights. I do wonder if the judge did it so those on the left could be like "Oh, so there are limits to the 2nd". The irony of this case is that the guy was in Illinois so he was violating Illinois law since there is no way he had a FOID card.
And yes, there is gradual attainment of rights, voting, drinking, legally signing a contract and more happen at 18 or 21.
A dual citizen should have no limits.
Most countries allow legal resident aliens to own land, in fact many of them use such as a way to get residency in their countries. Invest a set amount in real estate and get a visa.
I personally have no issues with local elections allowing legal non-citizens to vote since they are directly impacted by the outcome and they are paying their taxes to that area.
YOu both fail logic. If merely being here means you are a citizen then you can't be here and not be a citizen , so what does citizen mean?Is that the "originalist" view?
Care to show us the "illegal exception" clause?
According to what I've read some consider the right to have a firearm "god given."
Are you saying god's "grace" doesn't apply for people you call "illegal?"
The ruling the judge on illegals and guns is crazy. if you are here illegally you should only have the most basic of rights. I do wonder if the judge did it so those on the left could be like "Oh, so there are limits to the 2nd". The irony of this case is that the guy was in Illinois so he was violating Illinois law since there is no way he had a FOID card.
And yes, there is gradual attainment of rights, voting, drinking, legally signing a contract and more happen at 18 or 21.
A dual citizen should have no limits.
Most countries allow legal resident aliens to own land, in fact many of them use such as a way to get residency in their countries. Invest a set amount in real estate and get a visa.
I personally have no issues with local elections allowing legal non-citizens to vote since they are directly impacted by the outcome and they are paying their taxes to that area.
As may be.YOu both fail logic. If merely being here means you are a citizen then you can't be here and not be a citizen , so what does citizen mean?
The Founders view was the same view that has held sway for almost 3000 years in the West
It has 3 aspects
1) not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.
2) the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.
3) the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation.
So no perverts,no folks who don't accept freedom of religion and whose beliefs include killing apostate family members,and no being a citizen of a country whose laws, history, and principles you are currently clueless about.
So Trump, in your words, is a criminal?I do not think god gives a fuck about guns. But that is just me.
Do you have a better term for someone breaking the law? I guess we could call them criminal immigrants, would that be more accurate?
So Trump, in your words, is a criminal?
After all, like the people you call "illegal," he's only been accused of a crime, not convicted.
Does your living room have invisible walls?Yes, I think he is.
If someone is standing in my living room and I did not invite them in, they are breaking the law whether they have been tried in a court of law or not.
Does your living room have invisible walls?
Maybe it escapes that this country is not your property and the Constitution doesn't leave out people because you don't like them.
The ruling didn't say people don't have to follow the law.Everyone knows where our borders are. If you are standing in NYC you know that you are in the US.
What makes you think I do not like them, just because I am honest about their actions? Most of them are here because US employers are more than willing to pay them knowing they are not here legally. It is a fucked up system that favors nobody but big business. I would love to see an actual working guest worker program so they could come here legally and have some more protections in the work place.
But neither party wants this as both parties are owned by big business. As long as people keep voting for the duopoly, nothing will change.
There are parts of the Constitution that covers everyone on our soil, and there are parts that are just for citizens. I live in Ill, where this ruling was about. There are very strict rules for gun ownership, why should those who are in the country illegally not have to follow them when the citizens do? Somehow I doubt you think that the laws of Illinois are against the Constitution.
The ruling didn't say people don't have to follow the law.
The ruling says you can't exclude a group from Constitutional protections based on their immigration status.
Show me the enumerated rights that are for us citizens only.
Not an enumerated right.The person in the ruling in question was not following the law.
Voting in Fed elections for one.
