My Immigration discussions

[nitroz]

Well, there are a couple of things I want to go over in this topic.

1. Anchor Babies. Should we send their parents back to Mexico with their baby? Why or why not?
2. Rounding up current illegals. I think it's time to put our foot down and do something about it.
3. Penalties for immigrants. Are they too harsh or not harsh enough? I say we deport them, but when deporting them, we put them all the way at the bottom of mexico near the border of guatemala.
4. Should we use dangerous force on those who throw stuff over our border and hurt people?
5. Should we use ray guns on those who are trying to cross, smuggle, or throw objects over the borders?
6. Should we send our OWN armed forces to aid Mexico with the drug wars? (I say yes)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason why I say yes to #6 is because this IS OUR problem, and Mexico is suffering from it as we shove it aside. We consume the drugs and the cartels make and bring them, even if they have to kill people to get the job done. So I think it's time to send our national Guard (and possibly other branches) over there to bring a hurting ass whoopin' to the cartels and make them either run crying, or die trying. The drug cartels has to be the biggest reason why we put up with soo many illegals. It would benefit us in the long run also and the drugies here can't get their crack. So crime rates will also go down.
But that's my thought. I think we should deal with problems like this head on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anchor Babies. Should we send their parents back to Mexico with their baby? Why or why not?

It’s in violation of the Constitution and the basic tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence to punish children for the crimes of their parents:

[T]hose who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.

[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent.

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972) (footnote omitted).

Plyler v. Doe

2. Rounding up current illegals. I think it's time to put our foot down and do something about it.

It’s not clear what you’re referring to by ‘rounding up,’ but one might infer.

Regardless, understand that those here illegally are still entitled to due process per the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . 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.

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

Plyler v. Doe

3. Penalties for immigrants. Are they too harsh or not harsh enough? I say we deport them, but when deporting them, we put them all the way at the bottom of mexico near the border of guatemala.
4. Should we use dangerous force on those who throw stuff over our border and hurt people?
5. Should we use ray guns on those who are trying to cross, smuggle, or throw objects over the borders?
6. Should we send our OWN armed forces to aid Mexico with the drug wars? (I say yes)

Three through six are too idiotic to comment on – or you’re not serious about the issue. There are some, however, who’ll think your ‘ideas’ are just fine, so this post is for them.

 

[nitroz]

Sorry, you may disagree on my topics, but it was something I was seriously thinking about.
We need to accept our responsibility.

 

[Grace]

Too many questions.

 

[luckystrike]

Well, there are a couple of things I want to go over in this topic.

1. Anchor Babies. Should we send their parents back to Mexico with their baby? Why or why not?
2. Rounding up current illegals. I think it's time to put our foot down and do something about it.
3. Penalties for immigrants. Are they too harsh or not harsh enough? I say we deport them, but when deporting them, we put them all the way at the bottom of mexico near the border of guatemala.
4. Should we use dangerous force on those who throw stuff over our border and hurt people?
5. Should we use ray guns on those who are trying to cross, smuggle, or throw objects over the borders?
6. Should we send our OWN armed forces to aid Mexico with the drug wars? (I say yes)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason why I say yes to #6 is because this IS OUR problem, and Mexico is suffering from it as we shove it aside. We consume the drugs and the cartels make and bring them, even if they have to kill people to get the job done. So I think it's time to send our national Guard (and possibly other branches) over there to bring a hurting ass whoopin' to the cartels and make them either run crying, or die trying. The drug cartels has to be the biggest reason why we put up with soo many illegals. It would benefit us in the long run also and the drugies here can't get their crack. So crime rates will also go down.
But that's my thought. I think we should deal with problems like this head on.

1. Anchor Babies. Should we send their parents back to Mexico with their baby? Why or why not?

Since those babies are used as a weapon against the people of the United States, they should be viewed as weapons.

2. Rounding up current illegals. I think it's time to put our foot down and do something about it.

Round 'em up....brand 'em....move 'em out......to countries like Russia where they will be used as labor in Siberia.

3. Penalties for immigrants. Are they too harsh or not harsh enough? I say we deport them, but when deporting them, we put them all the way at the bottom of mexico near the border of guatemala.

Deport them to a place they can't get away from. South pole?

4. Should we use dangerous force on those who throw stuff over our border and hurt people?

Why not. They don't care who they kill.

5. Should we use ray guns on those who are trying to cross, smuggle, or throw objects over the borders?

Ray guns?? You know that isn't far fetched. We have those sonic devices that make people scream when the device is turned on. Maybe a dose of it will keep them away from the border.

6. Should we send our OWN armed forces to aid Mexico with the drug wars? (I say yes)

Mexico's armed forces have protected illegals for years. War with Mexico will straighten 'em out.

 

[luckystrike]

Anchor Babies. Should we send their parents back to Mexico with their baby? Why or why not?

It’s in violation of the Constitution and the basic tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence to punish children for the crimes of their parents:

Why should Americans be punished for what Mexicans are doing?

Regardless, understand that those here illegally are still entitled to due process per the 14th Amendment:

The US Constitution wasn't created to protect invading foreigners.

Three through six are too idiotic to comment on – or you’re not serious about the issue. There are some, however, who’ll think your ‘ideas’ are just fine, so this post is for them.

The laws of the US were designed primarily to protect REAL Americans from threats brought on by foreigners, not to make those Americans helpless to defend themselves against invaders.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry, you may disagree on my topics, but it was something I was seriously thinking about.
We need to accept our responsibility.

The law disagrees, it has noting to do with me.

Why should Americans be punished for what Mexicans are doing?

The US Constitution wasn't created to protect invading foreigners.

The laws of the US were designed primarily to protect REAL Americans from threats brought on by foreigners, not to make those Americans helpless to defend themselves against invaders.

Take it up with Justice Brennan.

 

[luckystrike]

Sorry, you may disagree on my topics, but it was something I was seriously thinking about.
We need to accept our responsibility.

The law disagrees, it has noting to do with me.

Why should Americans be punished for what Mexicans are doing?

The US Constitution wasn't created to protect invading foreigners.

The laws of the US were designed primarily to protect REAL Americans from threats brought on by foreigners, not to make those Americans helpless to defend themselves against invaders.

Take it up with Justice Brennan.

If Mexicans ignore American laws, then the United States is a failed state, just like Mexico.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Anchor Babies. Should we send their parents back to Mexico with their baby? Why or why not?

It’s in violation of the Constitution and the basic tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence to punish children for the crimes of their parents:

[T]hose who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.

[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent.

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972) (footnote omitted).

Plyler v. Doe

It’s not clear what you’re referring to by ‘rounding up,’ but one might infer.

Regardless, understand that those here illegally are still entitled to due process per the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . 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.

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

Plyler v. Doe

3. Penalties for immigrants. Are they too harsh or not harsh enough? I say we deport them, but when deporting them, we put them all the way at the bottom of mexico near the border of guatemala.
4. Should we use dangerous force on those who throw stuff over our border and hurt people?
5. Should we use ray guns on those who are trying to cross, smuggle, or throw objects over the borders?
6. Should we send our OWN armed forces to aid Mexico with the drug wars? (I say yes)

Three through six are too idiotic to comment on – or you’re not serious about the issue. There are some, however, who’ll think your ‘ideas’ are just fine, so this post is for them.

Yeah, like every typical bleeding heart you pull the Equal Protection Clause out of your pocket to justify your special interests.

The Equal Protection Clause could justify just about anything... Hell, I could run around naked in public and when questioned I could say: "I have a Fourteenth Amendment right to run around naked in public."

No, Illegals don't have any rights! They're not documented - they have no papers hence they have no rights.

The only rights that apply to them would be ones that fall under the Geneva Convention.