My unpopular opinion, I don't care

[Sallow]

Who is advocating genocide? Get off your high horse.

A border.. with a fence.. with a warning... will shoot to kill anyone in the criminal act of unlawful entry.....

that is NOT genocide.

Thet's right.

Killin' is what good 'mericans do.

'specially when it's those funny speakin' short brown peeps on the recieving end.

Kill 'em all.

Let god or the baby jeebus sort em out.

my guess is if they knew they would be shot at..... there would be whole lot less illegals crossing our borders.

And you guys really have the nerve to ask why so many countries are chasing nukes?




Oh gosh.

 

[Xchel]

do you really think it means less? Do you realize how many die trying to cross the border? They certainly don't all make it across alive. Just one year ago 72 were shot dead by Zetas in a ranch in Tamaulipas..it didn't stop anyone from coming.

Yes, it violates the Geneva convention and the constitution. For the person who argues that the US constitution only protects citizens fails to understand what the constitution actually says unless you want to try to go the route that non citizens aren't people....after all it does say persons not just citizens. The US Supreme Court has ruled against your opinion many times.

 

[syrenn]

do you really think it means less? Do you realize how many die trying to cross the border? They certainly don't all make it across alive. Just one year ago 72 were shot dead by Zetas in a ranch in Tamaulipas..it didn't stop anyone from coming.

Yes, it violates the Geneva convention and the constitution. For the person who argues that the US constitution only protects citizens fails to understand what the constitution actually says unless you want to try to go the route that non citizens aren't people....after all it does say persons not just citizens. The US Supreme Court has ruled against your opinion many times.

i really dont care how many die trying to gain access to this country illegally. I am sorry more dont die then already do and or more of them are not shot. If it is 7200 shot dead.. they may think twice. And if they do think twice...and still come it is the risk they would run.

 

[Sallow]

do you really think it means less? Do you realize how many die trying to cross the border? They certainly don't all make it across alive. Just one year ago 72 were shot dead by Zetas in a ranch in Tamaulipas..it didn't stop anyone from coming.

Yes, it violates the Geneva convention and the constitution. For the person who argues that the US constitution only protects citizens fails to understand what the constitution actually says unless you want to try to go the route that non citizens aren't people....after all it does say persons not just citizens. The US Supreme Court has ruled against your opinion many times.

Good stuff.

 

[Xchel]

Syrenn, then you want to live in a fascist state and you want genocide and quite frankly I don't want to live in a country that is filled with people that want a country like that because we won't have a country worth living in. I don't think any one with any common sense wants to visit 1942 all over again.

 

[tonystewart1]

do you really think it means less? Do you realize how many die trying to cross the border? They certainly don't all make it across alive. Just one year ago 72 were shot dead by Zetas in a ranch in Tamaulipas..it didn't stop anyone from coming.

Yes, it violates the Geneva convention and the constitution. For the person who argues that the US constitution only protects citizens fails to understand what the constitution actually says unless you want to try to go the route that non citizens aren't people....after all it does say persons not just citizens. The US Supreme Court has ruled against your opinion many times.

If you are refering to the 14th admendment then you are wrong. There where no illegal immigrants then. The 14th admendment was to ensure that former slaves where given citizenship and equal protection. The SCOTUS has misinterpreted that admendment over and over. It in no way gives any human who happens to be on US soil the same rights that I have. The persons it is refering to are former slaves not just anybody who happens to be standing here.

 

[Toro]

"Stole" what?

Half of Mexico, I presume.

Pfft. Deal with it.

 

[Xchel]

No, I am not just referring to the 14th amendment...I am referring to the bill of rights..the little pesky thing of right to fair trial and all that jazz.
SCOTUS misinterpreted it? Really....well they have interpreted it the same way time and time again...and funny I don't think you are more qualified than the judges on the US supreme Court to decide what the interpretation is.

 

[tonystewart1]

No, I am not just referring to the 14th amendment...I am referring to the bill of rights..the little pesky thing of right to fair trial and all that jazz.
SCOTUS misinterpreted it? Really....well they have interpreted it the same way time and time again...and funny I don't think you are more qualified than the judges on the US supreme Court to decide what the interpretation is.

Do not even think that any supreme court justice is more qualified than any other citizen to read a simple document and understand what it means. Study the history of the 14th and you will see that the original intent was to protect former slaves from the southern states.

Really you dont even think that the justices are motivated my something other than the law. The SC has for decades used the constitution for toilet paper so they can legislate from the bench in direct violation of the constitution.


The 14th is just real convient for those who would throw our borders open to all who want to come in regardless of what they have to offer.

 

[tonystewart1]

Just my opinion.

The 14th should never have been passed to start with. It would never have if the union did not have the south under martial law.

 

[Unkotare]

do you really think it means less? Do you realize how many die trying to cross the border? They certainly don't all make it across alive. Just one year ago 72 were shot dead by Zetas in a ranch in Tamaulipas..it didn't stop anyone from coming.

Yes, it violates the Geneva convention and the constitution. For the person who argues that the US constitution only protects citizens fails to understand what the constitution actually says unless you want to try to go the route that non citizens aren't people....after all it does say persons not just citizens. The US Supreme Court has ruled against your opinion many times.

Certainly not the Geneva Convention.

 

[Xchel]

So you don't think shooting unarmed folks violates the Geneva convention?

The 14th never should have passed to begin with? So what is it that you have against equal protection?

 

[tonystewart1]

So you don't think shooting unarmed folks violates the Geneva convention?

The 14th never should have passed to begin with? So what is it that you have against equal protection?

I have no problem for equal protection of all citizens. I have a real problem with equal protection for illegals. They do not deserve it. The badly worded 14th amdemendment was passed by putting a gun to the heads of the southern states.

 

[Xchel]

so there is no meaning to the preamble then? that little pesky thing about freedom and liberty for all?

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

what kind of nation would we be and how could we be a nation of laws if we deny anyone protection under that law? Can you imagine the chaos? Even as chaotic as it is in Latin America Americans get the same rights to trial that the citizens of said country get and sometimes get more protection than native citizens do ...and yeah lots of Americans get into big trouble overseas.

It would not be a very good country to live in if we denied people basic rights. We have things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of unreasonable search and seizure...all that stuff is important in that it protects ALL classes of people, not just US citizens, not just men, not just the wealthy...we are all equals regardless.

 

[Xchel]

the southern states...one of which I was born in LOST the war..get over it already.

 

[tonystewart1]

so there is no meaning to the preamble then? that little pesky thing about freedom and liberty for all?

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

what kind of nation would we be and how could we be a nation of laws if we deny anyone protection under that law? Can you imagine the chaos? Even as chaotic as it is in Latin America Americans get the same rights to trial that the citizens of said country get and sometimes get more protection than native citizens do ...and yeah lots of Americans get into big trouble overseas.

It would not be a very good country to live in if we denied people basic rights. We have things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of unreasonable search and seizure...all that stuff is important in that it protects ALL classes of people, not just US citizens, not just men, not just the wealthy...we are all equals regardless.

When a man sneaks over the border what entitles him to the rights I have earned. I earned my rights by paying my taxes, being ready and willing to defend my country. Naturalized citizens probably earned their rights in a more difficult manner than I did. You can not just show up, contribute nothing, and expect to treated like all Americans.

The part of the 14th you quoted is the badly worded part. It never was intended to protect foreign people coming here illegally. The people it is refering to are african slaves not just any tom, dick and harry that manages to sneak in.

 

[Xchel]

how did you earn equal protection? Were you alive when the 14th was made part of the constitution? Were you alive with the constitution was written? You didn't earn anything you were born with those rights and the part of the bill of rights that is unalienable...does anyone understand that word? It means a person is BORN with those rights regardless of birthplace. Your rights aren't earned they are given to you freely.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Civilians crossing the border doesn’t constitute an ‘invasion,’ nor is there any case law interpreting Article IV in that manner.

How about our very own military doing the shooting and protecting out borders. You don't shoot them on the outside of the border, you kill them on the OUR side of the border. Clearly posted sighs in many languages... will shoot to kill any trespassers.

Rather simple. You come illegally, get shot in the attempt...tough.

And the mechanics of what you’re advocating demonstrates its idiocy, there’s no way to confirm that someone who is ‘on our side of the border’ is indeed entering illegally. There are many towns and cities directly on the border in addition to factories and warehouses where it’s impossible to see people actually cross the border.

The US military killing civilian nationals of other countries on American soil would be a violation of international law and human rights. And it would place in jeopardy thousands of Americans living and traveling abroad.

If you are not an American citizen native or naturalized the Constitution does not give you any rights or protections.

You’ve stated this before and at that time I cited the case law indicating this is not correct.

I’ll cite it again for others reading this thread, you may continue to ignore this fact of law understanding it only exhibits your ignorance:

Facts of the Case:
A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Question:
Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Plyler v. Doe | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The SCOTUS has misinterpreted that admendment over and over. It in no way gives any human who happens to be on US soil the same rights that I have. The persons it is refering to are former slaves not just anybody who happens to be standing here.

In your opinion, which means nothing. All that matters is the Court’s opinion cited above.

The 14th should never have been passed to start with. It would never have if the union did not have the south under martial law.

The 14th Amendment was needed, for among other reasons, to nullify Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that slaves and their descendents were not US citizens. This was still the law of the land, regardless the outcome of the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment is hardly ‘poorly worded,’ it expressed and codified a simple fact of law: that all persons have inalienable rights, and those rights are protected within the jurisdiction of the United States.

In Plyler the Court held that the designation of a person as ‘illegal’ by a government agency doesn’t supercede the 14th Amendment, and that indeed the government has no authority to determine who may or may not have his civil rights.

 

[tonystewart1]

how did you earn equal protection? Were you alive when the 14th was made part of the constitution? Were you alive with the constitution was written? You didn't earn anything you were born with those rights and the part of the bill of rights that is unalienable...does anyone understand that word? It means a person is BORN with those rights regardless of birthplace. Your rights aren't earned they are given to you freely.

Yes you are right I have those rights because I was BORN with them. What I was getting at was I am invested in this country illegals are not. They show up and the first thing they do is break the law.

Answer this

Should we open the borders of the country to anyone who wants to come or should there be standards and laws to regulate this? Does every human on the planet have a right to come here and live?

 

[tonystewart1]

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Civilians crossing the border doesn’t constitute an ‘invasion,’ nor is there any case law interpreting Article IV in that manner.

How about our very own military doing the shooting and protecting out borders. You don't shoot them on the outside of the border, you kill them on the OUR side of the border. Clearly posted sighs in many languages... will shoot to kill any trespassers.

Rather simple. You come illegally, get shot in the attempt...tough.

And the mechanics of what you’re advocating demonstrates its idiocy, there’s no way to confirm that someone who is ‘on our side of the border’ is indeed entering illegally. There are many towns and cities directly on the border in addition to factories and warehouses where it’s impossible to see people actually cross the border.

The US military killing civilian nationals of other countries on American soil would be a violation of international law and human rights. And it would place in jeopardy thousands of Americans living and traveling abroad.



You’ve stated this before and at that time I cited the case law indicating this is not correct.

I’ll cite it again for others reading this thread, you may continue to ignore this fact of law understanding it only exhibits your ignorance:

The SCOTUS has misinterpreted that admendment over and over. It in no way gives any human who happens to be on US soil the same rights that I have. The persons it is refering to are former slaves not just anybody who happens to be standing here.

In your opinion, which means nothing. All that matters is the Court’s opinion cited above.

The 14th should never have been passed to start with. It would never have if the union did not have the south under martial law.

The 14th Amendment was needed, for among other reasons, to nullify Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that slaves and their descendents were not US citizens. This was still the law of the land, regardless the outcome of the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment is hardly ‘poorly worded,’ it expressed and codified a simple fact of law: that all persons have inalienable rights, and those rights are protected within the jurisdiction of the United States.

In Plyler the Court held that the designation of a person as ‘illegal’ by a government agency doesn’t supercede the 14th Amendment, and that indeed the government has no authority to determine who may or may not have his civil rights.

I am not ignorant. I have read everything that you have posted. I am well aware of what the SC says I just disagree with it. That is not ignorance.