CDZ Please explain to me, The term "undocumented" is this a PC term for "illegal immigrant"?

[The Sage of Main Street]

If they came here illegally, they are illegal aliens. Being a refugee doesn't negate the fact that the means of getting here was outside of the law...and hence illegal.

So what! Unless you're a native American, we all came here illegally.

On the Lam

That obsolete Mongoloid species originated as prehistoric criminal fugitives from Asia. These continents were never countries, they were hideouts. Same for the Mexican Indian criminal race that is trying to reconquer what they never should have been allowed to have in the first place.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't know what "wall" you're talking about. I'm referring to the $25 billion two thousand mile "wall" that Rump tried to sell to the gullibles on the campaign trail. It doesn't exist, nor should it.

Maybe you should verify what youre baseless claims before you spew them out. Yes a wall was already voted on and passed in 2006. Government has not fully enforced that law, but has partially built it. They also have previously purchased much of the land intended for building the wall.

So the wall trump was talking about has already been voted for before Obama and should have been built by now. But our govt thinks they are in the business of selectively choosing which laws they want to follow, which to ignore, and which to exempt themselves from.

Then you must be the only one who knows about it.

Why don't you actually LINK whatever it is you're talking about?

Don't take this devious route. I articulated exactly what I'm talking about and there's a plethora of evidence for it. You don't answer that with innuendo and out the other. Put some flesh on those bones.

Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Wikipedia

THANK you. That was like pulling teeth.

Where does it say anything about building a 2000 mile "wall" (not "fence", not "vehicle barriers, checkpoints, lighting, cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles") but an actual physical wall from gulf to ocean, as Rump incessantly hawked like emotional snake oil?

Moreover isn't it relevant that it also notes, "Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built."?

No this is not at all the "wall" that Rump was selling to the gullibles. Which is not to say that his spinmeisters won't subsequently glom onto it to try to claim credit after the fact. But this is clearly not what I was talking about, and you're trying to change the discussion with a glaring red herring.

The "wall" I'm talking about isn't a 1.2 billion or 4.8 billion undertaking --- it's more like 25 billion, and that doesn't include ongoing maintenance.

This is what I'm talking about:
"You don't sell solutions --- you sell feelings" --- Rump "university" playbook.

And that's exactly what this mythical "wall" --- the one in the campaign, the fantasy, not the fence --- was doing.

I don't know what your point is. I already stated that the wall is a stupid status symbol, more of a scarecrow than actually providing real functionality. My point was securing the boarder is not a crazy idea and IS already law, law that's not being followed.

TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT

A canal would have economic functionality. Sailors would be given the right to kill anyone attempting to swim across. No need to pay for a canal Coast Guard as long as we have gun rights.

 

[rightwinger]

Tangential question: What is the difference between "people of color" and "colored people"?

I'm socially color blind. But on days I get too much sun, I become colored too.

Midgets Are Excluded From the NBA Only Because of Their Munchkin Voices!!!

As we are told to think by those paid to tell us, skin color is the only cause of racism, not behavior. So I'd be very reluctant to get a tan and cause a whole lot of oppression to fall on me. Extend liberal logic to anything else and it proves how absurd it is.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We all came here illegally? DERP!

That's right. Christopher Columbus was an un-documented alien.

PP on PC in the TP

The Indians weren't residents, they were campers.

 

[sakinago]

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

No these courts have nothing to do with the constitution. The EOIR was formed in like the 80s and there wasn't any amendment for it. All countries reserve the right to expel without trial, these courts are set up to shut down any claims of human rights violation. Immigrants are deported without trial all the time. If boarder agents catch illegals crossing the boarder they are immediately sent back without trial. They don't apprehend them, take them to a court hearing and then deport them. If it's their second time being deported no trial is necessary. They are not under the 5th amendment. We reserve the right to expel without trial, we choose not to most of the time, this is not to be confused with the 5th. The only part of the constitution about immigration is the enumerated powers, giving federal government control of naturalization, THEY have control in this area.

 

[sakinago]

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

And again when you cross the border without permission you have done so illegally.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This thread has been hijacked and derailed.

Un-documented workers in this country are not illegal people. And this is NOT as big an issue as all the attention it is getting.

We Beat Them Once, We Can Beat Them Again

The illegals are agents of a hostile foreign power, which is a capital offense. Mexico encourages this invasion and instructs its citizens how to work the permissive system here. That is a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which is an act of war. The goal is to infiltrate enough voters here so we are forced by anti-American voting rights laws to send massive amounts of aid to Mexico's corrupt ruling class.

 

[Unkotare]

This thread has been hijacked and derailed.

Un-documented workers in this country are not illegal people. And this is NOT as big an issue as all the attention it is getting.

We Beat Them Once, We Can Beat Them Again

The illegals are agents of a hostile foreign power, which is a capital offense. Mexico encourages this invasion and instructs its citizens how to work the permissive system here. That is a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which is an act of war. The goal is to infiltrate enough voters here so we are forced by anti-American voting rights laws to send massive amounts of aid to Mexico's corrupt ruling class.

Oh brother.....

 

[Unkotare]

If they came here illegally, they are illegal aliens. Being a refugee doesn't negate the fact that the means of getting here was outside of the law...and hence illegal.

So what! Unless you're a native American, we all came here illegally.

On the Lam

That obsolete Mongoloid species originated as prehistoric criminal fugitives from Asia. These continents were never countries, they were hideouts. Same for the Mexican Indian criminal race that is trying to reconquer what they never should have been allowed to have in the first place.

If this is what the thread has become, it doesn't belong in the CDZ.

 

[Unkotare]

Andrew Jackson was thoroughly familiar with native Americans and how untrustworthy and duplicitous they were, they weren't the hapless victims hippies and Hollywood likes to portray them as, which is why he knew it was in their best interests to move. The 'Trail of Tears' was entirely a self-inflicted tragedy by the Cherokee themselves. Jackson was very generous and humane to them, by any standards. They simply took the money and massive amounts of supplies and then welshed on their deal. they had several years in which to move, then decided to give him the finger. as a consequence they were moved during a bad time of year and lost many to disease. It wasn't anybody's fault but their own.

This is about as ridiculous as the revisionism on the other side. Why do people feel the need to fight stupid with stupid?

Yes, historical facts will always elude you. ....

Quite the contrary.


Clearly, there are those who are nothing but the mirror image of the dopes on the left who suck up Howard Zinn nonsense like a cat with a saucer of milk. Such people are the exact same weak-minded semi informed dope.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Tangential question: What is the difference between "people of color" and "colored people"?

I'm socially color blind. But on days I get too much sun, I become colored too.

Midgets Are Excluded From the NBA Only Because of Their Munchkin Voices!!!

As we are told to think by those paid to tell us, skin color is the only cause of racism, not behavior. So I'd be very reluctant to get a tan and cause a whole lot of oppression to fall on me. Extend liberal logic to anything else and it proves how absurd it is.

Looks like piglet catching at the County Fair.

 

[Pogo]

This thread has been hijacked and derailed.

Un-documented workers in this country are not illegal people. And this is NOT as big an issue as all the attention it is getting.

We Beat Them Once, We Can Beat Them Again

The illegals are agents of a hostile foreign power, which is a capital offense. Mexico encourages this invasion and instructs its citizens how to work the permissive system here. That is a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which is an act of war. The goal is to infiltrate enough voters here so we are forced by anti-American voting rights laws to send massive amounts of aid to Mexico's corrupt ruling class.

Mexico is not a signatory to any "Monroe Doctrine". NO ONE IS. It ain't a treaty. Further, it was aimed at Europe, not Mexico.

Go buy a history book someday and learn what the hell it is before you embarrass yourself beyond all recognition.

/STILL off topic

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

No these courts have nothing to do with the constitution. The EOIR was formed in like the 80s and there wasn't any amendment for it. All countries reserve the right to expel without trial, these courts are set up to shut down any claims of human rights violation. Immigrants are deported without trial all the time. If boarder agents catch illegals crossing the boarder they are immediately sent back without trial. They don't apprehend them, take them to a court hearing and then deport them. If it's their second time being deported no trial is necessary. They are not under the 5th amendment. We reserve the right to expel without trial, we choose not to most of the time, this is not to be confused with the 5th. The only part of the constitution about immigration is the enumerated powers, giving federal government control of naturalization, THEY have control in this area.

Wrong again Sac. And by the way, I live 30 miles from the border. The only people deported without a trial are those that elect deportation without a trail. If they do not voluntarily give up their right for a trial, they are taken to court and given a choice between pleading guilty at their hearing, or go to the slammer and await trial. if they do that, they could stay in jail for weeks, or even months, and they will lose anyway, so almost all of them plead guilty and immediately deported. I have attended these trials. Nobody may be deported against his will without a trial. You can take that to the bank. In fact, the link that I posted covers all of this. Obviously you did not read most of it. Sorry, pal, but even your hero Trump can not bend the Constitution.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

And again when you cross the border without permission you have done so illegally.

And only a court of law can make the determination that someone crossed illegally. Not you, and certainly not Border Patrol. In fact, Border patrol does not even have the authority to search my car at a border station without probable cause:

 

[Billo_Really]

You're point was we are all illegal citizens if we are not Native American, for that to be true the USG would have to be an illegitimate government...no other way around that.

You don't tell me my point, I tell you. And I'm telling now for the 3rd time, that was not my point. You want to know what my point is, then f'ing ask me!

 

[Billo_Really]

So your saying immigration laws do not exist?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

 

[JoeMoma]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

 

[JoeMoma]

If they came here illegally, they are illegal aliens. Being a refugee doesn't negate the fact that the means of getting here was outside of the law...and hence illegal.

So what! Unless you're a native American, we all came here illegally.

I am a native american, born in south carolina. A Caucasian native American.

 

[JoeMoma]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

The man is presumed innocent. Big difference.