Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[BasicHumanUnit]

You are defending immigration.....
Without addressing the consequences......

In that respect...I could say the same thing you said about him.....

danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously.

And I thought YOU said this was to be a name-calling less discussion....yet there you go

 

[danielpalos]

That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’

Of course being an undocumented immigrant means he is illegal!! That's the very definition of an illegal alien. They all need to be caught and deported.

Leftists like you keep trying to define things out of existence, by telling us what we can't say.

Too bad. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it, to quote Eloise. Build the Wall.

the right wing loves to, "order up a bunch of socialism on a national basis", and then refuse to pay for it. Vandals.

 

[Humorme]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think? Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes? An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration. Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people? Another poll found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with. And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states. Why? Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Sorry, not buying that. It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.

Your poll would not reflect that even if they were polling people at a KKK rally.

Talk to the ABC News/Washington Post about the 1st poll, and Harvard-Harris about the 2nd one.

You did not cite the poll

Polls don't vote, people do

People vote every day with the checkbooks, debit cards and the cash in their wallet. They WILLINGLY hire, rent to, buy from, sell to, and otherwise do business with people who don't have human registration papers. THAT is the only poll that matters in this context.

 

[Humorme]

That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’

Of course being an undocumented immigrant means he is illegal!! That's the very definition of an illegal alien. They all need to be caught and deported.

Leftists like you keep trying to define things out of existence, by telling us what we can't say.

Too bad. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it, to quote Eloise. Build the Wall.

You are DEAD WRONG. My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You are DEAD WRONG. My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

The INTENT of the 14th amendment was NOT to have open borders.
It's not even a matter of innocence.

jeez.

And you never addressed my post. You simply asked why I quoted you.
I'm waiting for a reasonable and responsible reply........if you can come up with one

 

[Circe]

[ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.

 

[Humorme]

You are defending immigration.....
Without addressing the consequences......

In that respect...I could say the same thing you said about him.....

danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously.

And I thought YOU said this was to be a name-calling less discussion....yet there you go

danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for thousands of posts. Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest. Of course she knows it.

What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom. Your view has NO basis in fact. What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.

Bottom line: We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil. It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one. When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.

As for your LIE about immigration, I have said it how many times... YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???

 

[Humorme]

[ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.

You don't know what you're talking about. If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home. If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO BE HERE.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

[ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.

Well....that's where the debate on immigration gets heated.
The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.

So in one respect he's correct. Unfortunately.

However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders of for that ot be abused as it is today.
Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened. What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?

Is that a difficult question to answer? Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.

 

[danielpalos]

[ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.

10USC246 is also federal law.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for thousands of posts. Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest. Of course she knows it.

What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom. Your view has NO basis in fact. What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.

Bottom line: We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil. It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one. When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.

As for your LIE about immigration, I have said it how many times... YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???

If you want a private discussion....exchange phone numbers. Otherwise deal with it.

You are only partially correct.

The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.

So in one respect you're correct. Unfortunately. But you ignore the INTENT. In legal terms, intent is as much a part of the law as the written word. ANY good defense or prosecuting attorney knows that. Its what most cases are won or lost over.

However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders or for that to be abused as it is today.
Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened. What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?

Is that a difficult question to answer? Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.

 

[danielpalos]

You are defending immigration.....
Without addressing the consequences......

In that respect...I could say the same thing you said about him.....

danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously.

And I thought YOU said this was to be a name-calling less discussion....yet there you go

danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for thousands of posts. Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest. Of course she knows it.

What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom. Your view has NO basis in fact. What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.

Bottom line: We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil. It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one. When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.

As for your LIE about immigration, I have said it how many times... YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???

you are just for socialism on a national basis and want to refuse to pay for it.

 

[Circe]

You don't know what you're talking about. If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home. If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO BE HERE.

Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!

If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.

Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.

Hope on, hope ever.

 

[task0778]

[ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.

You don't know what you're talking about. If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home. If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO BE HERE.

If they entered this country then they have broken a federal law, i.e., committed an illegal act. Hence they are already guilty of something.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!

If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.

Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.

Hope on, hope ever.

He's completely avoiding the INTENT of the law....for his convenience. He keep throwing in your face that they ARE legal citizens (the children of illegals) because of the 14th and in a purely abstract sense, he is correct.

Where he falls short (and always will) is the fact that this was never the intent of the 14th. Times have changed and circumstances are vastly different than they were then. Immigration today causes a real and present danger to American lives and our nations existence. The "American culture" is already lost forever and I won't judge that good or bad......but I will say that having a nation of uncontrolled borders is a suicide path for the nation ultimately.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you're talking about. If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home. If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO BE HERE.

Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!

If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.

Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.

Hope on, hope ever.

Only illegals are illegal to 10USC246.

 

[Coyote]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think? Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes? An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration. Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people? Another poll found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with. And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states. Why? Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Sorry, not buying that. It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.

You don't prove negatives. It's up to the people claiming that they are to prove it and they have yet to do so beyond a handful of small cases that are mostly accidental. I would much rather see law enforcement dollars spent on mitigating serious crime - like opiod abuse, drug cartels and trafficking, murder, rape and gang violence. As I said before - I have no issue with illegals who have committed violent crimes being given an expedited boot.

Many of those same polls also show strong support for DACA and a path to legal citizenship.

 

[Coyote]

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

There is little to no credible evidence Trump is a racist...but you still believe it....why?

I base it on his own words.

 

[Humorme]

[ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.

Well....that's where the debate on immigration gets heated.
The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.

So in one respect he's correct. Unfortunately.

However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders of for that ot be abused as it is today.
Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened. What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?

Is that a difficult question to answer? Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.

We can keep going round and round like a rodent on a treadmill OR you can choose to acknowledge (even if you disagree) what I said.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was illegally ratified. It does not matter what the original intent was. It was illegally ratified and deliberately misinterpreted. AND, adding insult to injury, the United States Supreme Court claims that they are the final arbiters of what the law is.

So, you're not arguing against me. You are arguing against facts. And the fact is, America was founded for the benefit of white Christians. Our system of government, our foundational principles, our jurisprudence, our values, our sense of right and wrong were the products of white Christians.

The entire build the wall - deport 'em all plan is the work of a former neo - nazi turned KKK member who had a lot of people believing that we could reclaim our cultural / racial heritage with the nutty wall idea.

What they are too stupid to understand is that I fully understand their concern. I'm just not willing to give up my own Freedoms and Liberties on the delusional belief that we're going to reclaim this country - and somehow cater to the very people the white extremists have denounced for the last 225 + years. The occasional token black person swayed by an easily disproven economic argument does not count.

The sovereignty of our nation is threatened by the people too ignorant to examine the fact that there is a difference between the unalienable Rights of all men versus the privileges / benefits / immunities of citizens. They would destroy America on the installment plan under the delusion that we can apply the immigration laws to keep people out for no apparent reason.

If you buy into the notion that we are all equal, blah, blah, blah then you don't have a credible argument in order to keep other people out. It is not the migration of people that threatens sovereignty. It is the absolute nonsensical view that we must make citizens out of anyone that washes up on our shores.

 

[Humorme]

You are DEAD WRONG. My main concern has nothing to do with so - called "illegal aliens" It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence NOT a presumption that a person is guilty.

The INTENT of the 14th amendment was NOT to have open borders.
It's not even a matter of innocence.

jeez.

And you never addressed my post. You simply asked why I quoted you.
I'm waiting for a reasonable and responsible reply........if you can come up with one

My words you quoted show up in the post. IF there was anything else, it does not show up in your post. I told you that. That being the case, what do you want a response to?