The Brutal Wake-Up Call Latino Voters Didn’t Expect

[daveman]

So you think God's plan includes breaking into someone's home (or country) and helping themselves to what someone else earned???

 

[Unkotare]

You don't know what it means. ...

Of course I do, and I have told you several times. You're still mistaken.

 

[AZrailwhale]

True. But to avoid family separation they plan to deport the citizens in the family along with the illegals.

Only if they are minors and have no other legal family to take them in.

 

[Lesh]

Not the legal ones. He'll, probably not a lot of the illegal ones. Now, if you are a gang member, drug dealer, or cartel member, yeah, he's going to try and deport those people.

The rest? I think it will be a bit more complicated.

So you knew that was never going to happen?

No shit. Well it better not.

Newsflash. Illegals that commit crimes are already being deported

 

[Seymour Flops]

US citizens don't need to be "allowed" to stay.

If they allow the parents of the citizens to stay.

That would make them - guess what? - anchor babies.

Tell me that never happens, I dare you . . .

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course I do, and I have told you several times. You're still mistaken.

Not once did you tell me.

 

[Unkotare]

If they allow the parents of the citizens to stay.

That would make them - guess what? - anchor babies.

Tell me that never happens, I dare you . . .

Nope.

 

[Unkotare]

Not once did you tell me.

Several times. You are still wrong.

 

[FA_Q2]

Miller is proposing stripping "naturalized" citizens and deporting them as well. Anyone who isn't white, isn't staying.

Uh huh. You are going to need more than because I said so.

 

[FA_Q2]

Much simpler if the court would rule that the 14th amendment's citizenship clause does not extend to people who are not lawfully in the US.

"Subject to the jurisdiction of" was understood to exclude children of diplomats and the Indian tribes who were not subject to the authority of the US Gov't. Why should someone who is here without permission be treated any differently? The Gov't did not authorize their entry.

Because they are subject to local law. Diplomats are not, they answer to the home nation rather than here.

Illegals do not, they commit crimes then we lock them up. If you want them to not be subjected to our jurisdiction then they would also not be subject to any of our laws. That is unworkable.

 

[FA_Q2]

Its called an internal critique but I would not expect you to be capable of understanding why that matters.

 

[para bellum]

Illegals do not, they commit crimes then we lock them up. If you want them to not be subjected to our jurisdiction then they would also not be subject to any of our laws. That is unworkable.

They commit crimes sometimes we lock them up, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we deport them too. They don't think they are subject to our laws when they come here illegally, so why let them hide behind our laws and stay here?

"Subject to the jurisdiction of" has never been defined by the court, maybe it's time...

 

[FA_Q2]

They commit crimes sometimes we lock them up, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we deport them too. They don't think they are subject to our laws when they come here illegally, so why let them hide behind our laws and stay here?

"Subject to the jurisdiction of" has never been defined by the court, maybe it's time...

It's meaning is well understood.

Trying to make it mean something else is not what a nation of laws does. Don't like it then I will say the same thing to you that I say to the gun grabbers - change the constitution. Until then, reinterpreting the constitution to mean what you ant it to mean is the same as just trashing it.

Are you a democrat now?

 

[para bellum]

It's meaning is well understood.

It's meaning depends on who you ask.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the language in the Constitution, and they have not weighed in on the question.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's meaning depends on who you ask.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the language in the Constitution, and they have not weighed in on the question.

No, it does not unless you are trying to make it mean something it does not.

Ill take that as a yes then, you have taken on a democrat's values when it comes to 'interpreting' the constitution.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you knew that was never going to happen?

No shit. Well it better not.

Newsflash. Illegals that commit crimes are already being deported

And he will continue doing that. Is this not a good thing?

In the article that you ask cite, that's what he is talking about.

When it comes down to it, he's not going to deport a family that has been here for twenty years. I just don't think that will happen.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Several times. You are still wrong.

Which post number?

Nope.

Of course you can’t say it never happens.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[struth]

Latino men voted for Trump. Latino men voted for their own deportation.

Why do you think people will be deported for simply being Latino?

Do you think all Latinos are illegal aliens?

Why are you such a bigot?

 

[Unkotare]

You don't have to. I know many families who have experienced what I told you. Your ignorance is no excuse for your insistence.

^^^