Why isn't it considered traitorous when America's politicians push policy to benefit Mexico's people at the compromise and expense of Americans?

[danielpalos]

they PAY illegals for being------------------------------------ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

San Francisco to pay $190,000 for sanctuary law violation, lawyer says

A man from El Salvador in the U.S. illegally who sued San Francisco after police turned him over to immigration authorities in violation of the city's sanctuary law is set to be awarded $190,000, his attorney said Thursday.

www.latimes.com

We have a Tenth Amendment and no express Immigration clause. We should have no illegal problem nor any illegal underclass with our express Naturalization clause.

there is an illegal problem

Only because right wingers created the problem with immigration laws.

 

[danielpalos]

they PAY illegals for being------------------------------------ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

San Francisco to pay $190,000 for sanctuary law violation, lawyer says

A man from El Salvador in the U.S. illegally who sued San Francisco after police turned him over to immigration authorities in violation of the city's sanctuary law is set to be awarded $190,000, his attorney said Thursday.

www.latimes.com

We have a Tenth Amendment and no express Immigration clause. We should have no illegal problem nor any illegal underclass with our express Naturalization clause.

Oh Danny...again, let me teach you for free......We have a Declaration Of Independence which means we are not part of Mexico, we have a United States Constitution and the first words are "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES".....notice it does not say "We The People Of The United States AND MEXICO".........this indicates that our rights do not extend to the people of Mexico...I'm sorry Gustavo....you're fucked.

Then there's this.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

Upgrade and re-open Ellis Island. Or, Capitalism, what is That, sayeth the Right Wing when not in socialism threads.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Sanctuary cities do not in any way shape or form benefit Americans.....DACA does not in any way shape of form benefit Americans.
These are just two examples...and the truth is; both absolutely **** American blacks over the most.
Why can't conservatives gain any traction with this talking point? Why haven't they shown the American public the details and effects?
Is the American public simply too stupid to understand?

...particularly when addressing the issue of children lawfully brought to the United States who subsequently lost their immigration status through no fault of their own.

Did you mean children brought to the United States by their parents who entered unlawfully? That's who I thought DACA was provided to protect.

 

[Agit8r]

It's amazing that the far-right today are more bigoted than folks were 220 years ago

"If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens."
-- James Madison; from Report of 1800

 

[BrokeLoser]

It's amazing that the far-right today are more bigoted than folks were 220 years ago

"If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens."
-- James Madison; from Report of 1800

You mean 220 years ago when we needed the "aliens" Madison was speaking of...when we vetted said aliens through Ellis?
Let me remind you; you hate old America...no cherry-picking bud.

 

[Agit8r]

It's amazing that the far-right today are more bigoted than folks were 220 years ago

"If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens."
-- James Madison; from Report of 1800

You mean 220 years ago when we needed the "aliens" Madison was speaking of...when we vetted said aliens through Ellis?
Let me remind you; you hate old America...no cherry-picking bud.

Ellis Island wasn't used for that function in 1800

About a century off, there

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sanctuary cities do not in any way shape or form benefit Americans.....DACA does not in any way shape of form benefit Americans.
These are just two examples...and the truth is; both absolutely **** American blacks over the most.
Why can't conservatives gain any traction with this talking point? Why haven't they shown the American public the details and effects?
Is the American public simply too stupid to understand?

The term “Treason” gets thrown around an awful lot, from both sides, by those who have no idea what it really means. In England, it was a term that could be applied to any alleged crime against the King, and was pretty much a generic catch-all to punish any form of dissent. Because of this use, the great men who wrote our Constitution included a very narrow and specific definition of what could be prosecuted as treason, in Article 3, Section 3 of our Constitution.

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

​

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.​

Now, as to the question in your OP, that's obviously a matter of propaganda. As a matter of objective fact, the policies that you describe •ARE• treason, exactly as defined in the Constitution. They constitute adhering to foreign enemies who are illegally invading our country, giving them aid and comfort; which is what Article 3, Section 3 literally defines as treason.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The thread premise is a lie.

No one advocates for benefiting citizens of Mexico to the disadvantage of American citizens.

You're the one who is lying.

Those on your side openly do this; take the side side of invading foreign criminals against that of their own country and their own fellow Americans.

You fool no one by trying to deny it. You know that you're lying, we know that you're lying, and you know that we know that you're lying. What is the point in telling a lie that everyone knows is a lie?

Going on in your post to make bullshit excuses for the openly treasonous policies that you support does nothing to cover for the fact that these policies are treasonous, and that you and those on your side are openly supporting them.

 

[BrokeLoser]

It's amazing that the far-right today are more bigoted than folks were 220 years ago

"If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens."
-- James Madison; from Report of 1800

You mean 220 years ago when we needed the "aliens" Madison was speaking of...when we vetted said aliens through Ellis?
Let me remind you; you hate old America...no cherry-picking bud.

Ellis Island wasn't used for that function in 1800

Madison was speaking of the same "aliens".....Any person not British.
Remember, during Madison's administration he kept the "free white person" provision in the Naturalization Act Of 1802
What do you think that means...what did he think of dark people?

The United States Congress passed the Naturalization Law of 1802 on April 14, 1802.[1] The 1802 act replaced the Naturalization Act of 1798, and provided:

• The "free white" requirement remained in place
• The alien had to declare, at least three years in advance, his intent to become a U.S. citizen.
• The previous 14-year residency requirement was reduced to 5 years.
• Resident children of naturalized citizens were to be considered citizens
• Children born abroad of US citizens were to be considered citizens
• Former British soldiers during the "late war" were barred unless the state legislature made an exception for them

 

[Agit8r]

It's amazing that the far-right today are more bigoted than folks were 220 years ago

"If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens."
-- James Madison; from Report of 1800

You mean 220 years ago when we needed the "aliens" Madison was speaking of...when we vetted said aliens through Ellis?
Let me remind you; you hate old America...no cherry-picking bud.

Ellis Island wasn't used for that function in 1800

Madison was speaking of the same "aliens".....Any person not British.
Remember, during Madison's administration he kept the "free white person" provision in the Naturalization Act Of 1802
What do you think that means...what did he think of dark people?

The United States Congress passed the Naturalization Law of 1802 on April 14, 1802.[1] The 1802 act replaced the Naturalization Act of 1798, and provided:

• The "free white" requirement remained in place
• The alien had to declare, at least three years in advance, his intent to become a U.S. citizen.
• The previous 14-year residency requirement was reduced to 5 years.
• Resident children of naturalized citizens were to be considered citizens
• Children born abroad of US citizens were to be considered citizens
• Former British soldiers during the "late war" were barred unless the state legislature made an exception for them

First off, the aliens defended in the Report of 1800 were mostly French folks.

It's is fair to say that the same rules didn't apply to black folks, who had to carry around papers when they were free, and that wasn't always sufficient protection.

They were however logical enough not to consider natives of the continent to be aliens. They were neighbors. Sometimes good neighbors. Sometimes hostile. Much as Tacitus romanticised the virtues of the Germanic peoples, so too did Jefferson romanticise the Native Americans:

"having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government... Their only controuls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature"
-- Notes on Virginia; Query XI

 

[basquebromance]

Saying you want a pro-immigration Republican Party means you want no Republican Party

 

[danielpalos]

Those on your side openly do this; take the side side of invading foreign criminals against that of their own country and their own fellow Americans.

Some of us are for faithful execution of our own laws not arbitrary and capricious right wing bigotry.

 

[AMart]

Sanctuary cities do not in any way shape or form benefit Americans.....DACA does not in any way shape of form benefit Americans.
These are just two examples...and the truth is; both absolutely **** American blacks over the most.
Why can't conservatives gain any traction with this talking point? Why haven't they shown the American public the details and effects?
Is the American public simply too stupid to understand?

That an immigrant might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s ‘illegal.’

All persons in the United States are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, including those undocumented, consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence (see Plyler v. Doe (1982)).

Consequently, those undocumented are entitled to a presumption of innocence and a hearing before an immigration judge.

Moreover, it is neither the role nor responsibility of states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal law – including immigration law; indeed, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from compelling states to enforce Federal law. Doing so is the sole purview of the Federal government (see Printz v. United States (1997)).

Likewise, DACA represents the Federal government following the rule of law and affording undocumented immigrants due process and a presumption of innocence, particularly when addressing the issue of children lawfully brought to the United States who subsequently lost their immigration status through no fault of their own.

Following the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law benefits the American people and the nation as a whole.

SCOTUS ruled that POTUS 100% has the right to end DACA but because it might be a "hardship" that there needed to some sort of a BS plan. They basically said here are your instructions to refile.

 

[AMart]

Virtually all Dems politicians were pro border enforcement, against illegal immigration, etc until Trump came along. Hillary, Obama and Schumer all voted yes for the Secure Fence Act in 2006 under which the USA built hundreds of miles of border fencing. You leftists are hilarious.

 

[anotherlife]

Why? Because long gone are the days when the American dollar was produced and bought by Americans.

Today nobody knows in the public when the dollar comes from and goes to. And those people who control that are not Americans.

 

[MarathonMike]

Sanctuary cities do not in any way shape or form benefit Americans.....DACA does not in any way shape of form benefit Americans.
These are just two examples...and the truth is; both absolutely **** American blacks over the most.
Why can't conservatives gain any traction with this talking point? Why haven't they shown the American public the details and effects?
Is the American public simply too stupid to understand?

The Democratic Party works for open borders, illegal immigrant rights, defunding and defaming Police. Add to that they have been infiltrated by the Chinese Communists and the Retard-Elect in in President Xi's back pocket.

 

[theHawk]

Sanctuary cities do not in any way shape or form benefit Americans.....DACA does not in any way shape of form benefit Americans.
These are just two examples...and the truth is; both absolutely **** American blacks over the most.
Why can't conservatives gain any traction with this talking point? Why haven't they shown the American public the details and effects?
Is the American public simply too stupid to understand?

Your first mistake is believing that the left, who support these insane policies, give a damn about what is good for America.

These people absolutely hate the US, or at the very least feel shame and guilt about our history and because they believe our nation is inherently racist and thus evil.

Once you accept that these people have embraced Marxism, whether they even realize it or not, then it’s easy to predict they will always support a policy that is bad for America, and will never support a policy that is good for America. They have a deep seeded hatred to “white America”, that is our European (mostly British) cultural heritage, Christian values, and capitalist economic system that rewards competence, ingenuity, and hard work.

Their one goal is to eradicate whites, Christians, and capitalism. So with that in mind, why wouldn’t they support sanctuary cities and mass immigration?