Sign in to follow this  
Polytelum Tom

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

Recommended Posts

Guest
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'd answer no but for a different reason. Unlike the person in the topic post, for example, she's not part of our national community. She just showed up.

But whether for your reason, my reason, or the religious right's reason, we all arrive at the same conclusion. No. At least regarding that person.

A solution not too different from yours is noted in the pleadings I read. She could just go back to her country.

If she could find a sponsoring family here, they could take her to get the abortion.

This really is all about a ride and some associated responsibility and paperwork.

Tom, I'm actually quite shocked that you would answer No.  I assumed that since you believe that ALL people that happen to be standing on US soil, whether for 15 min or 15 years, gets ALL the rights to THE PEOPLE.  Didn't you say that illegal immigrants should be able to have gunz?  I don't think they should.  They are not "THE PEOPLE".  And they are certainly not in jocal's indoor militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tom, I'm actually quite shocked that you would answer No.  I assumed that since you believe that ALL people that happen to be standing on US soil, whether for 15 min or 15 years, gets ALL the rights to THE PEOPLE.  Didn't you say that illegal immigrants should be able to have gunz?  I don't think they should.  They are not "THE PEOPLE".  And they are certainly not in jocal's indoor militia.

Someone who grew up here is more part of our community than someone who just wandered across the border. I don't see why that's surprising.

Both may be illegal immigrants but they're different to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Someone who grew up here is more part of our community than someone who just wandered across the border. I don't see why that's surprising.

Both may be illegal immigrants but they're different to me.

Different to you, maybe. However the law shouldn't be treating them any different. Either illegal immigrants are THE PEOPLE according to the Constitution or they are not. The document makes no reference to their place/part in the community, their length of time in the country, etc. You're being inconsistent. Again.

I'm not arguing for either definition of THE PEOPLE, persons on US soil & under US jurisdiction or solely US citizens (so the usual leg-humping trolls should restrain themselves before informing me once again that I'm Aussie :rolleyes: ). However, I do believe that the rule should be consistent so that the judicial branch can use the common definition to inform their decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of people move to Texas for various reasons. 

I really do not understand why those who come from New York, Minnesota, and California, are treated so much more nicely than those who come from our south side.

they all seem like human beings to me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Different to you, maybe. However the law shouldn't be treating them any different. Either illegal immigrants are THE PEOPLE according to the Constitution or they are not. The document makes no reference to their place/part in the community, their length of time in the country, etc. You're being inconsistent. Again.

I'm not arguing for either definition of THE PEOPLE, persons on US soil & under US jurisdiction or solely US citizens (so the usual leg-humping trolls should restrain themselves before informing me once again that I'm Aussie :rolleyes: ). However, I do believe that the rule should be consistent so that the judicial branch can use the common definition to inform their decisions. 

Too bad you were not around back in 1990 when I decided US v Verdugo-Urquidez. You could have saved me the embarrassment of putting this in my holdings.

Quote

(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260]   refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Too bad you were not around back in 1990 when I decided US v Verdugo-Urquidez. You could have saved me the embarrassment of putting this in my holdings.

Too bad that decision was about actions taken against "aliens outside United States territory" and that I was pretty explicit about issue involving "persons on US soil & under US jurisdiction". Otherwise you'd have an actual point. Sadly, as per your usual schtick, you have to misrepresent what people say in order to pretend you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Someone who grew up here is more part of our community than someone who just wandered across the border. I don't see why that's surprising.

Both may be illegal immigrants but they're different to me.

I thought you once said that a Japanese tourist should be able to buy a gun while on vacay here???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this only applies outside the US?

Quote

This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260]   refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Where did you get that idea?

That's not the only court decision I have rendered saying the same thing, btw. That's why the topic article reads the way it does, though they strangely omitted my role in all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Different to you, maybe. However the law shouldn't be treating them any different. Either illegal immigrants are THE PEOPLE according to the Constitution or they are not. The document makes no reference to their place/part in the community, their length of time in the country, etc. You're being inconsistent. Again.

I'm not arguing for either definition of THE PEOPLE, persons on US soil & under US jurisdiction or solely US citizens (so the usual leg-humping trolls should restrain themselves before informing me once again that I'm Aussie :rolleyes: ). However, I do believe that the rule should be consistent so that the judicial branch can use the common definition to inform their decisions. 

Holy shit...... someone please note this in the official record.  I actually agree with Bentley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2015 at 4:12 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes. And I'd even give him a note explaining the situation to take back and show to the government of Japan when he tries to bring in his gun.

 

I wonder if they'd accept it?

You didn't realize that was a sarcastic response to your question, Jeff?

What do you think the answer to the question is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Holy shit...... someone please note this in the official record.  I actually agree with Bentley.

And you've said that before too. Despite your incapability to be reasonable about firearms - you've agreed with me on a variety of topics. Get past your fixation on who is saying something and you might find you're not as unique as you'd like to think ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So this only applies outside the US?

Where did you get that idea?

That's not the only court decision I have rendered saying the same thing, btw. That's why the topic article reads the way it does, though they strangely omitted my role in all of this.

The case was specifically about foreign citizens in a foreign territory. Like it or not, that is it's precedential area of application. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Someone who grew up here is more part of our community than someone who just wandered across the border. I don't see why that's surprising.

Both may be illegal immigrants but they're different to me.

Tom, I agree with you in principle on this.  But as bents, said the law needs to be consistent.  To me THE PEOPLE consist of those who are here legally and permanently.  So that discounts tourists and illegal aliens.  They are entitled to some of the rights that citizens and permanent rezidents (Green cards) enjoy - such as not being tortured if arrested and access to a fair trial.

I think a very simple test of if you are THE PEOPLE is:  can you vote in local and state elections?  Green card holders and US citizens (Birth and naturalized) can, but tourists, illegal aliens, and Felons cannot (unless they have their voting rights restored).  So to me that covers pretty much everyone.  Felons, illegal aliens and tourists cannot (and should not) buy gunz.  

I still have a HUGE problem with the SCOTUS decision back when that said that all children of illegal immigrants are entitled to get a free education here.  I get the compassionate concept, but I think it was a HUGE incentive for people to break the law to come here for a free education.  Its not our place in the world to fix everyone or every broken country.  I am also vehemently against automatic citizenship to kids who happen to fall out of the womb of two illegal immigrants and touch US dirt.  Its BS.  If one of the parents is a US citizen, then fine.  But I think its a fucked up holdover from the Emancipation days and its usefulness is long over.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You didn't realize that was a sarcastic response to your question, Jeff?

What do you think the answer to the question is?

No, I got the sarcasm at the time.  But I still took away that you support a tourist buying a gun.  Do I have that wrong?  And for the record, I would have no issue with a tourist buying a gun as long as there was a clear export process and a specific permission from the country he/she was importing it back into.  But no, I don't think a tourist from wherever should be able to buy a gun here in the US and then it just "disappear" into the ether.  Its not so much the gun itself that bothers me, but the fact that the tourist is not part of THE PEOPLE and certainly is not part of the militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

The case was specifically about foreign citizens in a foreign territory. Like it or not, that is it's precedential area of application. 

I've really gotta get you on staff. When can you move here?

When I decided US v Mesa-Rodriguez, I repeatedly cited the case you said is inapplicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But I still took away that you support a tourist buying a gun.  Do I have that wrong?

Yes. I was being silly. I thought the bit about the mass market for used Glocks from exiting Japanese made it clear.

Visiting doesn't make you part of the community that I spoke about in the various court decisions I have rendered over the years. Or maybe it isn't all about me and that's just BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I've really gotta get you on staff. When can you move here?

When I decided US v Mesa-Rodriguez, I repeatedly cited the case you said is inapplicable.

You mean that case SCOTUS denied the petition to create a precedent on? The one that didn't actually go so far as to say foreign citizens don't have Second Amendment rights within US jurisdiction, but that the law prohibiting illegal aliens from possessing firearms and ammunition "does not unnecessarily burden" those rights?

Once again, in order for you to pretend you are correct, you need to misrepresent what was said. Sad that you're that predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You mean that case SCOTUS denied the petition to create a precedent on? The one that didn't actually go so far as to say foreign citizens don't have Second Amendment rights within US jurisdiction, but that the law prohibiting illegal aliens from possessing firearms and ammunition "does not unnecessarily burden" those rights?

Once again, in order for you to pretend you are correct, you need to misrepresent what was said. Sad that you're that predictable.

Yes, I mean the one that didn't involve foreign territory. Are you sure I was wrong to cite the case I did in my opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, I mean the one that didn't involve foreign territory. Are you sure I was wrong to cite the case I did in my opinion?

Doesn't matter what one argues, it matters what they decided on. Final verdict was rendered based on the fact the law in question wasn't a burden on Second Amendment rights. It did not rule that illegal immigrants did not have those rights. The decision does not support your argument and you need to misrepresent the ruling in order to make it "fit".

Now, you'll have to find someone else to Favre on. I'm done for the night and going up for dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the topic article:

Quote

In Meza-Rodriguez, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did not side with the Justice Department’s arguments, but that places them alone among the federal appeals courts that have considered this issue. As Judge Diane Wood explains in her opinion for the court, the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have all agreed that, at least for Second Amendment purposes, undocumented immigrants are not part of “the people.”

From the opinion I had Judge Woods ghost-write for me:

Quote

The  conclusion  that  the  term  “the  people”  in  the  Second Amendment  has  the  same  meaning  as  it  carries  in  other parts of the Bill of Rights is just the first step in our analysis. We still must decide what it means.

The fact that I then told her to conclude that second amendment rights are not burdened doesn't change the conclusion I had her draw about who "the people" are.

Nor the fact that I made her cite a case that Bent would have informed her has no applicability to this case. If he had only been here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

From the topic article:

From the opinion I had Judge Woods ghost-write for me:

The fact that I then told her to conclude that second amendment rights are not burdened doesn't change the conclusion I had her draw about who "the people" are.

Nor the fact that I made her cite a case that Bent would have informed her has no applicability to this case. If he had only been here.

The decision doesn't support your view, no matter how many ways you wish to spin it. It explicitly states that it does not adopt the government's rationale regarding illegal immigrants not having Second Amendment rights. 

That decision and it's rationale was not overriden by SCOTUS, so until they do, you're stuck with misrepresentations. Like usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigUnot said:

He's left the basement mate, mum called him up for dinner and changed the wifi password until he finishes his homework.

Oh look. The leg-humping sock is back. Fuck me but you're predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

The decision doesn't support your view,

Sure it does. I had it ghost-written for me. How could it not?

Quote

The  conclusion  that  the  term  “the  people”  in  the  Second Amendment  has  the  same  meaning  as  it  carries  in  other parts of the Bill of Rights is just the first step in our analysis.

That first step is my view and the point of this thread. I'm not sure what other view you think I support. Maybe if you quoted a post expressing that view I would be less confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Sure it does. I had it ghost-written for me. How could it not?

Because it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Ghost written or otherwise.

 

Quote

That first step is my view and the point of this thread. I'm not sure what other view you think I support. Maybe if you quoted a post expressing that view I would be less confused.

That first step doesn't negate the rest of the actual decision which states:

The district court denied his motion on the broad ground that the Second Amendment does not protect
unauthorized aliens. That rationale swept too far, and we do not endorse it.

Like it or not, the court disagrees with the broad notion that unauthorised aliens do not have Second Amendment rights. That is the decision that stands. Regardless of what other people argued, what the government sought to cite, and what you'd like it to say - just as the Plyler v. Doe (1982) ruled that being an illegal alien does not preclude a person from their rights under the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendment, the final decision of US v. Meza-Rodriguez (2015) ruled that being an illegal alien does not preclude a person from their Second Amendment rights. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that is the law. Misrepresenting it to score Internet Points isn't going to change that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

ruled that being an illegal alien does not preclude a person from their Second Amendment rights. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that is the law.

But I do like it, agree with it, and know it's the law. That's kind of the point of this thread. My answer to the topic question is yes.

Not sure what view you imagine I have but I can see why you didn't try to find and quote a post expressing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But I do like it, agree with it, and know it's the law. That's kind of the point of this thread. My answer to the topic question is yes.

Good to know. That was the point of me refuting your misrepresentation of the two cases you brought up.

 

6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Not sure what view you imagine I have but I can see why you didn't try to find and quote a post expressing it.

Not sure why you imagine I'd be willing to play you game. No-one really cares what your "view" is. Only when you state something incorrect. Now prove to everyone you can't let it go. I'm done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BigUnot said:

Bulletin boards are real time examples of the robbers cave experiments.

Bent is seeking a higher place in the hierarchy.

Go back to stalking Meli. At least everyone understood your fetish for older women... really creeps me out what it is you think you'd get from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Holy shit...... someone please note this in the official record.  I actually agree with Bentley.

So a bunch of Russians wearing scaring green clothes and carrying scary black guns could come across the border and they be ‘the people’?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Not sure why you imagine I'd be willing to play you game. No-one really cares what your "view" is.

You invented a view for me and now won't even tell me what it is? You cared enough to invent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Go back to stalking Meli. At least everyone understood your fetish for older women... really creeps me out what it is you think you'd get from me.

A rise. Every. Fucking. Time.

It's a peculiar trait of most of you WBF/Sailnet refugees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
22 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Now prove to everyone you can't let it go.

You invented a view for me and now won't even tell me what it is? You cared enough to invent it.

Thanks. Now can we move on?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BigUnot said:

A rise. Every. Fucking. Time.

It's a peculiar trait of most of you WBF/Sailnet refugees.

That's all you're after? Wow, you do live a shallow existence. But thanks for clarifying all you bring to the table. Ignore list it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2015 at 9:00 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

The 7th Circuit Says Yes...

I wondered what Mariano Meza-Rodriguez was up to these days and how he felt about shutting down the government over people like him.

Wow. It's like he ceased to exist in 2015. A bit of lingering discussion in 2016 and then almost nothing in 2017 and 2018. Legal geeks were still barely interested.

I guess he's not a convenient topic of conversation for some reason.

The topic article did contain this bit of wisdom:

Quote

The court’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to undocumented immigrants is obviously wrong. Even if such immigrants don’t count as part of “the people,” the Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio that the Constitution’s guarantee that no “person” may be denied liberty without due process of law includes the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. And, in light of the Supreme Court’s bizarre conclusion that corporations count as “persons,” it would be quite a stretch to claim that actual human beings who happen to have entered the United States illegally are somehow not persons.

Oddly, the link goes to the Citizens United decision, not Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific. I suspect that if some cen$oriou$ politician were to decide that Think Progress could not $pend money $preading such fake news, the idea that the first amendment applies to Think Progress would suddenly seem a lot less bizarre. Riling up low information voters by giving them the idea that half of the Supreme Court just suddenly, for no reason at all, decided that corporations are people is just too much fun, as Eva Dent. Cen$oring that kind of fun would be unthinkable.

In any case, corporations are connected to the community by their charters and that's different from how illegal aliens are connected.

Quote

In casting aside the claim that undocumented immigrants categorically are not part of “the people” protected by the various parts of the Constitution, Judge Wood’s opinion relies heavily on a previous Supreme Court decision which said that “aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.” The defendant in Meza-Rodriguez lived in the United States for years, attended public schools and “developed close relationships with family members and other acquaintances” in the United States and worked in this country. According to the Seventh Circuit, that was more than enough to establish the kind of “substantial connections” to the United States necessary to bring him under the Constitution’s umbrella.

Someone who grew up here is more part of our community than someone who just wandered across the border. I don't see why that's surprising.

Both may be illegal immigrants but they're different to me.

Those connections to the community are the reasons that the immigration hard liners will ultimately lose the Battle of the Buttheads that is causing the current government shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Even if such immigrants don’t count as part of “the people,” the Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio that the Constitution’s guarantee that no “person” may be denied liberty without due process of law includes the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures.

See, they are not "The People".  Just because they are given some rights as the rest of the THE PEOPLE, doesn't mean they are "the people".  They are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We visit the States several times a year - are we not entitled to the same protections you are while we are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

See, they are not "The People".  Just because they are given some rights as the rest of the THE PEOPLE, doesn't mean they are "the people".  They are not.

They are when they have developed substantial connections.

For those who don't,

44 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

We visit the States several times a year - are we not entitled to the same protections you are while we are there?

I'd reiterate that

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

the Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio that the Constitution’s guarantee that no “person” may be denied liberty without due process of law includes the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures.

We have other rights, though. Scary ones. Ones we probably won't share with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenge for conservatives on this forum:   Illegals are of course illegal, therefore bad.   They also work very hard, often several jobs, without any legal protections.  They pay taxes without benefit or representation.  They are disproportionately Christian.    They can be exiled to the Wastes if they cause trouble or get uppity.   Doesn't that make them ideal Americans by the conservative model?

   Image result for judge dredd wastes

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

Challenge for conservatives on this forum:   Illegals are of course illegal, therefore bad.   They also work very hard, often several jobs, without any legal protections.  They pay taxes without benefit or representation.  They are disproportionately Christian.    They can be exiled to the Wastes if they cause trouble or get uppity.   Doesn't that make them ideal Americans by the conservative model?

   Image result for judge dredd wastes

 

I'm not much of a conservative but I think  conservatives would think they were ideal Americans if they followed to rules to get here in the first place and then worked hard, paid taxes, and were disproportionately Christian. 

It's pretty cynical to imagine ' conservatives' consider people that are weak and easily manipulatable to be 'Ideal Americans'.

Normally I wouldn't comment but I figured since you made it a challenge, I'd try :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No.  For instance you are not allowed to vote.  Or buy a gun.  Or run for office.  Only "The People" get to do that kind of cool stuff.  

Those are rights & privileges, not "protections".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

Challenge for conservatives on this forum:   Illegals are of course illegal, therefore bad.   They also work very hard, often several jobs, without any legal protections.  They pay taxes without benefit or representation.  They are disproportionately Christian.    They can be exiled to the Wastes if they cause trouble or get uppity.   Doesn't that make them ideal Americans by the conservative model?

   Image result for judge dredd wastes

 

Well, maybe they should expend all that effort into coming in to the US legally.  I'm thinking guys like this aren't too employable but I'd have to see their papers to determine if they are valid immigrants.  They don't look like folks who like filling out the paper work or passing background checks to enter legally.

ms4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I'm not much of a conservative but I think  conservatives would think they were ideal Americans if they followed to rules to get here in the first place and then worked hard, paid taxes, and were disproportionately Christian. 

It's pretty cynical to imagine ' conservatives' consider people that are weak and easily manipulatable to be 'Ideal Americans'.

The Republicans and Trump supporters I am surrounded by suggest otherwise.   They lack healthcare, the elderly and kids are on Medicaid.   They aren't rich enough to benefit more than slightly and temporarily from the Billionaire Relief Act of 2017.   They love to fish so should be the primary beneficiaries of the clean water act.   I may benefit more than all but a couple of my team combined, but am not rich enough to truly benefit from most Republican policy.   It appears some redundancy in the federal gov may have been eased with current policy by combining task forces between and inside agencies that are serving similar functions.   Any savings was offset by the cost of the Syria missile strike alone.    

Normally I wouldn't comment but I figured since you made it a challenge, I'd try :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Well, maybe they should expend all that effort into coming in to the US legally.  I'm thinking guys like this aren't too employable but I'd have to see their papers to determine if they are valid immigrants.  They don't look like folks who like filling out the paper work or passing background checks to enter legally.

ms4.jpg

Image result for Trailer park trash for trumpImage result for trump supporter with tattoo

If they were white they would probably be Trump supporters.   

You cannot come to the US legally.  Its pretty hard without a large corporation or family member giving you the 'in'.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lark said:

Image result for Trailer park trash for trumpImage result for trump supporter with tattoo

If they were white they would probably be Trump supporters.   

You cannot come to the US legally.  Its pretty hard without a large corporation or family member giving you the 'in'.  

 

I actually asked a guy with 'tribal' tattoos "What tribe?".  He seemed puzzled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Well, maybe they should expend all that effort into coming in to the US legally.  I'm thinking guys like this aren't too employable but I'd have to see their papers to determine if they are valid immigrants.  They don't look like folks who like filling out the paper work or passing background checks to enter legally.

ms4.jpg

 

By the way, both of those guys aren't in the US.  They're in "prison" in El Salvador (http://avax.news/fact/Crime_Life_in_El_Salvador.html)

https://www.panos.co.uk/preview/00165994.html?p=30

So it's a bit of a false equivalence to say you don't want immigrants like those guys.  They aren't immigrants, they're prisoners in an El Salvadoran jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lark said:

Image result for Trailer park trash for trumpImage result for trump supporter with tattoo

If they were white they would probably be Trump supporters.   

You cannot come to the US legally.  Its pretty hard without a large corporation or family member giving you the 'in'.  

 

All your baristas are belong Trump?????

img_0395.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

All your baristas are belong Trump?????

img_0395.jpg

Toothless titty is just a guess, she looks like she could live in one of the trailer parks found around here.   That demographic is deep red and still very pro Trump.   

The angry white guy with the tats has a friend carrying a Trump sign, so he seems like a safe guess.  I didn't meet him, he could have been for the Green party and was attempting to educate his friend.   

The Barista isn't obese, has her teeth, the visible tats have good color without smearing but don't include a cross or a NASCAR number.    She doesn't fit the local Republican demographic.   She reminds me of my liberal cousin, the owner of a masters degree who worked as a barista for a while.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Those are rights & privileges, not "protections".

They are the same thing.  I have a "right" to privacy. therefore I am "protected" from illegal search and seizure.  I have a "right" to due process under the law, therefore I am "protected" from illegal imprisonment.  I have a "right" to vote, therefore I am "protected" from being disenfranchised.  The 2A says I have a right to keep and bear arms, therefore I am protected from having my gunz taken away.

In fact the word "protection" is not used once in the Bill of Rights that I could find.  They are ALL rights that protect citizens from certain bad things happening to them.

When non-citizens visit the United States, they are afforded some of those same rights - but not all - that citizens are afforded.  Therefore - you furiners are not "The People".  

 

There's rights and then there's RIGHTS. Your "protection" is far weaker than you think, it basically amounts to whether or not a court will agree. Just like a cop can shoot you on the street, a lot of various gov't agencies can do whatever they want and your "protection" is to sue them afterwards.

There is no "protection police" to call when your privacy is being violated, or when you find that your voter registration has been wiped, or when the normal police have unrightfully taken what they call evidence away from you and tossed you in the hoosegow for a while.

Another level of protection is built into education, what we used to call "civics" is the study of what rights and obligations citizens have under our laws and system of gov't. When citizens go into a law enforcement career, they (hopefully) build on that with more education and lots of training..... when education is cut short obviously this process suffers at all levels.

To a very large extent, furriners visiting the US are protected by the same process that protects your own rights...... they will be treated like anybody else UNTIL taken in charge by some agency or another and the LEOs say "aha, a Canuckistani! We don't have to Miranda this guy (etc etc)." Then of course, just like you or me, it's a matter for the court to straighten out.

This is why Trumps arrogantly ignorant right-wing activist judge picks are a bigger threat to freedom in the US than anything else he's done. I fully expect one of them to announce that not only are furriners not protected by the Constitution, but brown and/or poor people also don't qualify.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lark said:

Toothless titty is just a guess, she looks like she could live in one of the trailer parks found around here.   That demographic is deep red and still very pro Trump.   

The angry white guy with the tats has a friend carrying a Trump sign, so he seems like a safe guess.  I didn't meet him, he could have been for the Green party and was attempting to educate his friend.   

The Barista isn't obese, has her teeth, the visible tats have good color without smearing but don't include a cross or a NASCAR number.    She doesn't fit the local Republican demographic.   She reminds me of my liberal cousin, the owner of a masters degree who worked as a barista for a while.   

"Toothless titty" looks like someone using black jack gum and a marker for a Halloween costume or joke. 

None of the folks look obese so I don't know why that popped into your head.  However, it does look like you feel can judge people based on their tattoos.  Glad we agree on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
1 hour ago, Lark said:

Toothless titty is just a guess, she looks like she could live in one of the trailer parks found around here.   That demographic is deep red and still very pro Trump.   

The angry white guy with the tats has a friend carrying a Trump sign, so he seems like a safe guess.  I didn't meet him, he could have been for the Green party and was attempting to educate his friend.   

The Barista isn't obese, has her teeth, the visible tats have good color without smearing but don't include a cross or a NASCAR number.    She doesn't fit the local Republican demographic.   She reminds me of my liberal cousin, the owner of a masters degree who worked as a barista for a while.   

"Toothless titty" looks like someone using black jack gum and a marker for a Halloween costume or joke. 

None of the folks look obese so I don't know why that popped into your head.  However, it does look like you feel can judge people based on their tattoos.  Glad we agree on that.

When I see somebody with jailbird tattoos, I assume he is a jailbird. When I see a woman with a tramp stamp, I assume she is a tramp. When I see a person with a dagger & scroll reading "Death Before Dishonor" I assume he was in one of the Special Forces, or a fouled anchor the Navy (why this ever became a naval symbol I do not understand).

When people get tattoos, they are making a statement to the world. I am merely reading the statement they are making about themselves. Is that "judging people by their tattoos"? Is that necessarily bad?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

This is why Trumps arrogantly ignorant right-wing activist judge picks are a bigger threat to freedom in the US than anything else he's done. I fully expect one of them to announce that not only are furriners not protected by the Constitution, but brown and/or poor people also don't qualify.

-DSK

Seems more than ever in the modern world, you have all the rights that you can enforce, and if you can't afford expensive lawyers, you have no rights at all.

Staying off the radar is a lot better than 'winning' a fight to protect your rights. Not happy with this line of thought, but it's pragmatic.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

When I see somebody with jailbird tattoos, I assume he is a jailbird. When I see a woman with a tramp stamp, I assume she is a tramp. When I see a person with a dagger & scroll reading "Death Before Dishonor" I assume he was in one of the Special Forces, or a fouled anchor the Navy (why this ever became a naval symbol I do not understand).

When people get tattoos, they are making a statement to the world. I am merely reading the statement they are making about themselves. Is that "judging people by their tattoos"? Is that necessarily bad?

-DSK

You need to catch up on military tattoos.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

You need to catch up on military tattoos.

 

Ok, tell me. Most of the guys in "Restrepo" got tattoos but I don't remember what it was .... if I saw one it would probably jog my memory.

Most guys in the military personnel have seen a 20 year old tattoo, so they are making a more informed choice than most people their age.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ok, tell me. Most of the guys in "Restrepo" got tattoos but I don't remember what it was .... if I saw one it would probably jog my memory.

Most guys in the military personnel have seen a 20 year old tattoo, so they are making a more informed choice than most people their age.

-DSK

Start with unit mottos and crests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never, ever understand the concept of tattoos.   Basically, it is making a serious commitment with no benefit at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

I will never, ever understand the concept of tattoos.   Basically, it is making a serious commitment with no benefit at all. 

It has a lot of benefits to others though. Often it shows you the people to avoid.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I shall never understand the concept of watching professional basketball. Each to their own I guess :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Start with unit mottos and crests.

What fuckin genius. I would never have thought of that! You mean, if you see a guy with this

fd5b7dba44a62b6d07cf1ac2f393ae75.jpg

you might think he's served in the Army?

Oh and BTW

Untitled.png.eefd719b314ce9dd0ab618d64158073d.png

Either still very popular (this is on an Army Ranger) or perhaps enjoying a revival. Another common one I noticed is dog tags.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And I shall never understand the concept of watching professional basketball. Each to their own I guess :)

 

It's different, though. 

It's like you make a commitment to watch professional basketball for the rest of your life.  The only way out of it is to have someone run a laser up and down your arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
8 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I will never, ever understand the concept of tattoos.   Basically, it is making a serious commitment with no benefit at all. 

It has a lot of benefits to others though. Often it shows you the people to avoid.....

I dunno, if I see a guy with a military-related tattoo, I'll offer to buy him a beer. Enlisteds still don't get paid much. Jail or gang tattoos, yeah I don't see much of those and would prefer to keep it that way.

What I don't do, is assume that just because a person has a tattoo, that they are an idiot or somehow deficient. Maybe they have just been less lucky in the circle of peers they happen to have been thrown in with.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, benwynn said:

It's different, though. 

It's like you make a commitment to watch professional basketball for the rest of your life.  The only way out of it is to have someone run a laser up and down your arm.

Of course it's different. The time commitment in getting your average (medium-sized) tattoo is about the length of one game... and frankly, watching some sports is the mental equivalent of having someone run a laser up and down my arm. I went to a live cricket game once with a lass I was looking to date at the time. In the middle of our summer. Sat down right next to a bunch of drunken yobbos who spilt more beer than they managed to get down their gullet. Never again. 

My point is, like me & professional basketball spectating, you don't have to understand it. To some people, tattoos are an identity thing and it's permanence is a part of that. We don't have to understand what people commit themselves to. If we did, someone has to explain to me why perfectly fit & attractive women (& men I suppose) decide to commit their lives to god and swear themselves to celibacy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What fuckin genius. I would never have thought of that! You mean, if you see a guy with this

fd5b7dba44a62b6d07cf1ac2f393ae75.jpg

you might think he's served in the Army?

Oh and BTW

Untitled.png.eefd719b314ce9dd0ab618d64158073d.png

Either still very popular (this is on an Army Ranger) or perhaps enjoying a revival. Another common one I noticed is dog tags.

-DSK

Top one is good but 'Death before dishonor' dates back to at least Rome.  It does have an association with marine history though through John Basilone.  I've seen it on bikers and even canadians. 

024f294d3c831ef92e4a2b8e2c7436a4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No.  For instance you are not allowed to vote.  Or buy a gun.  Or run for office.  Only "The People" get to do that kind of cool stuff.  

From the 7th Circuit opinion in the topic case:

Quote

Meza-Rodriguez  moved  to   dismiss   the   indictment   that   followed,   arguing   that   §  922(g)(5)  impermissibly  infringed  on  his  rights  under  the  Second  Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  The  district  court  denied  his  motion  on  the  broad  ground  that  the  Second  Amendment  does  not  protect  unauthorized  aliens.  That  rationale  swept  too  far,  and  we  do  not  endorse  it.

The second amendment does protect aliens, even unauthorized ones, who have developed a substantial connection to the community. At least in the 7th Circuit. Your disagreement doesn't mean it's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Top one is good but 'Death before dishonor' dates back to at least Rome.  It does have an association with marine history though through John Basilone.  I've seen it on bikers and even canadians. 

 

9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

What fuckin genius. I would never have thought of that! You mean, if you see a guy with this

fd5b7dba44a62b6d07cf1ac2f393ae75.jpg

you might think he's served in the Army?

Oh and BTW

Untitled.png.eefd719b314ce9dd0ab618d64158073d.png

Either still very popular (this is on an Army Ranger) or perhaps enjoying a revival. Another common one I noticed is dog tags.

-DSK

Just noticed the beret on the skull in the second with the First Cavalry patch.  So that one would be a military tattoo as well.  Whether the guy wearing it is actually military or a veteran would require some further evidence.  Google of 'stolen valor tattoo'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Legal Immigrants Act Like They're People

Quote

“[Yunsong] Zhao was arrested because he allegedly attached a 30-round magazine to a rifle,” richmond.com reports. “He was allowed to own both the gun and magazine, but when they were combined, the rifle qualified as an assault weapon prohibited to people with Zhao’s visa status.”

He legally owned 20 round magazines and a couple of 30 round ones that he was not allowed to use. He claims to have traded those for a sling and said he was not using them at the shooting range on the day in question.

Quote

Tech has issued multiple statements this week saying authorities never thought Zhao was a threat to anyone.

Then WTF does it really matter if he's using 20 or 30 round magazines at the range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because he's not "the people".  

I said he was acting like it, not that he was.

It is an interesting point. The topic post is about a guy who I think is part of "the people" because of the whole "substantial connections" thing. And the whole not really having another home country thing.

This guy is on a visa (or was, he may already be gone for all I know). So though he is/was here legally, apparently except for maintaining the required GPA in school, he's not "the people" but an illegal is.

In any case, letting him own but not insert a 30 round magazine is a pretty good example of common sense gun control.

It's also reminiscent of the NY SAFE Act provision allowing people to own a 10 round magazine but only load 7 rounds into it. That was tossed when most of the Act was upheld.

The judge in that case was not convinced that people intent on committing a crime would obey that limit. I'm similarly unconvinced that a person who wanted to commit a crime wouldn't insert that 30 round magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Be afraid of illegal immigrants. They are terrifying. Those people are not like us. 


If they stay here long enough, they become like us. It's called "substantial connections."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Punkinhead's Bold Proposal

Quote

Limbaugh said, "I would be willing right here to support an effort to grant permanent citizenship to whatever number of illegal immigrants there are in the country tomorrow if you will make as part of a deal they can't vote for 15 to 25 years. And if they will agree to that, then I'll grant them amnesty."

That's a far better offer than people like the one this thread is about have gotten from any elected official.
 

Quote

 

Limbaugh is a pretty good gauge of grassroots conservative sentiment on this issue if for no other reason than he is among its chief architects. Indeed, he is the one who—contra Ronald Reagan—turned amnesty into a dirty word by whipping up rank-and-file Republicans against "lawbreakers."

Nor is Limbaugh merely kidding. He actually proposed something similar five years ago. The proposal is essentially an admission that the true reason conservatives hate amnesty isn't because undocumented immigrants are more crime prone, as a recent spate of highly questionable restrictionist studies have tried to show. Nor does it have anything to do with illegals being welfare queens given that no one works harder than an illegal immigrant. Employment among undocumented males is 90-plus percent. Furthermore, illegals by and large shun states with generous welfare benefits flocking toward those with plentiful jobs instead. Nor is this about protecting native jobs and wages because, research has repeatedly shown, immigrants compete with other immigrants, not natives.

In short, anti-immigration animus in the GOP has less to do with ideological restrictionism and more to do with partisan politics. Conservatives oppose amnesty because they fear that immigrants will vote Democratic.

 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Apparently, Tom was there....

 

7F4C0C4F-A782-4B9B-84EB-D349D157EC5B.jpeg


Nah, I would have marched with an "I'm A Person" sign.

Perhaps with an asterisk and little print at the bottom saying, "You know, like NAACP Inc."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch vs Thomas on this topic

Quote

 

One of the sharpest disagreements between Gorsuch and Thomas came over the question of whether the Due Process Clause, as originally understood, offers any protection for aliens facing deportation from U.S. soil by the federal government. Thomas seems to think that the clause offers no such protection. "Less than a decade after the ratification of the Bill of Rights," he observed in his Dimaya dissent, "the founding generation had an extensive debate about the relationship between the Constitution and federal removal statutes. In 1798, the Fifth Congress enacted the…Alien Friends Act, [which] gave the President unfettered discretion to expel any aliens 'he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government itself."

Gorsuch responded directly to this point with a forceful dismissal. "But the Alien Friends Act—better known as the 'Alien' part of the Alien and Sedition Acts—is one of the most notorious laws in our country's history," he wrote. "It was understood as a temporary war measure, not one that the legislature would endorse in a time of tranquility. Yet even then it was widely condemned as unconstitutional by Madison and others…. With this fuller view, it seems doubtful the Act tells us a great deal about aliens' due process rights at the founding."

 

Gotta watch out for those "temporary" war measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The answer to the OP remains "NO".

Your answer isn't "the" answer. Those with a "substantial connection" are, whether you like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I would take this one step further in that outside of Preznitial elections, you cannot donate money to any candidate unless you physically reside in the state or district of the candidate or have "substantial connections to" that state or district such as own a home or physical business there.


So the bottom line on "substantial coneection" to the community is that they matter. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
15 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


So the bottom line on "substantial coneection" to the community is that they matter. Sometimes.

Yes, sometimes.  Like when you're a citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes, sometimes.  Like when you're a citizen.

Or even a whole bunch of Citizens, United.

And incorporated. But that's a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are foreigners living abroad The People?

It seems like a silly question, but nowhere near as silly as the dweeby shitfight over the concave telescope lenses.

"Florida man detects antimatter and Invisible Terrestrial Entities!"

And he wants an injunction from our courts to make a Dutch guy who couldn't resist mocking him take some stuff off the web. He didn't get it.
 

Quote

 

Finally, an interesting footnote:

Neither side addresses whether Van Erp, a Dutch citizen who resides in the Netherlands, can assert First Amendment concerns; but if he can be called into court here, it follows that he can assert all available defenses to the claims against him.

Sounds right to me.

 

Maybe, but I'm not sure why he should be called into court here in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

Finally, an interesting footnote:

Neither side addresses whether Van Erp, a Dutch citizen who resides in the Netherlands, can assert First Amendment concerns; but if he can be called into court here, it follows that he can assert all available defenses to the claims against him.

Sounds right to me.

 

Maybe, but I'm not sure why he should be called into court here in the first place.

Will he get to vote while he's here too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Will he get to vote while he's here too?

Or maybe just $peak but not vote like a corperson.

I dunno, this case has me a bit worried. Apparently, the Chinese government takes a dim view of something I said.

I don't want to be hauled into a Chinese court over it, though I admit thinking it would be a bit amusing if that were to happen to the Ed over something I did here. Right up until it really happened.

So why is it any of our government's business if this guy is blogging away in another country and saying a Florida man is nutso?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 7/22/2016 at 3:00 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

I've long said that only people who make 200% above the poverty line should be allowed to own guns. Most crime is committed by poor people, so take away their tools without punishing the rest of us. I just don't understand why the gun grabbers are not on board with me on this?????

I'm sad this never got more traction from the gun-grabbers.  I thought this was a perfectly reasonable compromise to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm still stuck on the "substantial connection" thing the courts are stuck on.

And this:

On 5/25/2018 at 8:42 PM, SloopJonB said:
On 5/25/2018 at 8:11 PM, mad said:

How did we go from UK knife law to Tom’s.22 discussion?

Every thread ends up discussing his fucking .22


Not this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sean said:
18 hours ago, Mike G said:

Truly A man of the lord....

 

 

Disturbing piece about separation children from their parents as an immigration  deterrent -

 


Yes, losing 1,500 kids is troubling.

It seems more related to whether or not they are people than to whether or not Trump can block Twitter followers, so that's why I talked about it in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
22 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Congress really needs to get busy sorting out our immigration and naturalization policy, especially w/r/t productive law-abiding folks we’ve had here for years. 

You mean "the people" by that, right?

Otherwise called "illegal aliens" who broke the law to either come here or remain here.  So not law-abiding.  So no, not THE people.

So in the topic case, 4 year old Mariano Mesa Rodriguez should have broken free from his parents and refused to be taken across the border?

Or maybe he should have waited until first grade or so to strike out on his own and obey the law by returning to his native land?

Or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So in the topic case, 4 year old Mariano Mesa Rodriguez should have broken free from his parents and refused to be taken across the border?

Or maybe he should have waited until first grade or so to strike out on his own and obey the law by returning to his native land?

Or what?

Well, for starters - we could fix our fucked up and utterly broken immigration system so that we don't have the issue of people wanting/needing to sneak across the border in the first and instead they could come here legally and efficiently to contribute to our society and eventually become THE PEOPLE.  But because the duopoly finds it in their best interests to keep this a politically divisive issue, that fix doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of happening.  Because they are all fucking cowards!  

But the status quo of looking the other way or just shrugging and opening up the borders is a total non-starter for me as well.  But for those people who want to come here in the meantime, I'm truly sorry for them that our process is so broken and it takes a long time to get in.  But there IS a legal process to come here.  So get in line and wait your fucking turn to become one of the THE PEOPLE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites