Jump to content

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?


Recommended Posts

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

The 7th Circuit Says Yes


...Like the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment refers to a right that belongs to “the people” — “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In Meza-Rodriguez, the Justice Department argued that an undocumented immigrant charged with violating a federal law forbidding him from possessing a firearm is not part of “the people” who benefit from this Second Amendment right. Undocumented immigrants, this argument goes, are not “members of the political community,” and thus cannot be understood as part of “the people” as those words are used in the Constitution.

If this argument ultimately prevails, it will have profound ripple effects that extend far beyond the subject of guns. As mentioned above, the Fourth Amendment also refers to a right belonging to “the people,” so if that term does not include undocumented immigrants, their rights to be free from abusive police tactics could be severely curtailed. Similarly, the First Amendment refers to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Those rights could also potentially be stripped from undocumented immigrants if the Justice Department’s arguments prevail....

 

Wow, who would have thought that the treatment of one protected right could affect how others are treated?

 

Have I mentioned lately that Favre was the best there ever was?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 560
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

From my life at the factory POV (40 YEARS)  They our allowed to stay because they can be exploited and will endure hard working conditions that people with more choices will avoid  If they b

The laws are enforced for the brown skinned workers, they are imprisoned early and often. The laws aren't enforced for the American hirers. They continue to hire. And yes, the agricultural b

Stipulating to your points, Dawg, we still oughta remember the historical mistakes that we and others have made, and in so doing, think about the circumstances and decisions that led up to those mista

Posted Images

I think we will shortly learn that illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights at all and are suffered to breath air by our mercy. That will certainly expedite the Great Roundup and their expropriated property will pay for it. Yeee hah!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the US has done some dumb thing with unintended consequences. But if you look at history, I think we have done far more good for the world on a whole.

The US has given more money, health aid, food aid and forgiven more debt to 3rd world countries than any other nation in history.

But you focus on only the recent as most humans do. Such short memories.

 

So go F yourselves the next time you need a hand or maybe ask the Grand Mullah of Iran or Putin or Castro or the Chinese Premier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the US has done some dumb thing with unintended consequences. But if you look at history, I think we have done far more good for the world on a whole.

The US has given more money, health aid, food aid and forgiven more debt to 3rd world countries than any other nation in history.

But you focus on only the recent as most humans do. Such short memories.

 

So go F yourselves the next time you need a hand or maybe ask the Grand Mullah of Iran or Putin or Castro or the Chinese Premier.

 

Stipulating to your points, Dawg, we still oughta remember the historical mistakes that we and others have made, and in so doing, think about the circumstances and decisions that led up to those mistakes, and do our best not to repeat those mistakes.

 

When Rome catches on fire this time, I plan to be playing a harmonica, not a fiddle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are "people" (or more correctly, "persons"), who deserve respect, compassion, humane treatment,etc. I tend to believe all human beings fall within this designation. Then, there are "The People", of whom certain documents speak.

 

The latter are ALL within a subset of the former, though that does not translate to the total of the former as part of the latter until the inclusion process - decided upon by The Peoples' legislature (i.e. becoming a citizen) - has been completed.

 

If that alone doesn't satisfy, then consider one of the prima face exclusions from even holding, much less owning a gun in the US: Commission conviction of a felony. People here illegally, even if not tried and convicted, do not qualify for a firearm in my mind, on that basis alone. Besides, how do they do a proper background check on a person who doesn't legally exist?

 

Besides - tougher gun laws are what the "let 'em all in" crowd tend to favor, anyway. Here is a "do something" just for them whether it helps or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Sure.... their own, not ours. They aren't a part of our government (vis à vis, our governed system) and so the taking up of arms by outsiders, illegally upon our soil, against our government is an act of war, not rebellion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Sure.... their own, not ours. They aren't a part of our government (vis à vis, our governed system) and so the taking up of arms by outsiders, illegally upon our soil, against our government is an act of war, not rebellion.

 

OK, so they don't. Does the 4th amendment apply to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Sure.... their own, not ours. They aren't a part of our government (vis à vis, our governed system) and so the taking up of arms by outsiders, illegally upon our soil, against our government is an act of war, not rebellion.

 

Is rebellion illegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest some of you read what the original post was about.

 

Tom, you have made my morning!

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

 

I suppose they could try.

 

The individual who was the subject of the topic case was brought here at age 4. If he's part of "the people" referenced in our Constitution, he has not only second amendment rights, but also fourth and first amendment rights.

 

And if he's not part of "the people" then he has none of the three. Which kind of world do you want to live in?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I suggest some of you read what the original post was about.

 

Tom, you have made my morning!

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

 

I suppose they could try.

 

The individual who was the subject of the topic case was brought here at age 4. If he's part of "the people" referenced in our Constitution, he has not only second amendment rights, but also fourth and first amendment rights.

 

And if he's not part of "the people" then he has none of the three. Which kind of world do you want to live in?

 

I suspect I'm with you here, Tom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I suggest some of you read what the original post was about.

 

Tom, you have made my morning!

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

 

I suppose they could try.

 

The individual who was the subject of the topic case was brought here at age 4. If he's part of "the people" referenced in our Constitution, he has not only second amendment rights, but also fourth and first amendment rights.

 

And if he's not part of "the people" then he has none of the three. Which kind of world do you want to live in?

 

I suspect I'm with you here, Tom.

 

 

 

All sensible people understand that Favre was the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Sure.... their own, not ours. They aren't a part of our government (vis à vis, our governed system) and so the taking up of arms by outsiders, illegally upon our soil, against our government is an act of war, not rebellion.
I'm not sure about that. Think about what an implied or inferred contract can do ...

 

A man and a woman can live together for years and even if they've never been married, many States assign them as a Common Law married couple. Or for instance, if I do business with someone several times, even though there isn't a contract there are contractual disputes that can apply. Same thing with law; if enough people perceive something as enacted, that gains a certain legal weight, same thing with squatting on some land in an open and notorious way.

 

In the case of undocumented workers, there is an undeniable acknowledgement by both employers and the government of their work, with vast swaths of the economy (like construction and agricultural and hotel/restaurant) utterly dependent on their labor.

 

We may not acknowledge these people with our words but we continue to accept their tax dollars, to supply services to their illegal employers, and we let this happen in an open and notorious view.

 

I think that there is a legal argument that our position acknowledges and approves of their status, even if our words do not. If we continue to extract their labor without a specific legal determination, they might arguably have claim to certain legal rights in this country.

 

The reason you call the county when you see someone build a fence a bit over your property line is because if you don't, and leave it that way long enough, you might well lose the claim to your own land. Similarly if we conclusively decide that we don't want immigrants here then we need to shit or get off the pot. But this ridiculous idea that we can grow our economy on the backs of people whom we treat with no respect, is going to be our undoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Sure.... their own, not ours. They aren't a part of our government (vis à vis, our governed system) and so the taking up of arms by outsiders, illegally upon our soil, against our government is an act of war, not rebellion.
I'm not sure about that. Think about what an implied or inferred contract can do ...

 

A man and a woman can live together for years and even if they've never been married, many States assign them as a Common Law married couple. Or for instance, if I do business with someone several times, even though there isn't a contract there are contractual disputes that can apply. Same thing with law; if enough people perceive something as enacted, that gains a certain legal weight, same thing with squatting on some land in an open and notorious way.

 

In the case of undocumented workers, there is an undeniable acknowledgement by both employers and the government of their work, with vast swaths of the economy (like construction and agricultural and hotel/restaurant) utterly dependent on their labor.

 

We may not acknowledge these people with our words but we continue to accept their tax dollars, to supply services to their illegal employers, and we let this happen in an open and notorious view.

 

I think that there is a legal argument that our position acknowledges and approves of their status, even if our words do not. If we continue to extract their labor without a specific legal determination, they might arguably have claim to certain legal rights in this country.

 

The reason you call the county when you see someone build a fence a bit over your property line is because if you don't, and leave it that way long enough, you might well lose the claim to your own land. Similarly if we conclusively decide that we don't want immigrants here then we need to shit or get off the pot. But this ridiculous idea that we can grow our economy on the backs of people whom we treat with no respect, is going to be our undoing.

I was addressing a specific question. I fail to see how that prattle has to do with whether illegals within the US can take up arms against the United States, if they have 2ndA rights. It's a slippery question.

 

I'm pretty familiar with acquiescence wrt property use, easements, etc.

 

Perhaps you meant to impress someone else.

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

I accept that notion, Moe; the equally important warning to society is that the same argument can be made the other way around. The only card left in that argument is the parsing of words, imagining what some guys "meant" many years ago. If one Amendment means only what it's politically convenient for it to mean, so do they all.

 

My own belief is that while all of the world's people deserve free speech, freedom of conscience, the right to legal representation at a speedy trial - we dont owe those who steal into the US, the right to have deadly weapons.

 

I regret that I haven't a strictly legal argument, as such, to support this opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- we dont owe those who steal into the US, the right to have deadly weapons.

 

 

I think you're off the reservation wrt gun-rights language. They're just tools. Everybody has a need for tools, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

 

The 7th Circuit Says Yes

 

 

 

...Like the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment refers to a right that belongs to the people A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In Meza-Rodriguez, the Justice Department argued that an undocumented immigrant charged with violating a federal law forbidding him from possessing a firearm is not part of the people who benefit from this Second Amendment right. Undocumented immigrants, this argument goes, are not members of the political community, and thus cannot be understood as part of the people as those words are used in the Constitution.

 

If this argument ultimately prevails, it will have profound ripple effects that extend far beyond the subject of guns. As mentioned above, the Fourth Amendment also refers to a right belonging to the people, so if that term does not include undocumented immigrants, their rights to be free from abusive police tactics could be severely curtailed. Similarly, the First Amendment refers to the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Those rights could also potentially be stripped from undocumented immigrants if the Justice Departments arguments prevail....

Wow, who would have thought that the treatment of one protected right could affect how others are treated?

 

Have I mentioned lately that Favre was the best there ever was?

NO, I emphatically do NOT believe that illegal immigrants are "We the People". Next question......

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

Sure.... their own, not ours. They aren't a part of our government (vis à vis, our governed system) and so the taking up of arms by outsiders, illegally upon our soil, against our government is an act of war, not rebellion.

 

Is rebellion illegal?

 

No one has answered this - maybe it's too hard.

 

So - righties - in your opinion, is Exercising your 2nd, meaning, taking up arms against the US Gov't, legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not illegal if your side wins.

 

What's my prize?

 

 

 

I think you're off the reservation wrt gun-rights language. They're just tools. Everybody has a need for tools, no?

Go and ask someone who maintains that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only the vaguest notion who that is and would probably disagree if I knew more.

 

Favre was a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, but on this forum, I mention his name whenever two or more protected rights are affecting one another. It makes searching easier. Except sometimes Occams Razor likes to fuck with my system. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

Moe, please don't take this the wrong way or different than its intended. I do not think illegals should have any constitutional rights. And yes, that includes free speech, guns, search and seizure, 5th am, voting etc. they currently do not have the right to vote nor be POTUS, etc. So to me they either get them all or they get none. And if they get all, WTF is even the point of "citizenship" at all then? Or nationality or sovereignty?? Let's just open the borders and dissolve America.

 

Could it lead to Nurnburg type stuff? Sure it could. First of all the whole issue would be mute 😘 if they followed the law and came here legally. However, I know as a realist that is not going to happen. So I do believe that Americans, being the compassionate people we are will write new laws to accommodate and protect from some of the more aggregious abuses of illegals. But I do think that denying them basic constitutional rights is not only correct but might act as a deterrence to sneaking across the border. Want to be able to speak freely or not be searched? Get a green card. I think a legal resident or even visiting aliens should be extended some of those rights citizens have. But not illegals. Does that make sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

I accept that notion, Moe; the equally important warning to society is that the same argument can be made the other way around. The only card left in that argument is the parsing of words, imagining what some guys "meant" many years ago. If one Amendment means only what it's politically convenient for it to mean, so do they all.

 

My own belief is that while all of the world's people deserve free speech, freedom of conscience, the right to legal representation at a speedy trial - we dont owe those who steal into the US, the right to have deadly weapons.

 

I regret that I haven't a strictly legal argument, as such, to support this opinion.

 

 

With respect to the topic case individual, I'm not sure he should be held legally responsible for having been brought here at age 4.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has answered this - maybe it's too hard.

 

So - righties - in your opinion, is Exercising your 2nd, meaning, taking up arms against the US Gov't, legal?

 

 

Insurrection is never legal. That's kind of the point.

 

But the second amendment is broader than your question implies. In another thread, I mentioned that governments fall for various reasons over time. When that time comes for the US, it could be the result of invasion or insurrection. A person might wish to fight against the government, but might also wish to fight FOR the government. Both activities are part of the second amendment's purpose in my view. As I said before, when a government falls, the people with guns will decide what happens next.

 

It might not happen this week or in our lifetimes, but the Constitution is not about rules for this week or one lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

I accept that notion, Moe; the equally important warning to society is that the same argument can be made the other way around. The only card left in that argument is the parsing of words, imagining what some guys "meant" many years ago. If one Amendment means only what it's politically convenient for it to mean, so do they all.

 

My own belief is that while all of the world's people deserve free speech, freedom of conscience, the right to legal representation at a speedy trial - we dont owe those who steal into the US, the right to have deadly weapons.

 

I regret that I haven't a strictly legal argument, as such, to support this opinion.

With respect to the topic case individual, I'm not sure he should be held legally responsible for having been brought here at age 4.

Yea he should. Sorry that's harsh but it is what it is. When he gets legal status, then I'm happy for him to get his 2A rights. But not before then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I get easily confused and need to keep things simple. It seems to me there are just a few possibilities:

 

  • The authors of the Bill of Rights meant different things by "the people" in the texts of the first, second and fourth amendments -> Illegals have 1st and 4th, but not 2nd Amendment protection or something.

 

  • "The people" has the same referent in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments -> Illegals are covered by all amendments or none.

 

  • There is another, superseding, part of the Constitution of which I am not aware that specifically deprives illegal immigrants of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

  • The 2nd Amendment refers to organized militia -> None of you bozos should be running around with firearms.

 

Which is it, guys? ...and spare me the shoulds and shouldn'ts. When the Grabbers come after your guns, you refer them to the text and the court ruling and tough titty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

- we dont owe those who steal into the US, the right to have deadly weapons.

 

 

 

I think you're off the reservation wrt gun-rights language. They're just tools. Everybody has a need for tools, no?

Sure, everyone has a need for tools, but some tools need to be reserved for certain people. Y'see, the Mexican roofer's tool is a nail gun. The guy who lives in the house underneath that new roof, his tool is the bullet gun.

 

Can't have those guys mixing up their respective tools. The roofer would end up putting a bunch of holes in the roof, and the guy under the roof wouldn't have a way to protect all of his stuff from the poverty stricken 'zombie' hordes come for his stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

Moe, please don't take this the wrong way or different than its intended. I do not think illegals should have any constitutional rights. And yes, that includes free speech, guns, search and seizure, 5th am, voting etc. they currently do not have the right to vote nor be POTUS, etc. So to me they either get them all or they get none. And if they get all, WTF is even the point of "citizenship" at all then? Or nationality or sovereignty?? Let's just open the borders and dissolve America.

 

Could it lead to Nurnburg type stuff? Sure it could. First of all the whole issue would be mute 😘if they followed the law and came here legally. However, I know as a realist that is not going to happen. So I do believe that Americans, being the compassionate people we are will write new laws to accommodate and protect from some of the more aggregious abuses of illegals. But I do think that denying them basic constitutional rights is not only correct but might act as a deterrence to sneaking across the border. Want to be able to speak freely or not be searched? Get a green card. I think a legal resident or even visiting aliens should be extended some of those rights citizens have. But not illegals. Does that make sense?

Hmm ... I guess that means that the good Americans who don't follow the law and illegally hire them should lose their Constitutional rights too. Right?

 

Reminds me of the early 90s drug war ... arrest the dealers, leave the buyers alone if they're in a nice BMW because who wants to deal with paperwork that won't end in arrest? It took them a little while to learn that hitting the supply without impacting the demand doesn't do too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

Moe, please don't take this the wrong way or different than its intended. I do not think illegals should have any constitutional rights. And yes, that includes free speech, guns, search and seizure, 5th am, voting etc. they currently do not have the right to vote nor be POTUS, etc. So to me they either get them all or they get none. And if they get all, WTF is even the point of "citizenship" at all then? Or nationality or sovereignty?? Let's just open the borders and dissolve America.

 

Could it lead to Nurnburg type stuff? Sure it could. First of all the whole issue would be mute 😘if they followed the law and came here legally. However, I know as a realist that is not going to happen. So I do believe that Americans, being the compassionate people we are will write new laws to accommodate and protect from some of the more aggregious abuses of illegals. But I do think that denying them basic constitutional rights is not only correct but might act as a deterrence to sneaking across the border. Want to be able to speak freely or not be searched? Get a green card. I think a legal resident or even visiting aliens should be extended some of those rights citizens have. But not illegals. Does that make sense?

Hmm ... I guess that means that the good Americans who don't follow the law and illegally hire them should lose their Constitutional rights too. Right?

Wrong. citizenship confers certain rights and privileges whether you deserve them or not. There's a lot of shitbag 'mericans I would like to boot out and keep a lot of illegal hard working aliens in their place - but unfortunately we are stuck with the shitbags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I get easily confused and need to keep things simple. It seems to me there are just a few possibilities:

 

  • The authors of the Bill of Rights meant different things by "the people" in the texts of the first, second and fourth amendments -> Illegals have 1st and 4th, but not 2nd Amendment protection or something.

 

  • "The people" has the same referent in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments -> Illegals are covered by all amendments or none.

 

  • There is another, superseding, part of the Constitution of which I am not aware that specifically deprives illegal immigrants of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

  • The 2nd Amendment refers to organized militia -> None of you bozos should be running around with firearms.

 

Which is it, guys? ...and spare me the shoulds and shouldn'ts. When the Grabbers come after your guns, you refer them to the text and the court ruling and tough titty.

 

The last one is definitely not on the possible list. Even a big-government guy like Hamilton knew it. See Federalist 29. The purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the ability of "great body of the yeomanry" to arm ourselves. He recognized that we would not be and could not be well-regulated at all times, but only if we could have arms would we have the potential to be at least a reasonably well-regulated militia should the need arise.

 

I think the first possibility most likely. The rights protected are different and "the people" enjoy them in differing degrees depending on their individual identities and circumstances. Being here illegally is a circumstance. It might matter for some rights more than others.

 

That was a central point made by the minority in Citizens United, by the way. Identity-based restrictions on expression have been part of our history and the majority in that case decided one of them was not right with respect to some of the people. The corporate ones, that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

I accept that notion, Moe; the equally important warning to society is that the same argument can be made the other way around. The only card left in that argument is the parsing of words, imagining what some guys "meant" many years ago. If one Amendment means only what it's politically convenient for it to mean, so do they all.

 

My own belief is that while all of the world's people deserve free speech, freedom of conscience, the right to legal representation at a speedy trial - we dont owe those who steal into the US, the right to have deadly weapons.

 

I regret that I haven't a strictly legal argument, as such, to support this opinion.

With respect to the topic case individual, I'm not sure he should be held legally responsible for having been brought here at age 4.

Yea he should. Sorry that's harsh but it is what it is. When he gets legal status, then I'm happy for him to get his 2A rights. But not before then.

 

 

I don't think it's right to hold one person responsible for the crimes of another. That's true whether we're talking about holding gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes of others or holding a child responsible for the crimes of his family.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Pennsylvania moonshiners found out the brand new government really had no sense of humor at all about anyone actually trying the armed rebellion thing.

So the answer is you better win ;)

 

 

No one has answered this - maybe it's too hard.

 

So - righties - in your opinion, is Exercising your 2nd, meaning, taking up arms against the US Gov't, legal?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - IMHO illegals have the same rights as trespassers anywhere, which is not much. I think most places on planet Earth if you sneak in and piss anyone off you will get a boot in the ass sending you back to where you came from and you can file any complaints from there.

 

* this is not absolute, I fully support anyone getting due process to determine that you are in fact here illegally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - IMHO illegals have the same rights as trespassers anywhere, which is not much. I think most places on planet Earth if you sneak in and piss anyone off you will get a boot in the ass sending you back to where you came from and you can file any complaints from there.

 

* this is not absolute, I fully support anyone getting due process to determine that you are in fact here illegally.

 

And should fourth amendment protections be part of that due process?

 

Should they have a first amendment right to speak, or even, heaven forbid, $peak about their situation while the process plays out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.

Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.

Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.

 

My point being, due process is a right of the people.

 

We don't censor their stories, but could unless they have first amendment rights. You know, like "the people" do. And the people have other rights... like a right to tools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

Moe, please don't take this the wrong way or different than its intended. I do not think illegals should have any constitutional rights. And yes, that includes free speech, guns, search and seizure, 5th am, voting etc. they currently do not have the right to vote nor be POTUS, etc. So to me they either get them all or they get none. And if they get all, WTF is even the point of "citizenship" at all then? Or nationality or sovereignty?? Let's just open the borders and dissolve America.

 

Could it lead to Nurnburg type stuff? Sure it could. First of all the whole issue would be mute 😘if they followed the law and came here legally. However, I know as a realist that is not going to happen. So I do believe that Americans, being the compassionate people we are will write new laws to accommodate and protect from some of the more aggregious abuses of illegals. But I do think that denying them basic constitutional rights is not only correct but might act as a deterrence to sneaking across the border. Want to be able to speak freely or not be searched? Get a green card. I think a legal resident or even visiting aliens should be extended some of those rights citizens have. But not illegals. Does that make sense?

Hmm ... I guess that means that the good Americans who don't follow the law and illegally hire them should lose their Constitutional rights too. Right?

Wrong. citizenship confers certain rights and privileges whether you deserve them or not. There's a lot of shitbag 'mericans I would like to boot out and keep a lot of illegal hard working aliens in their place - but unfortunately we are stuck with the shitbags.
I don't know with whom you hang, but I've never met a shitbag "alien" ... there obviously are some of course, but that's not really their defining characteristic is it? Working their assess off to Tejano music and drinking pineapple Jarritos, now that's a defining characteristic, right?

 

Anyway, criminals lose their Constitutional rights all the time. I have no idea why the felony and sometimes misdemeanors of hiring illegal aliens is so rarely enforced. Maybe you understand that?

 

I assume it has something to do with the reality that our economy would probably collapse without all those undocumented workers, but governments want to keep certain people happy with the wink nod of not touching the demand, only the supply.

 

The INS can deport ten thousand undocumented workers and not make a dent. Yet if they did just one perp walk a month of some random Audi-driving suburbanite illegal employer, the market for illegal labor would collapse, and our economy would go with it. Of course, it's always amusing to read the opinions of those who see the brown people as the problem rather than themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they get counted for Congressional districts and get to vote in local, state, and federal elections too then :ph34r:

Are they subject to the draft? Passports (border crossing tool)?

By this standard the USA would be defined as "anyone that can somehow sneak in here".

 

 

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.

Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.

 

My point being, due process is a right of the people.

 

We don't censor their stories, but could unless they have first amendment rights. You know, like "the people" do. And the people have other rights... like a right to tools.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just observe that the Constitution is imperfect and subject to interpretation. The powerful take advantage of this all the time and congratulate themselves on their Americanism. Maybe anyone actually can sneak in here and assume the rights of a lawful citizen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So they get counted for Congressional districts and get to vote in local, state, and federal elections too then :ph34r:

Are they subject to the draft? Passports (border crossing tool)?

By this standard the USA would be defined as "anyone that can somehow sneak in here".

 

 

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.

Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.

 

My point being, due process is a right of the people.

 

We don't censor their stories, but could unless they have first amendment rights. You know, like "the people" do. And the people have other rights... like a right to tools.

 

 

 

 

The rights protected are different and "the people" enjoy them in differing degrees depending on their individual identities and circumstances. Being here illegally is a circumstance. It might matter for some rights more than others.

 

How you came to be here illegally is another circumstance. A four year old who is brought here bears far less responsibility for that crime than an adult who snuck in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I get easily confused and need to keep things simple. It seems to me there are just a few possibilities:

 

  • The authors of the Bill of Rights meant different things by "the people" in the texts of the first, second and fourth amendments -> Illegals have 1st and 4th, but not 2nd Amendment protection or something.

 

  • "The people" has the same referent in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments -> Illegals are covered by all amendments or none.

 

  • There is another, superseding, part of the Constitution of which I am not aware that specifically deprives illegal immigrants of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

  • The 2nd Amendment refers to organized militia -> None of you bozos should be running around with firearms.

 

Which is it, guys? ...and spare me the shoulds and shouldn'ts. When the Grabbers come after your guns, you refer them to the text and the court ruling and tough titty.

If you cotton to the idea that the founding fathers crafted this great nation from divine inspiration, then one would conclude that references to "the people" would be God's people. Since God has no interest in manmade international borders, it must mean literally "the people".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest some of you read what the original post was about.

 

Tom, you have made my morning!

 

So, if illegal immigrants have 2A rights, can they use them to overthrow a tyrannical government?

And if all laws and rights apply to illegals then why should not be deported when in custody? If they come here and have babies they obviously don't care if they become separated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The point is that a potential consequence of a finding that the second amendment did not apply to illegals, as part of "The People", would be that some other amendments wouldn't either. This could provide the basis for Nuremberg-type laws explicitly restricting their protections.

Moe, please don't take this the wrong way or different than its intended. I do not think illegals should have any constitutional rights. And yes, that includes free speech, guns, search and seizure, 5th am, voting etc. they currently do not have the right to vote nor be POTUS, etc. So to me they either get them all or they get none. And if they get all, WTF is even the point of "citizenship" at all then? Or nationality or sovereignty?? Let's just open the borders and dissolve America.

 

Could it lead to Nurnburg type stuff? Sure it could. First of all the whole issue would be mute 😘if they followed the law and came here legally. However, I know as a realist that is not going to happen. So I do believe that Americans, being the compassionate people we are will write new laws to accommodate and protect from some of the more aggregious abuses of illegals. But I do think that denying them basic constitutional rights is not only correct but might act as a deterrence to sneaking across the border. Want to be able to speak freely or not be searched? Get a green card. I think a legal resident or even visiting aliens should be extended some of those rights citizens have. But not illegals. Does that make sense?

Hmm ... I guess that means that the good Americans who don't follow the law and illegally hire them should lose their Constitutional rights too. Right?

Wrong. citizenship confers certain rights and privileges whether you deserve them or not. There's a lot of shitbag 'mericans I would like to boot out and keep a lot of illegal hard working aliens in their place - but unfortunately we are stuck with the shitbags.
I don't know with whom you hang, but I've never met a shitbag "alien" ... there obviously are some of course, but that's not really their defining characteristic is it? Working their assess off to Tejano music and drinking pineapple Jarritos, now that's a defining characteristic, right?

 

Anyway, criminals lose their Constitutional rights all the time. I have no idea why the felony and sometimes misdemeanors of hiring illegal aliens is so rarely enforced. Maybe you understand that?

 

I assume it has something to do with the reality that our economy would probably collapse without all those undocumented workers, but governments want to keep certain people happy with the wink nod of not touching the demand, only the supply.

 

The INS can deport ten thousand undocumented workers and not make a dent. Yet if they did just one perp walk a month of some random Audi-driving suburbanite illegal employer, the market for illegal labor would collapse, and our economy would go with it. Of course, it's always amusing to read the opinions of those who see the brown people as the problem rather than themselves.

Highly doubt it would collapse. I am willing to pay double for vegetables in order for illegals to get the boot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So they get counted for Congressional districts and get to vote in local, state, and federal elections too then :ph34r:

Are they subject to the draft? Passports (border crossing tool)?

By this standard the USA would be defined as "anyone that can somehow sneak in here".

 

 

 

 

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.

Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.

My point being, due process is a right of the people.

 

We don't censor their stories, but could unless they have first amendment rights. You know, like "the people" do. And the people have other rights... like a right to tools.

 

The rights protected are different and "the people" enjoy them in differing degrees depending on their individual identities and circumstances. Being here illegally is a circumstance. It might matter for some rights more than others.

 

How you came to be here illegally is another circumstance. A four year old who is brought here bears far less responsibility for that crime than an adult who snuck in.

Far less meaning zero.

 

If the law says they should be deported then they should be deported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.

Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.

How did they register for school without documentation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, I get easily confused and need to keep things simple. It seems to me there are just a few possibilities:

 

  • The authors of the Bill of Rights meant different things by "the people" in the texts of the first, second and fourth amendments -> Illegals have 1st and 4th, but not 2nd Amendment protection or something.

 

  • "The people" has the same referent in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments -> Illegals are covered by all amendments or none.

 

  • There is another, superseding, part of the Constitution of which I am not aware that specifically deprives illegal immigrants of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

  • The 2nd Amendment refers to organized militia -> None of you bozos should be running around with firearms.

 

Which is it, guys? ...and spare me the shoulds and shouldn'ts. When the Grabbers come after your guns, you refer them to the text and the court ruling and tough titty.

If you cotton to the idea that the founding fathers crafted this great nation from divine inspiration, then one would conclude that references to "the people" would be God's people. Since God has no interest in manmade international borders, it must mean literally "the people".

 

 

"The People" didn't include thos unlucky enough to brought here in chains, so the hell knows what anybody means.

 

Moe is dead nuts money on this one ... power comes in unusual ways, and whatever power they can get, good for them, this country was built by hardasses taking power from those who were unhappy about giving it up. If those immigrants can get power, good for them, that just makes them even more American, and I'm glad I have them on my team, instead of my competitor's team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt it would collapse. I am willing to pay double for vegetables in order for illegals to get the boot.

We might recover, but it would probably collapse in the short term, and be left with a country when goods and services are a lot more expensive.

 

Up to 25% of the U.S. Construction Industry is made of undocumented workers, another 25% or so in the Hotel and Restaurant industry, and of course, the Agricultural and home service industry, plus the food production industry. If these workers were somehow spirited away from these jobs, and you don't see a collapse, then you are in the same kind of denial system as all those American citizens who illegally hire undocumented immigrants.

 

So yeah, you're willing to pay double for your veggies? Okay. What about your chicken, and your home construction, and your vacations, and your transportation services and forestry products and service industries?

 

Again, we critically need those people in our economy, but we don't want to go to the expense of being adults and treating them as human beings. We rely on the two-tiered caste system as a way to make us wealthier, because we would rather pay half price for our veggies (you today) or double price for our veggies (you tomorrow) than pay 120% for our veggies by conducting ourselves as ethical people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our schools have to take them no matter what their immigration status. I think all states are that way.

 

 

Sure - why not? I read sob stories about and written by illegals all the time, so they seem to be doing just fine with it.
Some of them truly are sad too, like when a teenager finds out they were smuggled in as an infant are not actually American. I would hate to have to decide that kind case. You can't be human and not want to give the kid a break, but you also know doing so just encourages a thousand more parents to try the same thing.


How did they register for school without documentation?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wrong. citizenship confers certain rights and privileges whether you deserve them or not. There's a lot of shitbag 'mericans I would like to boot out and keep a lot of illegal hard working aliens in their place - but unfortunately we are stuck with the shitbags.
I don't know with whom you hang, but I've never met a shitbag "alien" ... there obviously are some of course, but that's not really their defining characteristic is it? Working their assess off to Tejano music and drinking pineapple Jarritos, now that's a defining characteristic, right?

 

Anyway, criminals lose their Constitutional rights all the time. I have no idea why the felony and sometimes misdemeanors of hiring illegal aliens is so rarely enforced. Maybe you understand that?

 

I assume it has something to do with the reality that our economy would probably collapse without all those undocumented workers, but governments want to keep certain people happy with the wink nod of not touching the demand, only the supply.

 

The INS can deport ten thousand undocumented workers and not make a dent. Yet if they did just one perp walk a month of some random Audi-driving suburbanite illegal employer, the market for illegal labor would collapse, and our economy would go with it. Of course, it's always amusing to read the opinions of those who see the brown people as the problem rather than themselves.

Highly doubt it would collapse. I am willing to pay double for vegetables in order for illegals to get the boot.

 

Why is it good for you to pay more for vegetables? If you pay less, then you have more money to buy other stuff. That creates jobs. Then the immigrants spend the money they got for picking vegetables. That creates jobs. See how that works?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting numbers Mikey. 25% of US construction workers? Cite?

Ah, the Internet Expert weighs in again. Exactly how do you get any number? For those who aren't here legally may not be willing to verify that. FWIW in my part of the world (the desert of SE Texas) I would put the number much higher based on the very few who speak any English at all. But go ahead and educate us Grumps since I only work in the industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are nearing the tipping point where the folks riding in the cart outnumber those pushing the cart.

 

This is not the 1% that some would have you believe. We could confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it to the downtrodden and that might prop up some folks for a year or so. Grabbing the net worth of the top 10% might give us snother year of "free" stuff.

 

How much fun is it going to be when the party is over, and there's no one left to pay for the next Friday night of "free"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are nearing the tipping point where the folks riding in the cart outnumber those pushing the cart.

 

This is not the 1% that some would have you believe. We could confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it to the downtrodden and that might prop up some folks for a year or so. Grabbing the net worth of the top 10% might give us snother year of "free" stuff.

 

How much fun is it going to be when the party is over, and there's no one left to pay for the next Friday night of "free"?

You really have no idea of the amount of wealth of the top 1% do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are nearing the tipping point where the folks riding in the cart outnumber those pushing the cart.

 

This is not the 1% that some would have you believe. We could confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it to the downtrodden and that might prop up some folks for a year or so. Grabbing the net worth of the top 10% might give us snother year of "free" stuff.

 

How much fun is it going to be when the party is over, and there's no one left to pay for the next Friday night of "free"?

You really have no idea of the amount of wealth of the top 1% do you?

 

 

Yes. I do. I have a friend from High School who is in the 1%. Overtax him and he'll just cash out and shut down his manufacturing business.

 

A couple hundred people will lose good jobs. They'll stop pushing the cart and climb in. Soon enough, the cart will stop moving and the folks in the cart will still be screaming at the folks who used to push it for their own lot in life..

 

The Soviet Union .....South African Land Reform, etc.

 

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but it can not exist without incentive and rewarding risk

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are nearing the tipping point where the folks riding in the cart outnumber those pushing the cart.

 

This is not the 1% that some would have you believe. We could confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it to the downtrodden and that might prop up some folks for a year or so. Grabbing the net worth of the top 10% might give us snother year of "free" stuff.

 

How much fun is it going to be when the party is over, and there's no one left to pay for the next Friday night of "free"?

 

False dichotomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are nearing the tipping point where the folks riding in the cart outnumber those pushing the cart.

 

This is not the 1% that some would have you believe. We could confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it to the downtrodden and that might prop up some folks for a year or so. Grabbing the net worth of the top 10% might give us snother year of "free" stuff.

 

How much fun is it going to be when the party is over, and there's no one left to pay for the next Friday night of "free"?

 

False dichotomy.

 

 

Partisan stroke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this, yet taxes are low compared to anytime in living memory. By your standard the USA should have been a hellhole of third world deprivation for much of the 20th century :rolleyes:

The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all.
―Gilbert K. Chesterton

 

 

We are nearing the tipping point where the folks riding in the cart outnumber those pushing the cart.

This is not the 1% that some would have you believe. We could confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it to the downtrodden and that might prop up some folks for a year or so. Grabbing the net worth of the top 10% might give us snother year of "free" stuff.

How much fun is it going to be when the party is over, and there's no one left to pay for the next Friday night of "free"?


You really have no idea of the amount of wealth of the top 1% do you?

 

 

Yes. I do. I have a friend from High School who is in the 1%. Overtax him and he'll just cash out and shut down his manufacturing business.

 

A couple hundred people will lose good jobs. They'll stop pushing the cart and climb in. Soon enough, the cart will stop moving and the folks in the cart will still be screaming at the folks who used to push it for their own lot in life..

 

The Soviet Union .....South African Land Reform, etc.

 

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but it can not exist without incentive and rewarding risk

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting numbers Mikey. 25% of US construction workers? Cite?

Ah, the Internet Expert weighs in again. Exactly how do you get any number? For those who aren't here legally may not be willing to verify that. FWIW in my part of the world (the desert of SE Texas) I would put the number much higher based on the very few who speak any English at all. But go ahead and educate us Grumps since I only work in the industry.

What would happen in your side of the industry if all those undocumented workers were instantly removed from the job sites by the INS? I don't know about Texas, but in Colorado, I'm guessing it's higher than 25% for the same reasons you noted. And the reason the INS doesn't do anything is because industry both critically relies on those workers and prefers their undocumented status for some applications.

 

As for the 25%, I wrote "up to 25%" which our expert Grumpy was apparently too drunk to read. And here's the citation, also that over 50% of our Ag industry is undocumented, https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do

 

 

A little off topic, I was talking with a construction manager a couple days ago, he said that the construction work in this state has changed a lot since marijuana became legal here. He said his workers used to be drunk a lot, getting them to work quickly wasn't difficult, but keeping up the quality of their work was a challenge.

 

Now, they've traded being baked for being drunk, and he has real problems with getting them to work quickly, but the quality of their work is now off the scale. He said that he had to kept visiting a stone mason who was doing a ledgestone front on one house, the mason said "si, but mira that lindo stone." He looked at the ledgestone that was hours behind schedule and he said it was the most beautiful stonework he had ever seen, it all fit together like a huge stone puzzle.

 

So maybe we have a new age of slowly-made, high-quality workmanship in front of us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You people who keep putting this in the profit before border protection and law enforcement context disgust me. You like to go on as if your position has something to do with humane empathy but always reveals itself to be about money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You people who keep putting this in the profit before border protection and law enforcement context disgust me. You like to go on as if your position has something to do with humane empathy but always reveals itself to be about money.

You're confused.

 

The people who put profit before border are the ones who make a living breaking U.S. Law by continuing to hire undocumented workers. Those Americans are the ones with whom you owe your beef, the suppliers of the demand. Spend a little time around a typical Westchester County Club, you'll find the real target of your problem there. But you undoubtedly can't accuse someone while you're busy licking their soles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is that "of the United States" part too.

 

"People of the US" and "citizens" are distinct categories.

 

The Constitutional Rights of Illegal Aliens, Under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments

 

In today’s United States v. Portillo-Munoz, a divided Fifth Circuit panel holds that illegal aliens don’t have Second Amendment rights because they’re not part of “the people,” and suggests that they may lack Fourth Amendment rights as well. (The same logic might apply to the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, which also mentions a right of “the people” to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.) Here’s the core analysis from the majority:

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

the suppliers of the demand.

Only a dumbass liberal could craft such a turn of phrase.

 

And apparently you know nothing about "Westchester Country Clubs".

The reality is that most country clubs and yacht clubs, at least those in our neck of the woods, are run by families. Usually a patriarchal structure and often having a dominant matriarch who oversees some important aspect of the club, like the galley or pool. Since clubs have much to lose in regards to their tax status to play games hiring the undocumented, they work very hard to be in complete compliance with W-9/I-9 requirements.

Now tell us again how our economy will implode if we remove them from the workforce via deportation and stricter border enforcement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the suppliers of the demand.

Only a dumbass liberal could craft such a turn of phrase.

 

And apparently you know nothing about "Westchester Country Clubs".

The reality is that most country clubs and yacht clubs, at least those in our neck of the woods, are run by families. Usually a patriarchal structure and often having a dominant matriarch who oversees some important aspect of the club, like the galley or pool. Since clubs have much to lose in regards to their tax status to play games hiring the undocumented, they work very hard to be in complete compliance with W-9/I-9 requirements.

Now tell us again how our economy will implode if we remove them from the workforce via deportation and stricter border enforcement?

 

 

You're still confused. First off, I've had family in Westchester my whole life, second, I guess I should have broken it down for you, it's not the country clubs that are hiring the undocumented workers, could you really be that small-minded that you could actually imagine someone would think that country clubs are a source of economic stress in this country? Obviously not, it's the MEMBERS of your local country clubs, at least some of them, demographically-speaking, who hire the undocumented workers.

 

And yes, you raging small-minded dipshit, they most definitely are the "suppliers of the demand." They supply demand for their jobs by hiring undocumented workers. Obviously, if they didn't hire undocumented workers, the supply of undocumented workers would diminish.

 

Again, I guess actual logic is too much for you to handle, because you're tiny little brain is so wrapped up with hopeless ignorance of reality that trying to have a functional conversation with you is close to impossible. I'll try to spell it out for you ...

 

1. The laws that make it illegal for undocumented workers to work, and make it illegal to hire undocumented workers are in the SAME SECTION of U.S. Code. I can only assume you haven't ever actually taken the time read U.S. Code, you seem to base your understanding of U.S. Government on your constant droning about your family's Dutch history in NYC ... I can only assume that your great-great-grandpappy would kick your ass right over Spuyten Duyvil if he could see how hateful you've become of reality.

 

2. The INS is designed to both enforce laws relating to the workers and the EMPLOYERS! And this is when the little 25 watt light in your tiny little gerbil brain is supposed to illuminate and say "Duh, uh, why is it that the INS so rarely rounds up Americans who hire undocumented workers, and throw them in the same holding cells with those undocumented workers?" You do need to ask yourself that question, and spin that wrinkled little noggin of yours around at that family-owned country club and look at those members who have made a life's work off of violating those illegal hiring laws.

 

3. Now, you look at industries like construction, hotel and restaurant, manufacturing and agriculture, and ask yourself "Duh, uh, how will we manage to replace those workers?" The reality is that we can't, and THAT's why the INS and almost every State government has taken to turning a blind eye to illegal employment. Yes, every single state in the USA could do what Alabama did a few years ago and actually get strict about illegal hiring, but they don't. Why is that? Why is that you simple-minded buffoon? Why?

 

Answer that last question and you'll gradually learn why you should have probably paid attention in 8th grade civics class.

 

Yeesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still confused. First off, I've had family in Westchester my whole life, second, I guess I should have broken it down for you, it's not the country clubs that are hiring the undocumented workers, could you really be that small-minded that you could actually imagine someone would think that country clubs are a source of economic stress in this country? Obviously not, it's the MEMBERS of your local country clubs, at least some of them, demographically-speaking, who hire the undocumented workers.

Classic woooooofery speak. First you declare that the country clubs in Westchester are filled with illegal workers. When called on it you claim others to be confused on the subject.

 

Yes Mikey, it is all big businesses fault. Those bastards. If only they shut down our borders and enforced our immigration laws.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're still confused. First off, I've had family in Westchester my whole life, second, I guess I should have broken it down for you, it's not the country clubs that are hiring the undocumented workers, could you really be that small-minded that you could actually imagine someone would think that country clubs are a source of economic stress in this country? Obviously not, it's the MEMBERS of your local country clubs, at least some of them, demographically-speaking, who hire the undocumented workers.

Classic woooooofery speak. First you declare that the country clubs in Westchester are filled with illegal workers. When called on it you claim others to be confused on the subject.

 

Yes Mikey, it is all big businesses fault. Those bastards. If only they shut down our borders and enforced our immigration laws.......

 

 

Except that I didn't claim that. You're just too dim-witted to actually read words. I guess I should learn to converse in Dipshit, if I ever have a hope of being understood by you.

 

And I didn't write anything about "big business" either, that's more of your inoperable brain choking on something you don't understand, and then inserting some trite little phrase that you heard somewhere six years ago. I wrote that the problem is people who hire undocumented workers, and there are undoubtedly a lot of them at your country club. Even Donald Trump won't take personal responsibility for their existence in his casinos.

 

I asked you some very specific questions in the previous post, it doesn't surprise me that you made no attempt to understand them, let alone answer them. You're just a dim-witted, angry little fool, a finger-pointing jackoff who is incapable of understanding nuance and depth, and instead just latches your rusty logic center onto whatever hero you can find in your rapidly collapsing internal universe.

 

So again, I asked you some specific questions about enforcement of hiring laws around the U.S.A.. Unless you actually enjoy being gravel-minded, you might consider making a stab at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites