Jump to content

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 561
  • 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

29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

people (adults) who sneak across the border and flaunt our laws are not "The People".

And nobody has said they are. Sneaking across the border doesn't develop that substantial connection our courts have referenced. Growing up here does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 8:46 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 7/3/2018 at 8:16 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

people (adults) who sneak across the border and flaunt our laws are not "The People".

And nobody has said they are. Sneaking across the border doesn't develop that substantial connection our courts have referenced. Growing up here does.

And I have clearly and often said we should make those DACA kids "the People".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Show me a person (Especially a politician) who hasn't changed their views in 20 years, and I'll show you a corpse (Or Dabs).

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

Uh oh. I've been on this anti drug war kick since the 80's.

That may be a reasonable exception to the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 10:38 PM, Shootist Jeff said:
On 7/22/2016 at 7:00 AM, 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.

Why not require insurance?  Like we do with automobiles, no insurance, no car or we lock you up.  Huge economic cost with guns that are not borne by the manufacturers.  Seems more fair than just banning the poor from owning guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All people are created equal.... Not just US citizens.

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

Why not require insurance?  Like we do with automobiles, no insurance, no car or we lock you up.  Huge economic cost with guns that are not borne by the manufacturers.  Seems more fair than just banning the poor from owning guns.

Cars on private property don't require insurance.

I was a little boy when my assault weapon was manufactured. It hasn't caused any economic harm I know about, yet legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate it.

Can't I just be left alone to plink away with squirrel shooters on private property? Why is that so scary that it requires insurance or bans and confiscation?

 

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

Cars on private property don't require insurance.

I was a little boy when my assault weapon was manufactured. It hasn't caused any economic harm I know about, yet legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate it.

Can't I just be left alone to plink away with squirrel shooters on private property? Why is that so scary that it requires insurance or bans and confiscation?

 

Insurance seems reasonable to me.  It is required on boats in marinas.  I haven't made a claim in decades but I keep the insurance in place.

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

Insurance seems reasonable to me.  It is required on boats in marinas.  I haven't made a claim in decades but I keep the insurance in place.

If I drive my car on public roads, insurance seems reasonable.

But my farm truck never left the property during the time it was unregistered and uninsured.

If I store my (boat/liability) in your marina, insurance seems reasonable. My (boat/liability) might cause damage to your facility or other tenants.

But my personal boats live in my Boatport on my property.

To find a workable example, you'll need to find a completely private behavior that occurs on private property and explain why THAT requires insurance.

By the way, do you think illegal aliens are "the people" for second and fourth amendment purposes? Or maybe just one or the other? Just wanted to get a bit of the thread topic in here before it returns to all guns all the time, since I'm interested in discussing things other than guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

If I drive my car on public roads, insurance seems reasonable.

But my farm truck never left the property during the time it was unregistered and uninsured.

If I store my (boat/liability) in your marina, insurance seems reasonable. My (boat/liability) might cause damage to your facility or other tenants.

But my personal boats live in my Boatport on my property.

To find a workable example, you'll need to find a completely private behavior that occurs on private property and explain why THAT requires insurance.

By the way, do you think illegal aliens are "the people" for second and fourth amendment purposes? Or maybe just one or the other? Just wanted to get a bit of the thread topic in here before it returns to all guns all the time, since I'm interested in discussing things other than guns.

Sorry for the thread drift.

I don't object to the possession of guns.  I have seen consequences.

As an attorney and an immigrant, albeit over 150 years ago, I see value in giving all immigrants the rights we live by.  I don't find them scary at all.  Actually, it is one of the most healthy things going on in the USA.

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

As an attorney and an immigrant, albeit over 150 years ago, I see value in giving all immigrants the rights we live by.  I don't find them scary at all.  Actually, it is one of the most healthy things going on in the USA.

I'd agree with respect to the two amendments I asked about, but what about the right to vote? I'd draw a line there.

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

I'd agree with respect to the two amendments I asked about, but what about the right to vote? I'd draw a line there.

Perhaps, then give them a way forward, like my ancestors were given.

 

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

Perhaps, then give them a way forward, like my ancestors were given.

 

That would be a path to citizenship. I agree, but note that there are legit objections. Jeff will probably show up to note (correctly) that this inevitably rewards jumping the line. Dog may even show up to note (again correctly) that if we can't absorb any and all who wish to come, letting someone cut the line displaces someone who was waiting.

Those things are true, but it's also true that someone waiting abroad isn't part of "the people" in the way the guy in the topic post is. No "substantial connection" as yet, just a desire. And no inclination to sneak in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ignore the fact that employers hire people to work and that is why they are here.  Reform immigration policies.  No wall.  I like to work and enjoy it when my neighbors do too.  China is becoming the retirement community of the world; as is Japan.  The EU is aging.  The USA has this wonderful immigrant population coming in.  Treat them right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think it might be you who is ignoring the guy in the topic post. He's here because he was 4 and was brought here.

I may be dense, but the topic post is over 3 years old... and the conversation goes on.  I love conversation, although I did well at math, I find engaging is fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, hasher said:

You ignore the fact that employers hire people to work and that is why they are here.

Some are here because they were brought as children.

Some are arriving or en route at the moment not so much because they want a job as because our stupid drug war has reduced their home countries to gang havens and it's dangerous to stay. They want to get away from the drug gangs and survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Some are here because they were brought as children.

Some are arriving or en route at the moment not so much because they want a job as because our stupid drug war has reduced their home countries to gang havens and it's dangerous to stay. They want to get away from the drug gangs and survive.

My ancestors came for religious freedom. They believed a hearsay was destroying the church.  Ironic that I raised my children in a church that perpetuates that very belief.

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

My ancestors came for religious freedom. They believed a hearsay was destroying the church.  Ironic that I raised my children in a church that perpetuates that very belief.

Good point, people do come for religious reasons too. It's not all about those evil employers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

I'm actually with Tom on this - I think that non-citizen residents ought to be afforded every right, and abide by every regulation, that our citizens do, except participating in elections, either as voters or advocates. 


Whoa there. I said

 

14 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

what about the right to vote? I'd draw a line there.

$peaking is a whole different thing and I'm a LOT more permissive about who I'd cen$or. The answer is almost no one. I say almost just because there's got to be an example somewhere but it escapes me at the moment.

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

An Armed Right Winger Entered A Church To Harass Them For Helping Immigrants

At least, a lying braggart made that claim.

Quote

In that same video, another man wearing a white cowboy hat can be heard bragging about an atrocious activity he engaged in while harassing the church members. That man tells other PMAZ members that he “busted right through the door” of the church to confront them. A gun can be seen on the side of the man’s hip.

So I suppose it might have happened.

Doesn't have a lot to do with the thread topic, though. The people they're helping are asylum seekers who apparently have sponsors. Nothing wrong with that but asylum seekers are not The People. If you don't know why, search the thread for the words substantial connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9th Circuit: Victor Manuel Torres Isn't One Of The People

Quote

 

...

Torres, born in Mexico in 1985, was age 4 when he entered the country without permission with a younger sister and their mother.

The court said he was expelled from high school in 2000 because he was a member of the Sur Santos Pride gang, which he joined at 14.

In 2002, when he was 16, his parents sent him back to Mexico.

When Torres reached adulthood, he tried three times to enter the U.S. illegally, succeeding on the third time in 2005.

He joined his family in San Jose, worked for his father’s landscaping business and married a U.S. citizen in 2012. He never applied for legal status.

In 2014, Los Gatos police arrested him after discovering he had a stolen bicycle, a loaded revolver, what appeared to be homemade silencers for the gun and bolt cutters.

A jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to 27 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

Adam G. Gasner, Torres’ lawyer, said Torres will face deportation after leaving prison.

Gasner said he believed it was unfair that an immigrant in the country without authorization who owns a gun to protect property or obtain food remains subject to a felony conviction.

“The Constitution applies to undocumented people in all other regards,” Gasner said.

He said he has not yet decided whether to appeal.

 

Hmmm... He was protecting stolen property and I seriously doubt the revolver was used for hunting. And the Constitution doesn't apply to undocumented people in all other regards.

Still, he grew up here, he's been living and working here since 2005 and married to an American since 2012. Those are some substantial connections to the community. Not quite substantial enough to make him want a crime-free community, it seems.

If he gets to the Supreme Court, I hope his lawyer has wised up a bit and realizes that he needs to make an argument about self-defense, not defense of property, stolen or otherwise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What If Illegal Immigrants Don't Know They Are People?

Quote

That's the question facing the Court in Rehaif v. U.S.

Well, sort of.
 

Quote

 

Rehaif is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, who was let into the country on a student visa to study mechanical engineering; he apparently failed out, which meant his visa expired as a result. But Rehaif stayed in the country, and went to a shooting range, where he rented a gun and bought ammunition. Six days later, an employee at the hotel at which Rehaif was staying called the police to say Rehaif was acting suspiciously; when an FBI agent came to speak to Rehaif, he learned about Rehaif's trip to the shooting range (at which he possessed a gun) and his continued possession of ammunition. Rehaif was prosecuted for both, on the theory that he was an illegal alien.

There is some evidence that Rehaif knew he was no longer legally present: The university had e-mailed him to say that, and the agent claims that Rehaif had admitted as much. But Rehaif's lawyer says he wanted to argue that Rehaif hadn't read the e-mail, and that the agent was lying about the admission (the conversation had not been recorded). It's therefore important whether Rehaif's knowledge of his status is legally relevant, and that's what the Court is set to decide.

 

The article includes an excerpt from a previous ruling by then-judge Gorsuch. Looks like he's on Rehalf's side on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2018 at 4:31 AM, dogballs Tom said:
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.

Well, it's a year later and a slightly different cast of buttheads and I'm guessing Trump will get at least some of his stupid wall in the end, but the whole thing has me wondering about those visa overstayers.

Mentioned frequently because a wall obviously does nothing to stop them. I guess it might keep them in if they tried to leave.

From the Walk Out thread:

15 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Given the physical southern border is secure, I'd say we can continue at current levels, maybe moving some funds from low impact to more knowledge-based items like drones, etc. Then, move a bunch of assets to address the overstay issue.  You know, the REAL problem.


Spending a bunch of money might or might not address (or exacerbate) a problem but it seems to me that there are two kinds of overstayers:

1. If you've been here a week longer than allowed, it's very unlikely you're part of The People so some of our amendments cover you to some extent.

2. If you persist in your criminal behavior long enough and develop those "substantial connections" mentioned by our courts, you're part of The People and more of them cover you to a greater extent.

So two different ranges of enforcement options are available to the government and it's not really clear when the second set of rules kicks in exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 4:44 AM, dogballs Tom said:

What If Illegal Immigrants Don't Know They Are People?

Well, sort of.
 

The article includes an excerpt from a previous ruling by then-judge Gorsuch. Looks like he's on Rehalf's side on this one.

A similar case was just dismissed.

 

Quote

 

In his Montgomery County trial, a jury heard the prosecution and defense cases — including Zhao’s own testimony denying that he had an illegal weapon. But Long threw out the charge before attorneys got to closing arguments or jurors began deliberations.

Long said he had “serious problems” with the prosecution’s case, which rested on a gun dealer’s testimony that he sold Zhao a 30-round magazine to use on his otherwise legal rifle, and a Blacksburg police detective’s account of seeing Zhao at a firing range in the Jefferson National Forest, shooting the rifle while it was equipped with the 30-round magazine.

Zhao was allowed to have a rifle equipped with a magazine that could hold 20 rounds, but any larger magazine made the gun an assault weapon prohibited for someone with his visa status.

Long said that he found it “very, very curious” that Monte Smith of Whitetail Outfitters in Montgomery County could not produce a receipt or any records to back up his assertion that he sold Zhao a 30-round magazine.

The judge also was critical of Det. Brian Wilson’s testimony that he watched Zhao fire a Bushmaster XM-15 fitted with a larger-than-allowed magazine but did not use a camcorder he carried to take a supporting video because he thought it would be too conspicuous.

Asked why he didn’t take a video with the cellphone that he had just used to text a request for backup, Wilson said the phone had died at that point.

“I don’t believe in coincidence like that,” Long said after the officer was off the stand. “Nice try.”

 

Zhao wanted to be a cop and now wants to be a lawyer. Go figger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
44 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If there needs to be a specific agency to round up immigrant overstays, and take custody of illegals that other agencies have arrested (within the Constitution please.... yes illegals don't have Constitutional rights but you don't know they're illegal when you arrest them), I would not have a problem with that but 1- it needs to have full judicial oversight and 2- the name ICE has become so polarizing that it should be done away with

You might want to inform yourself about the bolded part. You got it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Damn, Tom.  You sure do like to quote yourself.  Seems like you enjoy talking with yourself.

Damn, Bus. You sure do like to gossip.

Seems like you enjoy talking about other posters more than political issues like the topic one.

BTW, I am not Steam Flyer.

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

Still, no.

Actually, still yes, whether you like it or not.

Denying that the courts have ruled this way is a common defense mechanism when people don't like the rulings. Some don't seem to think Roe v Wade ever happened. Some are unclear on Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR. You're unclear on this.

But the rulings have happened and will continue, whether you choose to admit them to your reality or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal To Treat Illegal Immigrants Like The People Fails
 

Quote

 

...

Looking to amend the Democrats’ “Bipartisan Background Checks Act,” from his perch on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Steube used language from U.S. Rep. David Cicilline’s, D-RI, “Unlawful Gun Buyer Alert Act” which has the support of U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, the chairman of the committee. But both Cicilline and Nadler voted against his amendment.

...

Steube noted his amendment would have “Immigration and Customs Enforcement be notified if an illegal immigrant attempts to purchase a firearm.”

 

I've never heard of Nadler voting against a gun control proposal before.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
21 minutes ago, Happy said:

Thanks for clearing that up. So "the people" have the right as individuals. 

I don't think the founding fathers would have intended that if they saw some of "the people" today.


I think some of the founders and some of their ancestors may have arrived without proper documentation so they might be understanding in the case of some of the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 8/28/2015 at 9:00 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

The 7th Circuit Says Yes
 

 

Quote

...Like the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment refers to a right that belongs to “the people”

9 minutes ago, Mark K said:
7 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Careful with the generalizations or you'll run afoul of a major TeamD exception to our rights.

Illegal immigrants are only sometimes the people.

 

 Understand you believe illegal immigrants should be armed. Of course! 


More than one amendment uses the phrase "the people" as the 7th Circuit and the gun lovers at Think Progress seem to realize, even if you do not seem to.

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

Still no.

Hah! Hey Mark, Jeff has joined the gungrabby side of this one! (Well, and the anti-first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendment side, but those are not the important issues, are they?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/13/2019 at 4:44 AM, Importunate Tom said:

What If Illegal Immigrants Don't Know They Are People?

Quote

That's the question facing the Court in Rehaif v. U.S.

Well, sort of.

SCOTUS Ruling Says:

Felons-in-possession must know they are felons
 

Quote

 

In order to convict an unauthorized immigrant for gun possession, a federal prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed the gun but also that he knew he was out of immigration status, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Friday in Rehaif v. United States. The decision will almost certainly lead to collateral attacks on convictions under a much more commonly invoked provision criminalizing gun possession by convicted felons.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion stated that the federal law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), criminalizes possession of firearms by a person falling into any of nine enumerated status categories, one of which is aliens unlawfully in the United States, and another of which is anyone convicted of an offense punishable by at least a year in prison. The majority explicitly held that the government “must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.”

In a vehement dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, protested that the decision will lead to a flood of challenges by people currently incarcerated under Section 922(g), most of them in the felon-in-possession category. Noting that 6,032 people were convicted in fiscal year 2017 alone under Section 922(g), with an average sentence of 64 months, Alito warned of a coming flood of litigation. Those whose direct appeals are not yet exhausted will “likely be entitled to a new trial,” said Alito, and others will move to have their convictions vacated under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

 

Alito's objection would depend on whether people know their status.
 

Quote

 

At the ensuing trial, the district court instructed the jury that it need not find that Rehaif knew he was out of immigration status, and the jury convicted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed, noting substantial agreement among its fellow circuits that the term “knowingly” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to possession of the weapon, but not to the status category of the possessor.

Breyer’s majority opinion rejected that position. “In determining Congress’ intent, we start from a longstanding presumption, traceable to the common law, that Congress intends to require a defendant to possess a culpable mental state regarding ‘each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct,'” wrote Breyer. “Here we can find no convincing reason to depart from the ordinary presumption in favor of scienter [requirement of guilty mind].”

The phrase “otherwise innocent conduct” strongly echoed concerns voiced by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at oral argument. They had noted that possession of a gun alone is not blameworthy and therefore that one’s membership in a prohibited status category is all that stands between innocent and criminal conduct under Section 922(g). If the status divides innocent from criminal conduct, then the defendant should have to know of that status in order to be convicted, they suggested.

 

Perhaps Scienter Tom would be a good screen name. I know I'm bad!

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

 

Perhaps Scienter Tom would be a good screen name. I know I'm bad!

 

You game the being bad. You entertain yourself by being bad. It pleases you, yes, ad infinitum... we get tasteless and tonedeaf OCD from you, pal.

 

You were thrilled to be naughty in high school, eh, got tossed from private high schools more than once?

And you grew up to be a person who would sustain a personal race-baiter pattern under your real name. You rock, Tom Ray.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurred to me yesterday that we can't fix this ridiculous border war with our future taxpayers while we still tend to view them as inferior to Americans. (Even though they are Americans, but we've taken that word just to mean United States of Americans.)

We can't fix this while we still collectively see these people as inferior to us.

And we can't see them as desirable people who can catapult our economy to new heights of wealth as long as we can't even see our fellow United States of Americans as equal to us.

All those millions of United States of Americans who live in Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Saipan, Washington D.C., Tinian and American Samoa are currently shit upon collectively by all of us, regardless our politics. I shit on them just as much as the MAGA supporter does. In some cases they aren't even citizens, but "nationals" even though they fought and sometimes died in our militaries. 

Hell, about ten years ago, Puerto Ricans even voted for statehood and their collective desire was lost in a mess of bond market collapse and hurricane. We made their vote cease to exist.

And now, Puerto Ricans, American Samoans, and the rest of these Americans live without the freedoms, controls, wealth, respect and legacy to their children as their fellow United States of Americans.

From this point forward, I will support any and all politicians who work to end this enormous, and Unamerican injustice.

Puerto Rico should be our 51st State, American Samoa our 52nd State, the Northern Marianas, USVI and D.C. deserve statehood and full voting rights too. That D.C. residents are taxed without representation (in the cradle of our government no less) is reprehensible.

And then when all United States of Americans are considered with the dignity and respect that they have earned, we will at least have a chance to see other Americans in light that doesn't have that color of exploitation and veiled hatred.

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

And absolutely ZERO of that above has anything to do with the thread topic.  Just saying....

It has everything to do with it, for those with reading comprehension, Mr. "we could fix our fucked up and utterly broken immigration system."

Just saying.

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

And you're just saying it wrong.  Are "Puerto Ricans, American Samoans, and the rest of these Americans" you mention "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS"??  No, they are not.  Therefore, irrelevant to this thread. 

If you want to start a new thread about how we treat the citizens of our colonies, the "Start new topic" button is on the top right of your page.  You are welcome.

Reead please.

I wrote that we can't have a rational take on the immigrants from places like Mexico and Guatemala while we still treat Americans from Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Washington DC, USVI, Saipan and Tinian as something less than full-fledged citizens. They deserve all the rights and representation of citizens of the USA.

So again ... If we can't even accept our fellow Americans as equals, what chance could we possibly have to see Mexicans, Guatemalans, et al. as humans worthy of respect and admiration?

You seem perfectly content to just blame a "broken immigration policy" without accepting the reality that this "broken" policy is a direct result of our desires for cheap labor and cheap product. That you even call them "illegal immigrants" while concurrently shielding your own swimming pool digging ways from a similar label (and admitting that you are an illegal hirer) is exactly the problem. They're illegal? Fine, then you're illegal. But if you don't consider yourself illegal, then perhaps you should call them "undocumented", huh?

The undocumented immigrants came here because JBSF and Mikewof illegally gave them work digging swimming pools and picking oranges off of trees.

Reading is fundamental, JBSF. You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are people, certainly the IRS does not discriminate between payroll deductions for legal and illegal immigrants. "No Taxation Without Representation" was, after all, this nation's first bumper sticker, proudly displayed on most of the tanks that Washington led into the Battle of Reagan International.    

 Might feel different if there weren't millions of People who are technically illegal but have no memory of living anywhere else and are in their 40's, no nation will acknowledge them as ever having being citizens, and many of whom can only speak English well. What are they supposed to be? A permanent helot class of millions within the US?? That would not be in keeping with the statement that certain rights are inherent, now would it? 

 Either throw them out ya gotta give them a vote. Or exempt them from payroll taxes...I guess. I doubt anyone is suggesting that for some reason.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

I think they are people, certainly the IRS does not discriminate between payroll deductions for legal and illegal immigrants. "No Taxation Without Representation" was, after all, this nation's first bumper sticker, proudly displayed on most of the tanks that Washington led into the Battle of Reagan International.    

 Might feel different if there weren't millions of People who are technically illegal but have no memory of living anywhere else and are in their 40's, no nation will acknowledge them as ever having being citizens, and many of whom can only speak English well. What are they supposed to be? A permanent helot class of millions within the US?? That would not be in keeping with the statement that certain rights are inherent, now would it? 

 Either throw them out ya gotta give them a vote. Or exempt them from payroll taxes...I guess. I doubt anyone is suggesting that for some reason.  

 

Not only payroll, but state sales taxes, federal fuel taxes, Local property taxes.....

 These people do not freeload the way the Trumpsters would like you to believe. I'll bet the average undocumented worker in NYC pays more taxes than Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

@Shootist Jeff hires illegals? Quell fucking surprise from the drama queen.

We all do it.

I'm a stickler for I-9 validation, but I still indirectly hire undocumented workers when I pay taxes to fix certain roads, when I eat certain produce, or chicken, or live in certain housing developments. We keep hiring undocumented workers because we want cheap luxuries.

George Orwell got it right about a hundred years ago, about his own country's similarly exploitive take on their brown-skinned serfs in their overseas colonies. The only real difference is that we just export the workers, rather than export the wealth, like The Crown ...

... the high standard of life we enjoy in England depends upon our keeping a tight hold on the Empire, particularly the tropical portions of it such as India and Africa. Under the capitalist system, in order that England may live in comparative comfort, a hundred million Indians must live on the verge of starvation—an evil state of affairs, but you acquiesce in it every time you step into a taxi or eat a plate of strawberries and cream. The alternative is to throw the Empire overboard and reduce England to a cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live mainly on herrings and potatoes.

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

I think they are people, certainly the IRS does not discriminate between payroll deductions for legal and illegal immigrants. "No Taxation Without Representation" was, after all, this nation's first bumper sticker, proudly displayed on most of the tanks that Washington led into the Battle of Reagan International.    

 Might feel different if there weren't millions of People who are technically illegal but have no memory of living anywhere else and are in their 40's, no nation will acknowledge them as ever having being citizens, and many of whom can only speak English well. What are they supposed to be? A permanent helot class of millions within the US?? That would not be in keeping with the statement that certain rights are inherent, now would it? 

 Either throw them out ya gotta give them a vote. Or exempt them from payroll taxes...I guess. I doubt anyone is suggesting that for some reason.  

 

 

Also, these people have allowed us deflect the difficulties of population inversion that is increasingly punishing Japan and Russia and parts of Europe.

They're making us wealthy (both the undocumented workers, and the second-class Americans in places like Puerto Rico, Saipan and USVI) and of course, in typical British Colonialist fashion, we just shit all over them.

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

I think they are people, certainly the IRS does not discriminate between payroll deductions for legal and illegal immigrants. "No Taxation Without Representation" was, after all, this nation's first bumper sticker, proudly displayed on most of the tanks that Washington led into the Battle of Reagan International.    

 Might feel different if there weren't millions of People who are technically illegal but have no memory of living anywhere else and are in their 40's, no nation will acknowledge them as ever having being citizens, and many of whom can only speak English well. What are they supposed to be? A permanent helot class of millions within the US?? That would not be in keeping with the statement that certain rights are inherent, now would it? 

 Either throw them out ya gotta give them a vote. Or exempt them from payroll taxes...I guess. I doubt anyone is suggesting that for some reason.  

 

Without a citizenship question on the census, they are represented.  They just have to let the nice states have a couple of extra representatives based on the increased population and the local nice people (who know what's good for them and want their grapes picked) can vote for them.

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

Without a citizenship question on the census, they are represented.  They just have to let the nice states have a couple of extra representatives based on the increased population and the local nice people (who know what's good for them and want their grapes picked) can vote for them.

I'm curious where it says in the Constitution, or any body of US law, that a person -must- have identification on tham at all times, and must immediately identify themselves to the satisfaction of any gov't employee/agency that wants to ask.

Why are people who supposedly consider themselves "conservative" want to have a Federal Gestapo running around nabbing everybody whose papers are not in order?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm curious where it says in the Constitution, or any body of US law, that a person -must- have identification on them at all times, and must immediately identify themselves to the satisfaction of any gov't employee/agency that wants to ask.

Why are people who supposedly consider themselves "conservative" want to have a Federal Gestapo running around nabbing everybody whose papers are not in order?

- DSK

It doesn't and I'm curious as to why you believe that there is no reason to carry identification to identify yourself if needed.  I am usually only asked to show mine when I am in the process of some transaction that requires it. You know like uhhh, cashing a check, traffic stop, boarding an aircraft for international travel, crossing a border, etc. 

I don't think asking about citizenship is intrusive or irrational.  There is actually no need for it on the census specifically but, over the years our politicians have made a habit of adding more and more questions to the census to the point where we now need a special census with even more questions for some people.

Incidentally, it appears that the current roundup is for people who are already subject to deportation orders for various reasons.  Those papers do seem to be in order.  Nancy and Hillary have given excellent advice on their rights but I would point out that if they do have a warrant to serve the deportation order, you have to fix the door you refused to open.

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

...    ...    ...

I don't think asking about citizenship is intrusive or irrational. ...    ...

Of course not, when asking brown skinned people. After all, they don't have the same Constitutional rights.

If the bank says "Show ID or we won't cash your check" that is a very very different thing than a gov't employee stopping you in public and saying "Show ID (and the exact right kind of ID.... and don't make any suspicious moves while reaching for it....) or we'll put you in a concentration camp prior to shipping you off to a country you've never even visited."

Of course, you 'conservatives' believe that Constitutional rights are very important, don't you?

- DSK

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

I'm not aware of any gov't employees stopping random brown skinned people on the streets and asking them for specific ID.  Can you give me some examples please?  

Random immigration stops are all over the Southwest.

And they are commonly supported by both conservatives and the current administration. Ironically though, in a bizarre twist of momentously fucked up logic, these same people then don't often support mandatory I-9 verification.

From digging swimming pools to employing people in a branded casino, it's too much trouble to validate I-9 and use Real ID. "Hey Mexican! Show that cop your papers, and when you're done, forget I said anything about papers and get over here to fix the dent in my sports car."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Of course not, when asking brown skinned people. After all, they don't have the same Constitutional rights.

If the bank says "Show ID or we won't cash your check" that is a very very different thing than a gov't employee stopping you in public and saying "Show ID (and the exact right kind of ID.... and don't make any suspicious moves while reaching for it....) or we'll put you in a concentration camp prior to shipping you off to a country you've never even visited."

Of course, you 'conservatives' believe that Constitutional rights are very important, don't you?

- DSK

Well some fool posted this.

I'm curious where it says in the Constitution, or any body of US law, that a person -must- have identification on them at all times, and must immediately identify themselves to the satisfaction of any gov't employee/agency that wants to ask.

and I responded "It doesn't".  It doesn't look that complicated to me.  Do you have a source for your quote?

 

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

 

Well some fool posted this.

I'm curious where it says in the Constitution, or any body of US law, that a person -must- have identification on them at all times, and must immediately identify themselves to the satisfaction of any gov't employee/agency that wants to ask.

and I responded "It doesn't".  It doesn't look that complicated to me.  Do you have a source for your quote?

 

??

What quote are you gassing about now?

If the US Constitution does not require a person to present ID on demand by a Federal agency, then why is the US gov't locking people up for not having ID? Are you OK with putting people in concentration camps because they don't have one (that satisfies all Federal requirements) and/or shooting them when they're reaching for it?

Seems to me that a "conservative" would be more interested in following the Constitution than in locking up masses of brown-skinned people

- DSK

 

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

I'm not aware of any gov't employees stopping random brown skinned people on the streets and asking them for specific ID.  Can you give me some examples please?  

That's because you are ignoring what ICE does many many times a day

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's because you are ignoring what ICE does many many times a day

- DSK

And also ignoring what ICE doesn't do many times a day ... use any enforcement at all on the millions of Americans who illegally hire.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice they aren't targeting cities with a large illegal Irish, Eastern European, or Scandanavian population.....

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

Please post some examples of people being locked up for not having ID and some of those “random stops all over the SW”.  

In fact I seem to recall that the AZ state bill that mandated LEO to stop brown people and lock them up for lack of ID was shot down by the SC not too long ago.  I don’t recall anything changing in the law since then.  If it has, please feel free to edumacate the class.

So, you'd be against this "if"(wink wink) it was happening? Because the Constitution!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

??

What quote are you gassing about now?

If the US Constitution does not require a person to present ID on demand by a Federal agency, then why is the US gov't locking people up for not having ID? Are you OK with putting people in concentration camps because they don't have one (that satisfies all Federal requirements) and/or shooting them when they're reaching for it?

Seems to me that a "conservative" would be more interested in following the Constitution than in locking up masses of brown-skinned people

- DSK

 

The quote was from your post.  It's the part  you put between quotation marks.  That's why they call them quotation marks.

I know you don't put much thought into your posts but at least figured you might remember the last one.

BTW, they aren't concentration camps.  Concentration camps are what the Germans used for Jews and we did for Japanese.  That is a place to store people legally in the country after rounding them up.

At the present time we are keeping people in processing centers (as we did in the last administration when Obama was the "Deporter in Chief").  We are also enforcing legally processed deportation orders in accordance with current law as established by congress.

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

The quote was from your post.  It's the part  you put between quotation marks.  That's why they call them quotation marks.

I know you don't put much thought into your posts but at least figured you might remember the last one.

BTW, they aren't concentration camps.  Concentration camps are what the Germans used for Jews and we did for Japanese.  That is a place to store people legally in the country after rounding them up.

At the present time we are keeping people in processing centers (as we did in the last administration when Obama was the "Deporter in Chief").  We are also enforcing legally processed deportation orders in accordance with current law as established by congress.

"Obama did it too!" looks like the main justification

We all noticed that you avoid the issue of having a US Federal Gestapo empowered to imprison anybody whose papers are not in order, despite there being no law requiring such. We also notice that you seem a bit confused about what a concentration camp is or isn't. If large numbers of people are involuntarily "concentrated" in these camps, what should they be called?

- DSK

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

We are also enforcing legally processed deportation orders in accordance with current law as established by congress.

We're NOT enforcing 50% of that same body of law that makes it illegal for Americans to illegally hire.

It's like putting steak and ice cream in front of a dog and then savagely beating the poor devil every time it takes a lick.

There is no rational way that United States of Americans like you and I can support this insanity.

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

"Obama did it too!" looks like the main justification

We all noticed that you avoid the issue of having a US Federal Gestapo empowered to imprison anybody whose papers are not in order, despite there being no law requiring such. We also notice that you seem a bit confused about what a concentration camp is or isn't. If large numbers of people are involuntarily "concentrated" in these camps, what should they be called?

- DSK

The War on Drugs is losing steam and the U.S. Slave Trade (i.e. The Prison Industry) is going to run out of peaceful, nonviolent brown skinned people to enslave and profit from the U.S. Taxpayers, in accordance with The Thirteenth Amendment. SO ... the Prison Industry is gradually moving its profit center to a new source of brown-skinned peaceful people, people who come here at the behest of illegal American employers, to do things like pick lettuce, dig swimming pools, fix dented auto bodies and apply roofing shingles ... and also for the High Crimes of being the child of someone who is poor enough to have to cross a border.

The profit motive behind the flag-waving, chest-beating wall-lovers is what drives this thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Rousseau's Social Contract Page 7:

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf

Quote

we’ll find that the social compact comes down to this: ’Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.’ ...

... Those who are associated in it are collectively called ‘a people’, and are separately called ‘citizens’ (as sharing in the sovereign power) and ‘subjects’ (as being under the state’s laws. But these terms are often muddled and confused with one another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.

The whole passage (part 6) is worth a read. It only takes a few minutes. To summarize, 'The People' are a group of individuals who enter into a social contract, agreeing to abide by a set of rules for the purpose of protecting their own individual property and liberty.

Those who do not agree to abide by those rules are still people - indeed they are a People of one (Sovereign citizens, lol), or part of a different People with its own set of rules. They cannot be part of The People unless they agree to live according to The People's rules.  

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

Those who do not agree to abide by those rules are still people - indeed they are a People of one (Sovereign citizens, lol), or part of a different People with its own set of rules. They cannot be part of The People unless they agree to live according to The People's rules.  

Can children make such an agreement? Because the thread started out about a guy who was brought here as a little boy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Can children make such an agreement? Because the thread started out about a guy who was brought here as a little boy.

Indeed. A sad state of affairs. I wish more parents would think of their children's future before comitting crimes.

There's been a lot of debate around that over time - especially around the subject of conscription. Then there's the question "When do an invading people own the land they stole?".

The best answer, in my opinion, is "When the natives are no longer capable of taking it back". Another possible answer is "When nobody can tell who was an invader and who was a native." Or perhaps it just boils down to the strength of "Because I said so.".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 11:59 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Nobody fucking cares about your games Jeffreaux, other than your prostate massage buddy @chum

Now - how about the blood and soil nationalism this morning from your boy Shitstain? Got your dicks hard didn't it? We all know that what bothers you guys is the color of the people.

You never fail to disappoint.  

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

Indeed. A sad state of affairs. I wish more parents would think of their children's future before comitting crimes.

I have to admit, you have a point here ...

So when we start enforcing illegal hiring laws, and arrest the L.A. housewives who hire undocumented housecleaners, gardeners and drivers, and when we make the business people who illegally hire to build homes, and pluck chickens in factories, and the reality TV stars/politicians who can't be bothered to check for I-9 documents, do you really think that we should pull their kids out of private school and toss them in the same ICE prison cell as their parents?

I mean, you do have a point, and these parents are clearly not thinking of their children's future, but c'est la vie right? The crimes of the parents sometimes have to be paid by the children. It's going to be a little hilarious, to see all those private school kids in their navy blue school uniforms paraded in front of the TV camera, tears streaked down their rosy little cheeks, trying out their 5th grade Spanish with the Guatemalan kids in their holding cells.

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

I have to admit, you have a point here ...

So when we start enforcing illegal hiring laws, and arrest the L.A. housewives who hire undocumented housecleaners, gardeners and drivers, and when we make the business people who illegally hire to build homes, and pluck chickens in factories, and the reality TV stars/politicians who can't be bothered to check for I-9 documents, do you really think that we should pull their kids out of private school and toss them in the same ICE prison cell as their parents?

I mean, you do have a point, and these parents are clearly not thinking of their children's future, but c'est la vie right? The crimes of the parents sometimes have to be paid by the children. It's going to be a little hilarious, to see all those private school kids in their navy blue school uniforms paraded in front of the TV camera, tears streaked down their rosy little cheeks, trying out their 5th grade Spanish with the Guatemalan kids in their holding cells.

I'm all for prosecuting the slave owners employers of illegal labor. Plenty of poor American kids end up in the foster system. It's awful, but I don't see why rich kids should be treated differently.

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

I have to admit, you have a point here ...

So when we start enforcing illegal hiring laws, and arrest the L.A. housewives who hire undocumented housecleaners, gardeners and drivers, and when we make the business people who illegally hire to build homes, and pluck chickens in factories, and the reality TV stars/politicians who can't be bothered to check for I-9 documents, do you really think that we should pull their kids out of private school and toss them in the same ICE prison cell as their parents?

I mean, you do have a point, and these parents are clearly not thinking of their children's future, but c'est la vie right? The crimes of the parents sometimes have to be paid by the children. It's going to be a little hilarious, to see all those private school kids in their navy blue school uniforms paraded in front of the TV camera, tears streaked down their rosy little cheeks, trying out their 5th grade Spanish with the Guatemalan kids in their holding cells.

Most Guatemalan kids that are likely to be in these cells probably speak a very different version of Spanish than is taught in US private schools. Or a native non Spanish language.

 Xinca, Garafuna, and K'iche' among them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

"Obama did it too!" looks like the main justification

We all noticed that you avoid the issue of having a US Federal Gestapo empowered to imprison anybody whose papers are not in order, despite there being no law requiring such. We also notice that you seem a bit confused about what a concentration camp is or isn't. If large numbers of people are involuntarily "concentrated" in these camps, what should they be called?

- DSK

No, actually, I just thought you might uderstand that it is enforcement of the law.  That's what the POTUS is supposed to do.

Unfortunately, there is a reason that it is hard to see what Obama was doing during his term.

ICE has ALWAYS been permitted to detain anyone in the country illegally.  That meaning not following the processes of our government which grant entry under specified conditions.

There are detention facilities at every border crossing and port of entry.  The problem now is the number of Americans who feel it is their duty to encourage violation of the law by supporting the immigrant convoys and establishing sanctuaries for the lawbreakers.

There are some strong feelings on both sides.

Former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan delivered a fiery defense of border agents during a House hearing where Democratic lawmakers just hours earlier had decried conditions at migrant detention centers -- as he ripped into the agency's congressional critics and said they should be “ashamed” of their conduct.

"If you don't like this, do your job. Fix it," Homan testified before the House Oversight Committee, recalling in graphic detail his own experiences on the job seeing dead bodies in tractor-trailers as he underscored the severity of the border crisis.

He said agents, amid this crisis, have been subject to “unprecedented attack and vilification” and “those men and women who chose a life of service to this nation deserve better, not only from the media but those in this committee and other members of Congress.”

Of course, some repatriations are fully justified.  It appears to matter based on the letter after the President's name.

151012155050-01-elian-gonzalez-rewind-re

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

Most Guatemalan kids that are likely to be in these cells probably speak a very different version of Spanish than is taught in US private schools. Or a native non Spanish language.

 Xinca, Garafuna, and K'iche' among them.

It's not a different version of Spanish.  It's Mayan.  It helps to keep down at home and the Central American governments like Guatemala and Honduras encourage it in the name of ethnic diversity and purity.

Guatemala claims that 93% speak Spanish but it is a second language for most of them and not used at home and neighborhoods.

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

We're NOT enforcing 50% of that same body of law that makes it illegal for Americans to illegally hire.

It's like putting steak and ice cream in front of a dog and then savagely beating the poor devil every time it takes a lick.

There is no rational way that United States of Americans like you and I can support this insanity.

There is no reason we should not be enforcing that.  My need for low cost immigrant labor is non-existent.

Edit:  It appears that there has been an increase in enforcement against employers.  The problem arises when you find the employees are are illegal entrants and what you do with them.

http://hrexecutive.com/increase-in-ice-raids-concerns-employers/

http://hrexecutive.com/increase-in-ice-raids-concerns-employers/

Part of the problem is that one employer might have hundreds of illegal entrants as employees.  You only hear about the workers, not the employer.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709680162/ice-raids-texas-technology-company-arrests-280-on-immigration-violations

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

No, actually, I just thought you might uderstand that it is enforcement of the law.  That's what the POTUS is supposed to do.

Unfortunately, there is a reason that it is hard to see what Obama was doing during his term.

ICE has ALWAYS been permitted to detain anyone in the country illegally. ...    ...    ...

 

???

So, which is it? The President enforcing the law, or ICE acting illegally?

Again (for the about the fortieth time) there is NO LAW requiring people in the US to present ID on demand to any gov't employee. To simply grab people off the street and say "your papers are not in order!" and slam them into a concentration camp is an outrageous offense against the Bill of Rights.

 

9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

...    ...    ...

Of course, some repatriations are fully justified.  It appears to matter based on the letter after the President's name.

 

To whom? I have never said "Torture (or or sending people to concentration camps) is good when WE do it." OTOH a lot of prominent Republicans have said yes to both.

-DSK

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

???

So, which is it? The President enforcing the law, or ICE acting illegally?

Again (for the about the fortieth time) there is NO LAW requiring people in the US to present ID on demand to any gov't employee. To simply grab people off the street and say "your papers are not in order!" and slam them into a concentration camp is an outrageous offense against the Bill of Rights.

 

 

To whom? I have never said "Torture (or or sending people to concentration camps) is good when WE do it." OTOH a lot of prominent Republicans have said yes to both.

-DSK

Neither.  ICE is not acting illegaly.

Asking for ID is a perfectly legal thing to do.  If it wasn't there would be a law against it.  I would suggest you drive past a school at 50mph and tell the cop the cop who stops you that he has no right to ask for your license.  You can refuse to show it to the clerk when you try to pay by check too.

You are putting things in quotes again without any basis.  When has torture been a part of this thread?

Come back when you are thinking coherently.

Link to post
Share on other sites