Illegal Immigrant asked to leave, rapes 15 year old in VA instead

[MrSquished]

Strawman for the win. Any crime coming from people in this country illegally is unacceptable.

I don't think you really understand his point. Like at all.

 

[Zaap]

I'm sure it was never intended for someone to enter the country illegally and punch out a kid, leaving the hospitals and taxpayers to foot the bill.

It wasn't. It was to address newly freed slaves.

It's funny how in this day and age, being right about something like this is a 'radical' notion.

The author of the citizenship clause himself, said:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Now, the big problem of course it, it doesn't SAY specifically that in the 14th Amendment, but it should.

At the time it was written, no one was concerned about any such concept as illegal immigration. We were still populating the country- I don't think there were even immigration laws at the time, people just arrived here however they could and set up shop and called themselves Americans.

That's fine for 1868 America. However, we DO now have immigration laws. I personally think the Amendment should be reworded to include the original intent of the author of it, which makes sense in a modern nation.

Also, it's funny to me how Americans have been tricked into thinking that the world NORM, is somehow radical in the US. You can't arrive in other countries illegally, pump out a kid, have it be an automatic citizen, and anchor yourself there. Funny how that's not racist anywhere else- it's merely common sense. Americans do love to be cowed by idiots in the rest of the world, though. ("Your country is racist if you do what we do!")

 

[compuwiz1]

It wasn't. It was to address newly freed slaves.

It's funny how in this day and age, being right about something like this is a 'radical' notion.

The author of the citizenship clause himself, said:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Now, the big problem of course it, it doesn't SAY specifically that in the 14th Amendment, but it should.



At the time it was written, no one was concerned about any such concept as illegal immigration. We were still populating the country- I don't think there were even immigration laws at the time, people just arrived here however they could and set up shop and called themselves Americans.

That's fine for 1868 America. However, we DO now have immigration laws. I personally think the Amendment should be reworded to include the original intent of the author of it, which makes sense in a modern nation.

Also, it's funny to me how Americans have been tricked into thinking that the world NORM, is somehow radical in the US. You can't arrive in other countries illegally, pump out a kid, have it be an automatic citizen, and anchor yourself there. Funny how that's not racist anywhere else- it's merely common sense. Americans do love to be cowed by idiots in the rest of the world, though. ("Your country is racist if you do what we do!")

Thank you!
At least with Trump we have a shot at our laws having teeth again. We might have a chance at repairing the flaws in the 14th, as well. The 14th amendment needs to be amended.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't think you'll make America White again.

You are a feckless asshat. My views have nothing to do with anyone's ethnicity. I guess you don't know I am married to ...a brown person, who happens to be an immigrant...a legal one. She shares my views. So, once again for you, some remedial reading; I am not ant-immigrant. I am anti-illegal immigration. Got that? I'm sick of people like you invoking the race card at every turn. This is one of the reasons democrats are losing so much ground. You cannot continue to falsely accuse people of being things they are not, just because they don't march lock step with your ideology. That's not democracy, it's fascism, what you accuse the other side of doing. You are a pinko.

 

[pcgeek11]

Anyone born on American soil is an American citizen. That is what the Constitution very clearly says. Whether you like it or not, that is our country.

That is what clearly needs to be better defined and changed. That would then fit into the normal status of most of the civilized world.

At a minimum all illegal aliens that have committed a crime in the US should be punished as per the law and then deported back to their country of origin in the quickest manner possible.

 

[shortylickens]

I've been living in Virginia for 8 years now.
The majority of illegal aliens don't cause any problems and certainly aren't violent. I can only suggest we focus on the act and not vilify people based on immigration status.
Having said that, I still dont like illegals very much, but I refuse to use illogical arguments against them.

 

[MajinCry]

I don't think you really understand his point. Like at all.

Buckshot is intentionally being dense and dishonest. It's what he does.

 

[fskimospy]

It wasn't. It was to address newly freed slaves.

It's funny how in this day and age, being right about something like this is a 'radical' notion.

The author of the citizenship clause himself, said:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Now, the big problem of course it, it doesn't SAY specifically that in the 14th Amendment, but it should.

At the time it was written, no one was concerned about any such concept as illegal immigration. We were still populating the country- I don't think there were even immigration laws at the time, people just arrived here however they could and set up shop and called themselves Americans.

That's fine for 1868 America. However, we DO now have immigration laws. I personally think the Amendment should be reworded to include the original intent of the author of it, which makes sense in a modern nation.

Also, it's funny to me how Americans have been tricked into thinking that the world NORM, is somehow radical in the US. You can't arrive in other countries illegally, pump out a kid, have it be an automatic citizen, and anchor yourself there. Funny how that's not racist anywhere else- it's merely common sense. Americans do love to be cowed by idiots in the rest of the world, though. ("Your country is racist if you do what we do!")

He is saying it doesn't apply to ambassadors, not that it doesn't apply to all foreigners. In fact, senators at the time explicitly understood it to be that way.

Senator John Conness:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

You can read more about it here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1627665

 

[Jhhnn]

It wasn't. It was to address newly freed slaves.

It's funny how in this day and age, being right about something like this is a 'radical' notion.

The author of the citizenship clause himself, said:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Now, the big problem of course it, it doesn't SAY specifically that in the 14th Amendment, but it should.

At the time it was written, no one was concerned about any such concept as illegal immigration. We were still populating the country- I don't think there were even immigration laws at the time, people just arrived here however they could and set up shop and called themselves Americans.

That's fine for 1868 America. However, we DO now have immigration laws. I personally think the Amendment should be reworded to include the original intent of the author of it, which makes sense in a modern nation.

Also, it's funny to me how Americans have been tricked into thinking that the world NORM, is somehow radical in the US. You can't arrive in other countries illegally, pump out a kid, have it be an automatic citizen, and anchor yourself there. Funny how that's not racist anywhere else- it's merely common sense. Americans do love to be cowed by idiots in the rest of the world, though. ("Your country is racist if you do what we do!")

Your reading comprehension skills are quite poor, particularly wrt the passage you bolded. It clearly references only the children of foreign diplomats whether you like it or not.

That was affirmed in 1898 & in many cases since then-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

It seems unlikely that the SCOTUS will come up with some breakthrough conceptualization as with Brown v Board of Education to change that.

The process to amend the Constitution is quite clear-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

It's *highly unlikely* that will happen wrt this issue.

Your claim as to norms isn't accurate, either. Jus Soli citizenship is the norm throughout the Americas-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

 

[Jhhnn]

You are a feckless asshat. My views have nothing to do with anyone's ethnicity. I guess you don't know I am married to ...a brown person, who happens to be an immigrant...a legal one. She shares my views. So, once again for you, some remedial reading; I am not ant-immigrant. I am anti-illegal immigration. Got that? I'm sick of people like you invoking the race card at every turn. This is one of the reasons democrats are losing so much ground. You cannot continue to falsely accuse people of being things they are not, just because they don't march lock step with your ideology. That's not democracy, it's fascism, what you accuse the other side of doing. You are a pinko.

Mail order bride?

 

[MajinCry]

Mail order bride?

She agrees with his views, because if she doesn't, the sense will get smacked into her. As good ol' national treasure Mr. Sir Sean Connery The Great said:

An open-handed slap is justified – if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I'd do it

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sean_Connery

 

[Commodus]

My issue with the crusade against illegal immigration isn't so much racism (although there are certainly racists who enthusiastically support Trump's policies) as the simplistic scapegoating it represents.

"If we just get rid of the illegals, we'll solve our crime/employment problems! Somehow. Maybe. Hopefully."

Well, no. Many of those illegal immigrants are working the jobs you refuse to take. And long-term studies have shown that immigrants (yes, even if you limit your focus to Mexicans) are less likely than natural-born citizens to commit crime. So you're not really going to make the US a peaceful, more gainfully employed place by kicking these people out.

This doesn't mean that there aren't enforcement issues, or that people should always be given a free pass. But it's not healthy to be fixated on illegal immigration when there are numerous major factors at work.

 

[LegendKiller]

That's an anecdote, it doesn't prove anything about the overall population.

Even a single one is too many though, we have enough criminals of our own, there's no reason we should accept additional ones from elsewhere.

Go drive around Herndon in Fairfax county. Large ms-13 presence.

 

[LegendKiller]

I don't think you'll make America White again.

Are all legal immigrants white?

Why do you want to outbreed white people with illegals?

 

[LegendKiller]

Could you explain more? I did a google search of the costs of deporting all illegals and found the AAF number of 1/2 trillion dollars. That may be a biased source, so if you can find a different source I would be interested in looking at. Looking into it more, I found that the Bipartisan Policy Center estimated that the deportation would lower the gdp by 1.6 trillion a year. If you have a different source on that, once again I would be interested in looking at it.

I am somewhat ambivalent about illegal Mexican immigration. They appear to be hard-working individuals that share many of our values. I am not crazy about their general affinity to Christianity but at least they don't appear to be fanatics about it.

I do understand that some Americans are very concerned about illegal Mexican immigration because they think the illegals are a drain on the system. I don't know if that is true or not. I would be interested in seeing data on that.

Do you support legalizing employed illegals and deporting unemployed/criminal illegals or do you support deporting them all? If we deport them all, what would be the net positive results that America would reap?

I personally don't think Trump will do much if anything regarding illegals, I believe he will spend his political capital on things that matter more to him personally. He really is difficult to read though, he has lied so much that I have no idea what really matters to him (other than his net wealth which he is obsessive compulsive over). I will admit (and I hate doing this), if I was filthy wealthy I too would probably go for a string of trophy wives like he has.

We spend almost 200bn a year on illegals. A 3 year return is fine with me.

 

[jeff_in_MD]

We spend almost 200bn a year on illegals. A 3 year return is fine with me.

As the prior post was saying, where did that figure come from?

 

[MajinCry]

Are all legal immigrants white?

Why do you want to outbreed white people with illegals?

Easy there David Duke.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are all legal immigrants white?

Why do you want to outbreed white people with illegals?

Tuck in your sheets.

 

[Zaap]

Your claim as to norms isn't accurate, either. Jus Soli citizenship is the norm throughout the Americas-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Your reading skills aren't exactly great, flushing kind. I didn't say the Americas, I said the world.

From your own link:

As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere.[3][4][5][6] Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli.[7][8]A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your reading skills aren't exactly great, flushing kind. I didn't say the Americas, I said the world.

From your own link:

As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere.[3][4][5][6] Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli.[7][8]A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries.

So what? You made it sound like jus solis is unique to the US when it's not at all. It's a New World vs Old World perspective.

Regardless, the language & interpretation of the 14th are such that you're just raving about one of Repubs' hopeless perma-issues, like abortion or income taxes or whatever. Repub leaders know it's hopeless, and that it's just the kind of bullshit their flock falls for every time.

 

[MrSquished]

I don't mind tackling the illegal immigration issue somewhat. Just from a different angle. Strict enforcement of those businesses that hire illegals with substantial penalties and fines. Large enough that they would seriously think about hiring legal labor instead. Of course that would mean targeting primarily white male business owners. No opportunity equals no demand for a supply of illegals though. Let's see how that pans out.

 

[Zaap]

So what? You made it sound like jus solis is unique to the US when it's not at all. It's a New World vs Old World perspective.

It's the world NORM, flush.

No one is stopping you however from going and attempting to anchor yourself to Peru, Tanzania, or even Pakistan -if you could find a woman desperate and insane enough to carry your child, that is. Even globally I'd wager that's a near impossibility.

I don't mind tackling the illegal immigration issue somewhat. Just from a different angle. Strict enforcement of those businesses that hire illegals with substantial penalties and fines. Large enough that they would seriously think about hiring legal labor instead. Of course that would mean targeting primarily white male business owners. No opportunity equals no demand for a supply of illegals though. Let's see how that pans out.

This is nothing new, it's what most people have been saying for decades. Only your idiot kind tries to turn it into a racist thing at every turn. It only reflects your own racism. (Idiot race-baiting twats like you believe only white males own businesses. A perfect example of your own low-expectation and inferior belief about minorities that you try and pass off as the racism of others).

 

[Meghan54]

Are all legal immigrants white?

Why do you want to outbreed white people with illegals?

Thank you for that. Just proves what others have been saying about you.....

 

[LegendKiller]

Thank you for that. Just proves what others have been saying about you.....

You don't get it.

People want to make this about a race thing. It isn't. It's a sovereignty thing.

But the dems happily cheer that whites won't be a majority in 20 years. Why is that?

 

[LegendKiller]

As the prior post was saying, where did that figure come from?

I looked it back up, I was mixing up two numbers. High estimate is 113bn. Others have 85bn or 60bn. Even at 60bn, 8 year return is fine with me.