Legal Immigration is under attack - Page 7 - Jeep Patriot Forums
Political Discussion Reserved for all political discussions

 33Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 11:38 AM
Senior Member
 
croat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,946
  
Garage
My people are just that, my people, and like anyone in this world you group yourselves with the people of your national or ethnic background. I don't mind anyone pushing their agenda responsibly and respectfully - we all do it. Mandating agendas that only serve a minority are another thing. You are free to do what you want and how you want to (so long as its within the law of the land) but don't force others to - this is how most wars & conflicts have started - do as I do or else.
RossoRacer likes this.
croat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 12:02 PM
Senior Member
 
DangerAaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Orange County, VA
Posts: 1,127
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by REDONE View Post
Aaron, we're on the same page. What my proposal is intended to do is establish the "right limit". Mexico solving it's own problems would definitely be best, but they haven't/aren't/won't, so it's on our plate whether we like it or not. I'm a fan of Mexico, the people, the beaches and especially the culture. I miss the days when I could cross the border like the turnstile at an amusement park, and hope to see a day when it's no different than the border between Colorado and Utah.

The "left limit" has been set. A large contingent of our citizenry has asserted that extending asylum or residency to everyone who deserves it is too far left already and we can't move it any further than it currently is (quota's/limits). Without the "right limit", we can't find center, so that's what I'm hoping a discussion of my proposal will reveal.

There's two considerations I'd like to bring up with the Crimea comparison. First, Crimea isn't physically attached to Russia but it is physically attached to Ukraine. Russia had to build a huge bridge to access their new annex. In comparison, my proposal would move the US/Mexico border from imaginary lines to real ones (mountain ranges and watersheds).

Second, in regard to International Law, what consequence did Russia suffer for their transgression? Despite all the strong worded condemnations, Russia seems even stronger now than they did before invading Crimea, both politically and economically. So if the unrest, violence, and illegal migration has been quelled (tangible benefits), and there were no tangible consequences, was it really unethical?
There won't be any center to find until tragedy can bring all parties to the table. History repeating itself. That's my glass half empty take on it. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Despite the physical connection, it's the closest/most recent comparable I could think of as I was typing my response. As far as the definition of "ethical" that I am familiar with, the end results are not a deciding factor when considering if a decision or action is ethical. Therefore, My answer is a resounding NO. Russia's actions were not ethical regardless of what consequences that have or will face with regards to annexing Crimea. Outside of that, the consequences are that Russia has managed to drive the largest wedge between itself and the rest of the "western world" since before the fall of the USSR. So far, it has resulted in some tough talk and economic sanctions. Which in the short term may not have a massive impact. But as history has shown, those chickens will come home to roost.
I guess an argument could be made that after a long enough period of exodus there will be little to nothing left in those areas and at that point the ethics may get blurred. Annexation of a soveriegn country vs providing security/stability for the remaining inhabitants. But that would be centuries away.
DangerAaron is offline  
post #93 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 12:26 PM
Senior Member
 
DangerAaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Orange County, VA
Posts: 1,127
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immigrant View Post
*The nationalist president wants to strip US Citizenship from US Citizens. WARNING! Once the door is open Ö walks through. OK so the argument will be that the president wants to strip citizenship from children born in the US of non-citizen parents. The final language of the proposed executive order will be critical. There are many groups in the US that will challenge such an order and a case will eventually be at the Supreme Court where the president wants the argument to be settled. Who is a US Citizen? will be the question before the Court and how that decision is handed down will affect the future of the USA.

*If it goes the other way it is possible that children born in the US of immigrants holding legal permanent resident visas are deemed to be non-citizens. So what would happen if the country of the parent does not recognize a child born in the US as a citizen in the parentís country? The child would in effect have no citizenship in any country.

*Today the president attacked legal immigration directly. How this citizenship issue is resolved will affect millions of people living in the US legally and may be multiple generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RossoRacer View Post
Shapiro mentioned that he doesn't directly have the power to stop the "law of the soil", but the way I read about it earlier, the POTUS tweet and the hype about it was about making sure that a child born to ILLEGAL immigrants ONLY would be ineligible for the law of the soil because their parents didn't follow due process. I didn't read anything about stripping those who already have law of the soil citizenship of it, or of stopping those who followed the rules from having their kids automatically become US citizens because they were born here. Seriously, the First Lady of the United States immigrated here from another country, LEGALLY. There is absolutely no way her husband is just gonna go around revoking people's citizenships. I'm not even sure that'd even be Constitutional. But I don't think he'd try. Any presumed attack on legal immigration was probably just a measure to stem the tide from the pending invasion force. I'm quite reasonably sure he's in support of the immigration process when it's done properly, and also that he's well aware the process needs to be streamlined. That's no excuse to let terrorists hop the fence and demand a free lunch though, and he knows that too.



The way I read it, all he wants to do is prevent further "law of the soil" citizenships of kids born to illegal immigrants, so when those here illegally get deported(because they didn't follow the rules, not because "oh, heartless American"...that they apparently wanna become), the whole family goes together, instead of "should we keep the kids here? I mean, they were born here, so they're technically citizens...."

This would of course be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would uphold or strike down the so far hypothetical order, thereby legitamizing or nullifying a potentially effective deterrent to immigration that could set a dangerous precedent to executive power.
The president CANNOT, with an executive action end "Jus Soli" or "rule of soil". The Supreme Court CANNOT uphold an executive action attempting such. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
"Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

According to our bill of rights, any person born within our borders, naturalized in the U.S., or "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (Puerto Rico) they are citizens of the U.S. and no laws can be made that deny them Due process, equal protections, or any other constitutional rights. There are no qualifiers for "born to legal immigrants" or "unless born to illegal immigrants". The text is what it is and must be interpreted as it is written. The Supreme Court already set that precedent in rulings on other constitutional amendments. (Heller v DC is one)
Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which can only be done through the congress, and then ratified by two thirds of the states.
I agree that with this statement and action that Trump has directly attacked both legal immigration and our constitutional bill of rights. However, to think that his actions would stand in court is a stretch. And, if it did go to the supreme court and was upheld it would be grounds to impeach every justice on the court. They are all aware of this. Trump can sign whatever he wants to about Jus Soli. It will be struck down by a court before the ink is even dry on his executive order.
He knows this, but also knows it will appeal to certain portions of our society and galvanize their vote. Likewise the Democrats know that this will never stand, but will sound every alarm they have because it will galvanize their vote. In doing so, both parties only have to pander to the middle ground voters, that they can then blow off after an election because they now have an imaginary "mandate". repeat repeatedly until we are back where we started. Doesn't anyone else see this? At what point do you choose to stop being a pawn in a political game?
DangerAaron is offline  
 
post #94 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
DangerAaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Orange County, VA
Posts: 1,127
 
Garage
Warning: off topic with regards to immigration.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by croat View Post
Mandating agendas that only serve a minority are another thing.
I latched onto this part of your post. I guess the question becomes are we mandating an agenda that "only serve a minority" or are we mandating an agenda that "protects a minority". After all our democratic republic is set up to protect minorities. (I know some don't think it feels that way) A quote often attributed to Ben Franklin goes "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner". The long and short of it is that if left purely to democracy the majority would always rule over all minorities and those minorities would be left with no voice, representation, or recourse under the law.
So, do minorities deserve protection? Is raising awareness, a route to raising protection? Do LGBTQ----alphabet soup----- qualify as minorities? Do they deserve 1st amendment rights? Does their speech or demonstration have a negative impact on your constitutional, civil, or property rights?

****Off topic, so feel free to not respond or to create a separate thread... Or if need be a moderator can remove without any animus from me.****

Last edited by DangerAaron; 10-31-2018 at 12:44 PM.
DangerAaron is offline  
post #95 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 01:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 179
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerAaron View Post
I latched onto this part of your post. I guess the question becomes are we mandating an agenda that "only serve a minority" or are we mandating an agenda that "protects a minority". After all our democratic republic is set up to protect minorities. (I know some don't think it feels that way) A quote often attributed to Ben Franklin goes "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner". The long and short of it is that if left purely to democracy the majority would always rule over all minorities and those minorities would be left with no voice, representation, or recourse under the law.
So, do minorities deserve protection? Is raising awareness, a route to raising protection? Do LGBTQ----alphabet soup----- qualify as minorities? Do they deserve 1st amendment rights? Does their speech or demonstration have a negative impact on your constitutional, civil, or property rights?

****Off topic, so feel free to not respond or to create a separate thread... Or if need be a moderator can remove without any animus from me.****
I want to remove Minorities and say People in general deserve protection when certain people tend to group themselves in their own nationality or ethnic group and want to decide for the rest of world how they think life should be.
AzJeepGuy is offline  
post #96 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
croat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,946
  
Garage
The problem is when in America all are protected under the constitution (protecting a minority) however when certain groups want to mandate ... oh lets say a religious or cultural tradition/custom to the nation as a whole is when it becomes problematic (serving a minority while mandating the majority).

My peoples came here knowing that we are assimilating into a new culture and nation - yet have the right to preserve our ethnic identity while never wanting to force our customs or traditions on the majority. There are many other groups and peoples however that feel the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerAaron View Post
I latched onto this part of your post. I guess the question becomes are we mandating an agenda that "only serve a minority" or are we mandating an agenda that "protects a minority". After all our democratic republic is set up to protect minorities. (I know some don't think it feels that way) A quote often attributed to Ben Franklin goes "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner". The long and short of it is that if left purely to democracy the majority would always rule over all minorities and those minorities would be left with no voice, representation, or recourse under the law.
So, do minorities deserve protection? Is raising awareness, a route to raising protection? Do LGBTQ----alphabet soup----- qualify as minorities? Do they deserve 1st amendment rights? Does their speech or demonstration have a negative impact on your constitutional, civil, or property rights?

****Off topic, so feel free to not respond or to create a separate thread... Or if need be a moderator can remove without any animus from me.****
croat is offline  
post #97 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 01:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 179
 
[QUOTE=DangerAaron;1849873]
I agree that with this statement and action that Trump has directly attacked both legal immigration and our constitutional bill of rights. However, to think that his actions would stand in court is a stretch. QUOTE]

Unless you are in a different America than I am, ignorance and fear peddled to certain groups would ask for the unthinkable.
These same groups want to blame everybody else for Americas problems, but don't see the reality of how the leaders have failed this Nation and these problems have always been here. Where the hell is the ANGER that this Nation goes to war so the few can profit? Are we better off as Nation who has gone to war? The ignorant and fearful will not see this, as they blinded. Lets get rid of the all illegals and than what? Whos next to be rounded up? Guess what when America is cleaned up, guess who will still have better healthcare, retirement, backroom deals, etc .....Last time I checked it wasn't the illegals that did this, seems the congressional lackeys are ok with this Nation fighting amongst itself, after all most of the nation has no benefits and complains. Congress sleeps well in those glass houses.
AzJeepGuy is offline  
post #98 of 98 (permalink) Old 10-31-2018, 02:09 PM
Senior Member
 
croat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,946
  
Garage
Mr. Az learn how to use quotes in here
croat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Patriot Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome