Jeep Patriot Forums banner

81 - 98 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,302 Posts
1: Going to school is a constitutionally protected right of everyone in the country... whether they are here legally or not.... (Plyler v. Doe, US Supreme Court)

2:Anyone here illegally (including DACA recipients) cannot legally accept and government assistance programs (even though DACA participants are paying taxes on any wages they earn)

3: Hiring illegal immigrants is already against the law and is met with fines and even removal of business licenses in some cases.

4: There are whistle blower programs that do reward informants for reporting illegal activity.
Hopefully the supreme court revises its Plyler vs Doe. I don't think we should be spending a cent on any illegal immigrant. They can accept assistance programs by having a child born in the US. The fines and fees for hiring an illegal immigrant should be more considerable. Pretty much anyone hiring one should be backrupt within the day. I also think ever single person should have their "legal worker" papers with the employers at all time. I have yet to hear of anyone getting a reward for turning in an illegal immigrant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Immigration is not about human rights!! It can be, of course, which is what Asylum status is all about--allowing people who are in danger in their own country due to their religious beliefs, like the Yazidis ie: or Gays being thrown off buildings in the Middle East as another exam;le

But Immigration is about allowing people in who will be able to contribute to OUR society. To make our country better, greater, richer, stronger.
No one is owed or has the right to demand entry into our country!! Where does everybody get that idea??

And for all the libs out there who say its about love and gentility, do you have locks on your doors? Do you use them ? Why?? Don't you love your neighbor????

There is a website out there somewhere I ran across that lists all the murders/deaths in the country attributable to illegal aliens. Many of them were drunk driving incidents, where the illegal alien had no insurance or drivers license, many had a criminal record. The amount of examples was astounding. One woman in our county was killed by an illegal she had hired (thru a contractor) to power wash her deck. He raped and killed her. That is NOT an isolated incident.

If our country is such a great place to come live, why does everybody knock it all the time?
Conversely, if our system looks so good to so many why don't they fight their own country's systems and move them towarda republican democracy like ours?

We already fought our revolution--it's time they go fight their own.

Enough already!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Well, LoveBugs, thanks for joining a JEEP forum to make a single post about politics. Regardless, you can shout worn out pundit meme ideals until you're blue (or red) in the face, but all it'll ever get you is an aneurysm. Reality isn't "ideal". Reality is immigration happens, and will continue to happen. If you're a US tax payer, it's your burden. That's reality.

We can burden ourselves with a wall we can't afford to build, let alone maintain or guard (and won't work "Fixed fortifications are monuments to Man's stupidity" -Patton); or we can burden ourselves by sharing our resources with interlopers.

A wall has no ROI. Money given to the wall is gone to the wall, it's never coming back. Money spent on the interlopers nets a return when they become taxpayers themselves, but not all do; especially when it's so difficult to become one without being born here.

What less burdensome alternative would you propose? I'm proposing that if other nation's failures cause their citizens to become our responsibility, then those same nations owe us resources proportional to their expatriated population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #85
US Citizenship is under attack

*The nationalist president wants to strip US Citizenship from US Citizens. WARNING! Once the door is open … 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.

*In the campaign in 2016 the Republicans had two interesting candidates. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), born in the US from immigrant parents, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) born in Canada of at least one US Citizen parent. Depending on how the Court defines who is a “natural born person” in the US could disqualify one or both of these candidates for the Presidency of the US.

*the definition of “natural born” may also mean that a naturalized citizen born in a foreign country is to be accepted as a natural born person in the US regardless of country of birth. This may present the future possibility that a foreign-born person from a different culture, religion, and race could become the US President.

*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 parent’s 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.

I’ll be watching. He that has ears to hear let him hear.
 

·
Unsponsored Baja racer
Joined
·
4,532 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
There is a website out there somewhere I ran across that lists all the murders/deaths in the country attributable to illegal aliens. Many of them were drunk driving incidents, where the illegal alien had no insurance or drivers license, many had a criminal record. The amount of examples was astounding. One woman in our county was killed by an illegal she had hired (thru a contractor) to power wash her deck. He raped and killed her. That is NOT an isolated incident.

If our country is such a great place to come live, why does everybody knock it all the time?
Conversely, if our system looks so good to so many why don't they fight their own country's systems and move them towarda republican democracy like ours?

We already fought our revolution--it's time they go fight their own.

Enough already!
I believe there is also a website called MADD and it highlights how America partakes in its own drunkenness and the numerous killings associated with Americans drinking habits. Did you also check your "list" to the attributes how Americans are killing each other? Did you also check your "list" to see how many women are raped daily by Americans? The list goes on and on to state that America is a violent place. I can imagine your America with no illegal aliens in it, it would be the same...killings, rapes, crimes, etc BTW if you truly had enough, are you not tired of Congress raping America? Its amazing how people are blind to the fact that Congress has better and free healthcare and the Veterans who fought for this Nation don't? The VA is a complete joke and yet Congress who enjoys free retirement and backroom deals that make themselves rich are of no concern to this Nation, instead your rational is illegal aliens are the downfall of America....The powers that be don't care about this Nation...This 2 party system doesn't care about this Nation....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by croat View Post

Its like a hidden agenda to legitimize this un-natural lifestyle

By what standard is it "un-natural"? The oldest manuscripts of human record in existence are rife with such "lifestyles".
As opposed to the Christian agenda? The irony is too much....:dead_horse:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,956 Posts
Yea - I kept quiet as I didn't want to get way off topic about mainstream media shoving lgbtq propaganda at our faces everywhere it can including our schools. Every day it seems that there is some new term for someones bizarre fetish/lifestyle that I am supposed to be forced to accept as normal and acceptable. I only commented about how that was highlighted in the immigration articles of the marching illegals looking to cross our border and how that was in any way relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Yea - I kept quiet as I didn't want to get way off topic about mainstream media shoving lgbtq propaganda at our faces everywhere it can including our schools. Every day it seems that there is some new term for someones bizarre fetish/lifestyle that I am supposed to be forced to accept as normal and acceptable. I only commented about how that was highlighted in the immigration articles of the marching illegals looking to cross our border and how that was in any way relevant.
Its funny you say that because I see the conservative Christians shoving their own propaganda and tax exempt money at the parties at all the time, is the Nation supposed to accept that this is normal and acceptable? Or that only for "Your People" you commented on earlier?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,956 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
*The nationalist president wants to strip US Citizenship from US Citizens. WARNING! Once the door is open … 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 parent’s 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.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
Warning: off topic with regards to immigration.....

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.****
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,956 Posts
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.

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.****
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,956 Posts
Mr. Az learn how to use quotes in here ;)
 
81 - 98 of 98 Posts
Top