Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[brainstorm]

This makes absolutely no sense. Any country has to have control over the flow of goods, services, and people across its boarders with other nations from a security standpoint, at the very least. Do you think through the implications of your ideas?

Have you thought through the implications of not being able to control interstate movement for drug smuggling and other contraband? I think your statement, "any country has to have control over" is very broad and assumptive without you giving any explicit grounds. The general tone of the statement is that a national government should be a command-control center instead of a representative democratic system of checks and balances. Which constitution are you going by again?

But, this is the real world after all. So what you proposed above can't, does not, and won't work.

Calling something "reality" is not political grounds for anything. It's so annoying that people have achieved so much in democracy with such an anti-democratic logic. If you think something is a good idea, you should enumerate your reasons on specific grounds; not defense of "reality." Your "reality" isn't currently working, nor has it or will it ever.

edit: all you seem to care about is separating people by definition and geography. What do you think that achieves exactly?

 

[BobG]

On the basis that the intent of the Amendment was to allow blacks born within the United States to be recognized as equal citizens. It's not 'thats the rule', the same way freedom of speech is not an all inclusive, 'thats the rule', right.



, yes, we all exit the womb, ...anyways... the important question is what was the intention of the Amendment when it was passed: not what you would like it to mean today.

Edit: To be more explicit, it was to grant citizenship to the children of legal people, namely blacks, living inside the United States. The idea being not limited to blacks, but to all people of legal status so that there was not a large group of people who were in a limbo state, being born of parents of a foreign nationality. Simply stated, it was never intended to serve as a tool for people breaking the law to enter this country.

Cyrus was right that the original motivation for the citizenship clause was to make former slaves legal citizens of the US. It was also worded so as to deny citizenship to Native Americans.

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.

Technically, Native American tribes are their own unique nation with their own political system, so Native Americans born on a reservation were not US citizens. ( Elk v. Wilkins, 1884). Eventually, Native Americans were made citizens of the US by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But, according to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 14th Amendment applies to all children born in the US, subject to the US jurisdiction. That case didn't mention how the Wongs came to the US, but they were ineligible to become US citizens by virtue of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. The USSC ruled Wong Kim Ark's birth in the US made him a citizen. The only two classes of people born in the US that could be denied citizenship were the children of foreign diplomats and the children of foreign troops involved in a hostile occupation of the US (and Native Americans born on the reservation, since the Indian Citizenship Act hadn't been passed yet).

 

[BobG]

Perhaps we should deny citizenship to all babies born of immigrants just to be safe. They could be terror babies - their mother comes to the US to have her child born with US citizenship, returns to her home country where her baby is raised to be a terrorist, and now grown terrorist can enter the US legally to perform terrorist acts.

'Terror babies': The new immigration scare tactic

I think the immigration debate has now ventured far past the boundaries of bizarre. Or at least US Representative Gohmert (Tex) and Texas State Representative Riddle have.

 

[drankin]

If an American couple have a child outside of the country, is that child American?

 

[skeptic2]

At the age of 18 the child may decide if he or she wants US citizenship or the citizenship of the country he or she was born in. Many countries including Mexico but not the US, permit dual citizenship so in those cases he or she may choose US citizenship and still retain citizenship of the country of birth.

 

[brainstorm]

Perhaps we should deny citizenship to all babies born of immigrants just to be safe. They could be terror babies - their mother comes to the US to have her child born with US citizenship, returns to her home country where her baby is raised to be a terrorist, and now grown terrorist can enter the US legally to perform terrorist acts.

'Terror babies': The new immigration scare tactic

I think the immigration debate has now ventured far past the boundaries of bizarre. Or at least US Representative Gohmert (Tex) and Texas State Representative Riddle have.

That is an interesting prospect since the only really legitimate purpose of migration-control in a truly free republic, imo, is to prevent attempts to organize corporate usurpation of freedom, through terror or other means.

Ideally, there should be some way to make citizenship for ALL citizens conditional on their observance and exercise of democracy and freedom. However, revoking citizenship for people who bow to control-by-fear would just create one more thing for them to fear. So really, an effective counter-terror strategy would be to propagate an economic and political system of values that give people security in freedom, democracy, and independent self-reliance. But how do you convince people that they can make it on their own economically when they have been indoctrinated into a modern system of interdependence that has them convinced that they need to protect everything from public services to jobs to avoid abject poverty, subjugation, and even death?

 

[Cyrus]

Are you a supporter of the living constitution interpretation?

No.

For example, do you believe the General welfare clause in the constitution is sufficient for the social programs we have in America?

No, nor do I want to be paying for them with my tax money.

 

[Cyrus]

Have you thought through the implications of not being able to control interstate movement for drug smuggling and other contraband?

<shrug> This supports what I've been saying all along, that the boarders and things flowing through it need better regulation.

I think your statement, "any country has to have control over" is very broad and assumptive without you giving any explicit grounds. The general tone of the statement is that a national government should be a command-control center instead of a representative democratic system of checks and balances. Which constitution are you going by again?

It's really not broad nor assumptive, it's about having sovereignty and being able to exercise said sovereignty. This has nothing to do with the central government being a command-control center, local and state governments can do this for all I care. But the point is that someone needs to be doing this - hence the current arizona issues in the recent news. What a straw-man argument.

Calling something "reality" is not political grounds for anything. It's so annoying that people have achieved so much in democracy with such an anti-democratic logic. If you think something is a good idea, you should enumerate your reasons on specific grounds; not defense of "reality." Your "reality" isn't currently working, nor has it or will it ever.

This response will elicit another shrug from me...<shrug>. There is nothing anti-democratic about anything that I have said. In contrast, your nieve pie-in-the sky platitudes are what are so annoying. So, since you just LOVE having totally open boarders with no control of what flows through it, enumerate to me how this will avoid security issues. How will you ensure that illegal weapons do not flow into the country? How will you ensure that terrorists won't either? Or, illegal workers? You can also explain to me how that will stem the problem of illegal drug flow across the boarders, which you yourself admit to be a problem.

edit: all you seem to care about is separating people by definition and geography. What do you think that achieves exactly?

No, "all I seem to care about" is protecting the boarders to help keep fellow citizens safe within the United States. I'm not exactly sure what you think you're achieving though.

 

[brainstorm]

<shrug> This supports what I've been saying all along, that the boarders and things flowing through it need better regulation.

Then why are you only arguing for securing national borders and not those between states?

It's really not broad nor assumptive, it's about having sovereignty and being able to exercise said sovereignty. This has nothing to do with the central government being a command-control center, local and state governments can do this for all I care. But the point is that someone needs to be doing this - hence the current arizona issues in the recent news. What a straw-man argument.

Isn't the whole purpose of a republic to re-distribute sovereignty to the decentralized people and subsequently only check and balance their exercise of that power through governing institutions? If people are really free and independent in a republic, why should access to citizenship be limited anyway? The only reason I can think of would be to prevent abuses of freedom. Otherwise, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to live free in the US if they have faith in freedom from sovereign rule?

So, since you just LOVE having totally open boarders with no control of what flows through it, enumerate to me how this will avoid security issues. How will you ensure that illegal weapons do not flow into the country? How will you ensure that terrorists won't either? Or, illegal workers? You can also explain to me how that will stem the problem of illegal drug flow across the boarders, which you yourself admit to be a problem.

What weapons are illegal and why? Why aren't all weapons protected by the 4th amendment exactly? How to control the spread of terrorism is a good question. I believe the military has been trying to answer it on a global scale for a number of years now. I also think that people too easily assume that subtle fear-control tactics are used all the time in the US by people who already have citizenship (through birth for example). There's just a self-exonerating mentality that when fear-control is used by Americans it is not terrorism. Or by "terrorism" do you only mean lethal acts of violence designed to spread fear?

No, "all I seem to care about" is protecting the boarders to help keep fellow citizens safe within the United States. I'm not exactly sure what you think you're achieving though.

If that was all you cared about, why wouldn't you allow anyone who submits to a sufficient background check to become naturalized as a citizen? I bet you are against that, but why then exactly if all you care about is security risks?

 

[Cyrus]

Then why are you only arguing for securing national borders and not those between states?

Becuase this is not an issue about interstate boarders. Why should I argue non-sequiturs.

Isn't the whole purpose of a republic to re-distribute sovereignty to the decentralized people and subsequently only check and balance their exercise of that power through governing institutions?

No, Comrade, its not.

If people are really free and independent in a republic, why should access to citizenship be limited anyway?

False: people are not completely free and independent. There is a trade off between individual rights for participation in a government system.

The only reason I can think of would be to prevent abuses of freedom. Otherwise, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to live free in the US if they have faith in freedom from sovereign rule?

Because there is a long list of people that want to get in, and we can't let everyone in Carte blanche.

What weapons are illegal and why?

I can't take you seriously when you ask such asinine questions. I take it you don't own a gun if your honestly asking me this.

Why aren't all weapons protected by the 4th amendment exactly?

Don't you mean the 2nd?

How to control the spread of terrorism is a good question. I believe the military has been trying to answer it on a global scale for a number of years now. I also think that people too easily assume that subtle fear-control tactics are used all the time in the US by people who already have citizenship (through birth for example). There's just a self-exonerating mentality that when fear-control is used by Americans it is not terrorism. Or by "terrorism" do you only mean lethal acts of violence designed to spread fear?

I did not ask you what the military has been doing for a number of years now. I did not ask you about fear-control tactics. Try answering my question. How does YOUR nonsensical idea do ANY of what I asked you.

If that was all you cared about, why wouldn't you allow anyone who submits to a sufficient background check to become naturalized as a citizen? I bet you are against that, but why then exactly if all you care about is security risks?

Braindead, I want you to stop for a moment. Go back, and reread what I've been saying. This is beyond pathetic misrepresentation of what I've said on your part. I never said I would be opposed to allowing someone with sufficient background checks and went through the legal process to be granted citizenship. There is a long line of people waiting. Mexicans will have to wait in the line, like everyone else.

 

[brainstorm]

Becuase this is not an issue about interstate boarders. Why should I argue non-sequiturs.

If it's about controlling flows of things like weapons and drugs, why would it be more about national borders than state borders?

No, Comrade, its not.

What is this, a "pinko commie" reference? How do you miss the fact of what a republic is in all those years of state propaganda? Did you learn about US government in an al quaeda training camp?

False: people are not completely free and independent. There is a trade off between individual rights for participation in a government system.

Of course they're not, but the point of the constitution is to recognize their right to freedom and protect their rights from infringement. Smaller government with as little interference as necessary is the goal, no?

Because there is a long list of people that want to get in, and we can't let everyone in Carte blanche.

I don't believe that this is the only reason citizenship access is being limited.

I can't take you seriously when you ask such asinine questions. I take it you don't own a gun if your honestly asking me this.

I've just often wondered why guns are protected by the 4th amendment but not other forms of weapons like bombs. Isn't the idea behind the amendment that people have the right to decide for themselves how much military/police protection to exercise?

Don't you mean the 2nd?

You might be right. Does this discredit everything I've said that I got the number wrong?

I did not ask you what the military has been doing for a number of years now. I did not ask you about fear-control tactics. Try answering my question. How does YOUR nonsensical idea do ANY of what I asked you.

You have trouble making logical connections, I guess. My point was the the military has been dealing with terrorism globally for years and it should theoretically be able to deal with internal terror threats the same as it would anywhere in the world.

Braindead,

don't do this. you're just instigating useless bickering and emotionalizing by throwing insults. I've already reacted by calling you stupid earlier in this post. Why can't we just limit the discussion to reasoning and opinions?

I never said I would be opposed to allowing someone with sufficient background checks and went through the legal process to be granted citizenship. There is a long line of people waiting. Mexicans will have to wait in the line, like everyone else.

Yes, but you want there to be a long line with many hoops to jump for no other purpose than restricting the flow of people. That's why you want people to wait in line; i.e. to keep them out. If your only concern was security, why wouldn't a background check be all that was needed for the process? What other criteria should their be, iyo, to validate someone wanting to live and work in the US?

 

[Cyrus]

If it's about controlling flows of things like weapons and drugs, why would it be more about national borders than state borders?

The flow of illegal goods across state boarders is dealt with by the government through the interstate commerce clause. However, the point of my thread is on international boarder control.

What is this, a "pinko commie" reference? How do you miss the fact of what a republic is in all those years of state propaganda? Did you learn about US government in an al quaeda training camp?

No, I prefer to use history books and the constitution - you should try it sometime! Re: your 4th amendment comment, lawlz.

Of course they're not, but the point of the constitution is to recognize their right to freedom and protect their rights from infringement. Smaller government with as little interference as necessary is the goal, no?

Mexicans are not US citizens, and are not guaranteed any rights or privileged from the constitution. Your argument above makes no sense.

I don't believe that this is the only reason citizenship access is being limited.

<shrug>

I've just often wondered why guns are protected by the 4th amendment but not other forms of weapons like bombs. Isn't the idea behind the amendment that people have the right to decide for themselves how much military/police protection to exercise?

Irrelevant to this thread. Start another one on 2nd amendment rights.

You might be right. Does this discredit everything I've said that I got the number wrong?

...wow.

You have trouble making logical connections, I guess. My point was the the military has been dealing with terrorism globally for years and it should theoretically be able to deal with internal terror threats the same as it would anywhere in the world.

Did I ask you that? I asked you how you would secure the flow of goods with a wide open boarder policy. But, of course, the military should, "THEORETICALLY" (i.e., you have no good answer to my question), take care of it. Sureeeeeeeeee. FYI, the military is not supposed to be used for internal threats, that's the job of the FBI.

don't do this. you're just instigating useless bickering and emotionalizing by throwing insults. I've already reacted by calling you stupid earlier in this post. Why can't we just limit the discussion to reasoning and opinions?

Then don't misquote me to the point of absurdity.

Yes, but you want there to be a long line with many hoops to jump for no other purpose than restricting the flow of people. That's why you want people to wait in line; i.e. to keep them out. If your only concern was security, why wouldn't a background check be all that was needed for the process? What other criteria should their be, iyo, to validate someone wanting to live and work in the US?

Really? I do? Says who? Says you? Why thank you, brainstorm. I was not aware that I had said that until you just told me so. Please, do tell me more about what I think. I never said any of this crap, I explicitly said otherwise. You're just too dense to read what I did say.

FYI, the US can only handle a set amount of influx of people into the country each year, and because there is a finite number, there has to be a selection process. I'm sorry this breaks your hippie heart, but it's the reality of how the world functions. Deal with it.

I also propose that you, not me, pay increased taxes to cover the services used by illegal aliens in this country, since you are in support if it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Any chance of getting back on topic before the thread is closed?

 

[Cyrus]

Any chance of getting back on topic before the thread is closed?

Agreed.

 

[brainstorm]

Mexicans are not US citizens, and are not guaranteed any rights or privileged from the constitution. Your argument above makes no sense.

I'm pretty sure that anyone arrested for anything has the right to constitutional protections and due process. Why not people lacking documentation?

Did I ask you that? I asked you how you would secure the flow of goods with a wide open boarder policy. But, of course, the military should, "THEORETICALLY" (i.e., you have no good answer to my question), take care of it. Sureeeeeeeeee. FYI, the military is not supposed to be used for internal threats, that's the job of the FBI.

Secure the flow of goods for which purpose? How would I prevent drug-smuggling? How would I regulate duties and tariffs? I don't know but are you saying that regulating commodity traffic is the same as regulating human traffic? Ultimately, people are generally expected and presumed to self-regulate. That's another one of those government of/for/by the people concepts that you didn't get learning about republics.

Really? I do? Says who? Says you? Why thank you, brainstorm. I was not aware that I had said that until you just told me so. Please, do tell me more about what I think. I never said any of this crap, I explicitly said otherwise. You're just too dense to read what I did say.

You wouldn't use such belligerent and defensive language if you didn't have a hidden agenda. You will go on denying it the way a person who advocates legalizing drugs denies that their hidden agenda is to use drugs freely.

FYI, the US can only handle a set amount of influx of people into the country each year

Why? Who decides this? On what grounds? Why wouldn't interstate migration be regulated for this same reason then?

and because there is a finite number, there has to be a selection process. I'm sorry this breaks your hippie heart, but it's the reality of how the world functions. Deal with it.

I'm sorry but you mention practically everything except for the fact that many people view the US as an ethnic nation and they promote migration restriction to limit the amount of ethnic "otherness" in the US. It is not about resources or anything else to these people except maintaining relative ethnic homogeneity. Why is it so difficult to admit this for people who promote anti-migration propaganda and policies?

I also propose that you, not me, pay increased taxes to cover the services used by illegal aliens in this country, since you are in support if it.

Why can't they pay taxes? In fact, everyone who spends money pays taxes. Everyone who makes money pays taxes. Everyone who owns property pays taxes. And everyone who rents property pays taxes indirectly. What would really lower taxes would be to stop fiscally stimulating the economy and bailing out businesses. But its too late for that now, so you've decided to move on to blaming newcomers, eh?

 

[skeptic2]

Mexicans are not US citizens, and are not guaranteed any rights or privileged from the constitution. Your argument above makes no sense.

Substituting "Illegals" for "Mexicans", I believe you are mistaken about the above.

The Fourteenth Amendment 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.

Note the interesting wording. First it defines a US citizen, then it says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;", referring specifically to US citizens. But then it goes on to say that states may not 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. This last clause is what grants illegals rights and privileges from the Constitution.

The rights granted under the Constitution are part of the same body of law that allows the Border Patrol and Immigration to arrest illegals. You can't say the Constitution doesn't apply to illegals but then claim that our immigration laws do apply.

 

[brainstorm]

Doesn't using the term "illegals" even imply guilt prior to conviction, and therefore constitute slander? Shouldn't you say, "alleged non-citizens?"

 

[apeiron]

Any chance of getting back on topic before the thread is closed?

You mean "on message" .

 

[skeptic2]

Touche brainstorm. "alleged non-citizens" or "undocumented workers" would be better but I have found that using the opponent's language in a discussion makes it easier to communicate with him.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm pretty sure that anyone arrested for anything has the right to constitutional protections and due process. Why not people lacking documentation?

The constitution is a legal document, contract, between two parties: legal citizens and the government. People lacking documentation have demonstrated they show no respect for due process (in this case, the immigration process). The only protections Illegals should get is a speedy trail to have them deported.

Secure the flow of goods for which purpose? How would I prevent drug-smuggling? How would I regulate duties and tariffs? I don't know but are you saying that regulating commodity traffic is the same as regulating human traffic?

If you don't know, then don't propose crackpot ideas on boarder control. It makes you come off as, you know, a crackpot.

Ultimately, people are generally expected and presumed to self-regulate. That's another one of those government of/for/by the people concepts that you didn't get learning about republics.

I wasn't aware that people would, magically, self regulate using your open boarder policy to stem the tide of weapons and drugs. Nonsense.

You wouldn't use such belligerent and defensive language if you didn't have a hidden agenda. You will go on denying it the way a person who advocates legalizing drugs denies that their hidden agenda is to use drugs freely.

How about answering my questions about your open boarder policy, instead of trying to deflect the issue.

Why? Who decides this? On what grounds? Why wouldn't interstate migration be regulated for this same reason then?

Go read through their website:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

I'm sorry but you mention practically everything except for the fact that many people view the US as an ethnic nation and they promote migration restriction to limit the amount of ethnic "otherness" in the US. It is not about resources or anything else to these people except maintaining relative ethnic homogeneity. Why is it so difficult to admit this for people who promote anti-migration propaganda and policies?

It is quite clear to me you have racist issues with white people.

Why can't they pay taxes? In fact, everyone who spends money pays taxes. Everyone who makes money pays taxes.

I pay a large amount of federal taxes on my yearly income, on top of sales tax - that requires a valid SS number. And these illegal aliens have a valid SS, how?

Everyone who owns property pays taxes.

Yes...and, owning property should require a form of legal documentation.

And everyone who rents property pays taxes indirectly.

I don't care about people who pay taxes indirectly. I pay taxes directly. Do you not understand this? Is it BEYOND YOU? Others living here need to pay their fair share. It is unacceptable for people to come here illegally work under the table and use up public resources. It is astounding to me how you can't understand this.

What would really lower taxes would be to stop fiscally stimulating the economy and bailing out businesses. But its too late for that now, so you've decided to move on to blaming newcomers, eh?

Different topic, for a different thread. Go make one on the economic stimulus, if you want to.

 

[Cyrus]

Doesn't using the term "illegals" even imply guilt prior to conviction, and therefore constitute slander? Shouldn't you say, "alleged non-citizens?"

il·le·gal   [ih-lee-guhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
forbidden by law or statute.
2.
contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

No, that is not what illegal means, the word guilty, means guilty...

This is clearly part of your hidden racist agenda against white people.

 

[brainstorm]

The constitution is a legal document, contract, between two parties: legal citizens and the government. People lacking documentation have demonstrated they show no respect for due process (in this case, the immigration process). The only protections Illegals should get is a speedy trail to have them deported.

I think that these rights and protections were actually conceived in response to oppressive practices under colonial rule. The claim was that people had the right to due process against a government that didn't represent them. It didn't say that as long as they were denied representation in colonial government that it was ok to treat them however the British crown wanted to.

I wasn't aware that people would, magically, self regulate using your open boarder policy to stem the tide of weapons and drugs. Nonsense.

Most people would and already do, but there are always those who don't and you're right to wonder about the best way to intervene before such people do damage. But this really has little to do with citizenship status. Citizens and non-citizens alike can fail to self-regulate.

It is quite clear to me you have racist issues with white people.

I have issues with racism, but I don't automatically assume anyone is racist because of the color of their skin, the language(s) they speak, or any group identification they may have. In fact, I wouldn't even automatically assume that a KKK-affiliated person is pro-racism, but it would be an indication. Now, do you have issues with people living in the US because you don't view them as "ethnically American?" Do you long to have a place to live where everyone practices the same culture and speaks the same language and no other languages?

I pay a large amount of federal taxes on my yearly income, on top of sales tax - that requires a valid SS number. And these illegal aliens have a valid SS, how?

I guess you have a point. But then they don't get access to many government services either, do they? Give them a SS# and they can pay income taxes, though, right?

Yes...and, owning property should require a form of legal documentation.

Including stock ownership? Including US treasury bonds? Including US currency? Should the govt. also require all US citizens to relinquish all forms of foreign property, such as off-shore bank accounts, shares in off shore businesses, etc.?

I don't care about people who pay taxes indirectly. I pay taxes directly. Do you not understand this? Is it BEYOND YOU? Others living here need to pay their fair share.

I still think you're more interested in deporting people than giving them a means to pay taxes. When I have the sense that migration debates are about equal status and responsibilities instead of restricting participation, I will support your calls for fair treatment. The basis for US revolution was no taxation without representation. People who haven't been granted citizenship yet shouldn't just be not paying income tax, they should get exemptions from sales tax and every other form of tax as well.

 

[Hurkyl]

This last clause is what grants illegals rights and privileges from the Constitution.

No; taken at face value it merely gives them equal protection under the law. It does not magically turn them into a citizen so that a law granting rights and privileges to citizens will also grant rights to them.

 

[skeptic2]

No Hurkyl, the Constitution is the law and the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution are legal protections. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that makes everybody within the borders of the US a citizen, but it does say they have equal protection and that includes Constitutional protection. To say that some parts of our law, such as our immigration laws, apply to foreigners but other parts such as the Constitution do not is in itself a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Cyrus]

Most people would and already do, but there are always those who don't and you're right to wonder about the best way to intervene before such people do damage. But this really has little to do with citizenship status. Citizens and non-citizens alike can fail to self-regulate.

And people who willingly come across the boarders illegally, CLEARLY, do not self-regulate their behavior.

I have issues with racism, but I don't automatically assume anyone is racist because of the color of their skin, the language(s) they speak, or any group identification they may have. In fact, I wouldn't even automatically assume that a KKK-affiliated person is pro-racism, but it would be an indication. Now, do you have issues with people living in the US because you don't view them as "ethnically American?" Do you long to have a place to live where everyone practices the same culture and speaks the same language and no other languages?

Again, go back and reread what I wrote. I already answered this absurd question.

I guess you have a point. But then they don't get access to many government services either, do they? Give them a SS# and they can pay income taxes, though, right?

Wrong: they do get access to government services, hospitals being one of them. Schools, another. Way to misrepresent what I said with that last sentence - must be that racism to white people kicking in again.

Including stock ownership? Including US treasury bonds? Including US currency? Should the govt. also require all US citizens to relinquish all forms of foreign property, such as off-shore bank accounts, shares in off shore businesses, etc.?

I never said anything about stock ownership, treasury bonds, or US currency - so I won't answer that: it's irrelevant. I'm not sure why you think anyone should give up foreign property, again, never said anything about that. Where do you get such nonsense from?

I still think you're more interested in deporting people than giving them a means to pay taxes.

<shrug> Then you're wrong.

When I have the sense that migration debates are about equal status and responsibilities instead of restricting participation, I will support your calls for fair treatment.

<shrug> You are senseless, so don't hold your breath.

The basis for US revolution was no taxation without representation. People who haven't been granted citizenship yet shouldn't just be not paying income tax, they should get exemptions from sales tax and every other form of tax as well.

Wow, you are nieve. Yes, let's allow an influx of undocumented people into this country, use public resources, drain state funds, and NOT let them pay ANY form of taxes. ...ah, crackpots. They always humor me.

You're so far out there, I am only going to reply to your statements with ridicule. There's no point in me talking to someone that unreasonable or out of touch with reality.

 

[edward]

Wow illegals don't even report rape because they are afraid they might be deported. I hardly think that they would ask for a tax break.

 

[edward]

The only rights adult "crossers" have are to an attorney and the right to remain silent.

Edit: The local Hispanic groups complained about the media using the term illegals. They are now called: crossers, migrants, or immigrants right up to the point when they are arrested.

 

[brainstorm]

You're so far out there, I am only going to reply to your statements with ridicule. There's no point in me talking to someone that unreasonable or out of touch with reality.

I agree. There's no point in talking to someone who uses sarcasm and implicit suggestion as his main method of grounded reasoning. You're obvously arguing to win without validating or grounding your points. You're hopeless.

 

[Cyrus]

Wow illegals don't even report rape because they are afraid they might be deported. I hardly think that they would ask for a tax break.

Edward, according to Comrade Brainstorm, Illegals do not use state resources paid for by you
and me. Oh wait, oops.

By some estimates, hospitals are collectively writing off as much as $2 billion a year in unpaid medical bills to treat the illegal immigrants, who, unlike American citizens and permanent residents, are ineligible for Medicaid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/us/hospitals-feeling-strain-from-illegal-immigrants.html

Now, I'll sit back and wait for Comrade Brainstorm write this off as the fault of the 'white man'. Everyone get your popcorn ready, it's coming. Excuse express is always on time.

 

[Cyrus]

I agree. There's no point in talking to someone who uses sarcasm and implicit suggestion as his main method of grounded reasoning. You're obvously arguing to win without validating or grounding your points. You're hopeless.

One of my favorite el presidentes is Thomas Jefferson:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them...

 

[edward]

No one can write this off as being the fault of white men.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355015,00.html

This was illegals holding illegals hostage in Phoenix. This is a very common occurrence.

 

[brainstorm]

Edward, according to Comrade Brainstorm, Illegals do not use state resources paid for by you
and me. Oh wait, oops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/us/hospitals-feeling-strain-from-illegal-immigrants.html

Now, I'll sit back and wait for Comrade Brainstorm write this off as the fault of the 'white man'. Everyone get your popcorn ready, it's coming. Excuse express is always on time.

It's really sad that you take this kind of arrogant taunting attitude and then don't take any responsibility when some weak idiot overreacts and commits some terrorist act. It's like "real red-blooded white men" like you want to evoke terrorist violence so they can attack it. Why can't you just have a constructive discussion instead of taunting and harassing people while you, in the meantime, block out most of what they say with your thick-headedness?

 

[Cyrus]

It's really sad that you take this kind of arrogant taunting attitude and then don't take any responsibility when some weak idiot overreacts and commits some terrorist act.

....err, take responsibility for what? Dude, your arguments are all over the map. If you have a point to make, then make it. I don't need you diverging to terrorists, stimuli packages, or any of the myriad of other things you bring up to avoid the direct issue at hand.

Why can't you just have a constructive discussion instead of taunting and harassing people while you, in the meantime, block out most of what they say with your thick-headedness?

Because you say stupid stuff like this:

It's like "real red-blooded white men" like you want to evoke terrorist violence so they can attack it.

and then I can't take you seriously. So I ridicule you. FYI: you are free to keep it up, but don't expect me to stop. No one here, anywhere, has said anything about wanting to "evoke terrorist violence", what a straw-man. One of many, you bring up, Comrade Brainstorm. I would appreciate it if you stopped making these racist comments about white people. You clearly have issues with whites - seek professional help about it.

For the others viewing this thread, I hope you all notice how he completely ignored the FACTS, which fly in his FACE about illegals using public resources that use MY tax money.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This thread has gotten entirely too hostile. Time for a time out.