Reply to Thread New Thread |
10-02-2011, 06:07 PM | #21 |
|
Attend a session in your closest Immigration Court, they have rights. Like Michelle Malkin wrote in her book Invasion regarding the Immigration Court (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review) "It's not over until the alien wins" Let Saara and believe me Civilized Liberal is Saara, try this shit in Mexico. Let her demand to stay and receive benefits and see what happens. |
|
10-02-2011, 08:20 PM | #23 |
|
The amendment would make clear that anyone in the country illegally is not covered by the constitution. No right to be here = you have no rights. You would have to have an amendment repealing part of the verbiage of the 14th amendment...NOT gonna happen |
|
10-02-2011, 09:35 PM | #24 |
|
|
|
10-02-2011, 09:50 PM | #25 |
|
|
|
10-02-2011, 09:56 PM | #27 |
|
Won't make any difference. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:02 PM | #28 |
|
They have a right to take your husband's lawnmowing job away, which is what will happen if he doesn't get his lazy ass out here by Monday to work on my yard. He has a very nice, well paying job and works for a company that actually USES e-verify. NO illegals there. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:05 PM | #29 |
|
Fuck that shit. They signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which is a legally binding contract that means we are the rightful sovereigns of the southwestern states. The assholes are using lame excuses to illegally trespass into our country. The Constitution covers the rights of CITIZENS and those here lawfully. Illegal invaders are not covered by it. They're invaders who have no right to be here. There isn't a single illegal who isn't a criminal. Every one of them broke at least one law when crossing the border without a proper visa. They're not undocumented immigrants. They're illegal aliens who should be shot on sight. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:15 PM | #30 |
|
Fuck that shit. They signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which is a legally binding contract that means we are the rightful sovereigns of the southwestern states. The assholes are using lame excuses to illegally trespass into our country. The Constitution covers the rights of CITIZENS and those here lawfully. Illegal invaders are not covered by it. They're invaders who have no right to be here. There isn't a single illegal who isn't a criminal. Every one of them broke at least one law when crossing the border without a proper visa. They're not undocumented immigrants. They're illegal aliens who should be shot on sight. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:16 PM | #31 |
|
screen_pass is pissed that an undocumented immigrant took his janitor job away, and he's going to take his .22 and do something about it And btw, I support universal health care, abortion rights, women's rights, and gay rights. I'm for ending corporate tax loopholes and for letting the capital gains tax go back up to 20 percent. I'm no Tea Partier by a long shot. However, I've for defending our sovereignty. Anyone who illegally invades is in violation of our sovereignty and deserves to be shot. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:19 PM | #32 |
|
|
|
10-02-2011, 10:23 PM | #33 |
|
They just Hate it when the Constitution they claim to love so much get's in their way |
|
10-02-2011, 10:24 PM | #34 |
|
The Constitution starts with "we the people of the United States." In other words, it begins by defining who it applies to, that is citizens. The content therein does not apply to any illegal invader. Imagine if during WW II the Japanese had invaded mainland USA as many Americans had feared they would. Would a Japanese soldier be covered by the Constitution? Of course fucking not! The same is true of an illegal invader who has invaded by sneaking into the country. Such a person has no rights under the Constitution. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:29 PM | #35 |
|
The 14th amendment states all those within the Jurisdiction of the United states are covered by the equal protection clause.....you are right..it WOULD take a constitutional amendment to change that And the poll is kicking your ass. |
|
10-02-2011, 10:32 PM | #36 |
|
Nice try. The 14th Amendment was intended to apply to former slaves. It was never intended to provide sanctuary to an illegal invader. By your logic, an invading Japanese or German soldier would have been protected by the Constitution. We need to legally classify illegals as invaders with no rights and be done with it. "Intent" is subjective...and EVERY SCOTUS...even this right leaning one..has reaffirmed the "jurisdiction" aspect of the equal protection clause |
|
10-02-2011, 10:36 PM | #38 |
|
The poll is no surprise,,and by your own question, you are admitting I am right,,,it would take a constitutional amendment to do what you are suggesting |
|
10-02-2011, 10:36 PM | #39 |
|
|
|
10-02-2011, 11:06 PM | #40 |
|
|
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|