LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 10-02-2011, 06:07 PM   #21
Qzmsdoem

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
482
Senior Member
Default
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"

Though the Executive Office for Immigration Review is not without problems, check out the posts by Juan Mann on VDare regarding the since demoted nigger Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy. His little nigger sidekick that came over with him from the I&NS also got demoted from one of the many Assistant Chief Immigration Judges to a regular Immigration Judge assigned to the Washington area. One of the reasons behind this was the suit by retired Immigration Judge John T. Zastrow as well as open anti-white discrimination and permitting Immigration Judges Sean H. Keenan, Thomas O'Leary and John Davis to violate federal law by bringing booze into a facility in Eloy, Arizona that houses Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates.
Exactly, this is the spin these leftards put on it. They really have NO rights, however these activist judges insist that they do.

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.
Qzmsdoem is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 07:05 PM   #22
Cyzkrahu

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
477
Senior Member
Default
...
Some day you may actually have something of value to say to me. Stranger things have happened. But until that day finally comes, shut the fuck up when I'm talking, boy.
Cyzkrahu is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 08:20 PM   #23
effenseshoora

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
504
Senior Member
Default
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.
Congats for knowing that one would be required

You would have to have an amendment repealing part of the verbiage of the 14th amendment...NOT gonna happen
effenseshoora is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 09:35 PM   #24
Ijkavylo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
496
Senior Member
Default
Exactly, this is the spin these leftards put on it. They really have NO rights, however these activist judges insist that they do.
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.
Ijkavylo is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 09:50 PM   #25
Japakefrope

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
431
Senior Member
Default
Some day you may actually have something of value to say to me. Stranger things have happened. But until that day finally comes, shut the fuck up when I'm talking, boy.
Something of value.

There. I said "something of value" to you.
Japakefrope is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 09:51 PM   #26
anxpuna

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
572
Senior Member
Default
Congats for knowing that one would be required

You would have to have an amendment repealing part of the verbiage of the 14th amendment...NOT gonna happen
That pesky "in the jurisdiction of" thing
anxpuna is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 09:56 PM   #27
WelcomeMe

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
573
Senior Member
Default
Won't make any difference.

As if it isn't already painfully obvious (to righards, many of whom still believe the Earth to be flat in accordance w/their Creationist thinking, painfully obvious takes on new meaning), undocumented workers already break immigration laws, so another legal constraint is unlikely to make any more of a dent, except, of course, in the border bigots' craniums, to add to the existing dents.

As a liberal, I could care less. Anyone of any race who works for a living and doesn't hurt anyone deserves to stay, regardless of the legality of their presence under US law, which has zero validity anyway since the US is an illegitimate country stolen from the original Natives. And since 12 million of those people are already here, we're getting our way , while the rightard border bigots' march their fat unemployed asses around making fools of themselves. . .

Loony bin

P. S. don't worry. If these border bigots get hungry, we'll give them our leftover tacos.
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.
WelcomeMe is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:02 PM   #28
amelveEnromma

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
448
Senior Member
Default
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.
The only lawn my husband mows is ours. If you need yours done I would suggest getting off your dumb ass and doing it yourself.
He has a very nice, well paying job and works for a company that actually USES e-verify. NO illegals there.
amelveEnromma is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:05 PM   #29
dAy2EWlg

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
370
Senior Member
Default
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.
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
dAy2EWlg is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:15 PM   #30
floadaVonfoli

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
417
Senior Member
Default
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.
You do realize CL is Saara right?
floadaVonfoli is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:16 PM   #31
finasteride

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
488
Senior Member
Default
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
No, I'm pissed that assholes like you think the country really belongs to illegal invaders. You admitted as much when you said our laws were invalid because we supposedly stole the country from the invaders. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is legal and binding, and Mexico is legally obligated to 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.
finasteride is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:19 PM   #32
HilaryNidierer

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
424
Senior Member
Default
That pesky "in the jurisdiction of" thing
They just Hate it when the Constitution they claim to love so much get's in their way
HilaryNidierer is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:23 PM   #33
kranfid

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
531
Senior Member
Default
They just Hate it when the Constitution they claim to love so much get's in their way
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.
kranfid is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:24 PM   #34
kmjbbT3U

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
392
Senior Member
Default
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.
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
kmjbbT3U is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:29 PM   #35
enurneAcourdy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
727
Senior Member
Default
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
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.

And the poll is kicking your ass.
enurneAcourdy is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:32 PM   #36
Petwrenny

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
400
Senior Member
Default
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.

And the poll is kicking your ass.
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

"Intent" is subjective...and EVERY SCOTUS...even this right leaning one..has reaffirmed the "jurisdiction" aspect of the equal protection clause
Petwrenny is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:35 PM   #37
thakitt

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
555
Senior Member
Default
YOUR HOLE IS STUPIDER THAN YOU ARE, SAARA.
thakitt is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:36 PM   #38
nermise

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
527
Senior Member
Default
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

"Intent" is subjective...and EVERY SCOTUS...even this right leaning one..has reaffirmed the "jurisdiction" aspect of the equal protection clause
I was admitting nothing. They already have no rights in the current constitution that applies to citizens, not illegal invaders. An amendment would help to end any ambiguity.
nermise is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 10:36 PM   #39
Saispapedlimi

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
522
Senior Member
Default
THERE IS NO ISSUE TO SETTLE.

THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.


TALK HUMAN RIGHTS, IF YOU WILL.
Saispapedlimi is offline


Old 10-02-2011, 11:06 PM   #40
suingincentix

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
461
Senior Member
Default
I was admitting nothing. They already have no rights in the current constitution that applies to citizens, not illegal invaders. An amendment would help to end any ambiguity.
There is no ambiguity...the 14th amendment and every SCOTUS decision on the issue have been very clear
suingincentix is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity