User avatar
By Kfoxwyo
#643552
I think you made a very important point. Why should a person who is legally trying to conduct thier life be hindered by the criminals. Ergo- people who want to immigrant to the United States legally now cannot because of the fear of illegal activity by some, but not all. I do not think that I speak for you but you would not welcome further restriction in order to protect your family or yourself as it relates to firearms. The people trying to flee to protect there families or themselves. That's the divide- a gap that is deepened this country into a sad and dangerous place.
User avatar
By Upsetter
#643555
Kfoxwyo wrote:That's the divide- a gap that is deepened this country into a sad and dangerous place.
Actually, the divide is people who understand and fail to understand the provisions of our Constitution. You know the controlling document for our federal government. You know the one that supposed to specifically limit its powers. You know the one that guarantees individual rights to CITIZENS of the United States of America. immigrants are not citizen. immigrants have no rights by any document that we are duty bound to observe. If we say no entry, no entry. End of story. It doesn't matter where they're coming from.

I find it hilarious at the same people who want to strip constitutionally protected rights from citizens of the United States of America are so fucking concerned with shitheads from the other side of the fucking world and the rights they supposedly have showing up on our doorstep with nothing to show for themselves at all.

Want to know how to make the first world the Third World? Keep letting the Third World in the fucking door.
User avatar
By Kfoxwyo
#643564
Upsetter you are living up to your screen name. And I think in my opinion you are 95% correct. Least we not forget we were all once immigrants, if your heritage comes from this continent, then I stand corrected and it is tragic what "we" have done to your people and land repeatedly. And I absolutely agree with you if the Commander and Chief so no entry then "no" entry from Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, etc. etc. but when we draw an exception based literally on religion then at least I have a problem with it. If you do not then thats why this was and might still be the greatest country in the world. While I am not an attorney, common sense seems to imply that if you have a green card you have been vetted and have some "rights". And respectfually if you do not see this country becoming divided, I do.
User avatar
By Jon
#643614
Upsetter wrote:
Actually, the divide is people who understand and fail to understand the provisions of our Constitution. You know the controlling document for our federal government. You know the one that supposed to specifically limit its powers. You know the one that guarantees individual rights to CITIZENS of the United States of America. immigrants are not citizen. immigrants have no rights by any document that we are duty bound to observe...
The Bill of Rights says nothing about “citizens.” Where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in “citizens,” but rather in "the people", “persons” or “the accused” ("...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...": “No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”). The only rights reserved for US citizens are voting and holding public office.

To claim that Constitutional rights apply only to US citizens is to argue that foreigners are somehow not “persons.”
User avatar
By Lando
#643619
I miss this big old fucker.............

Image


Image

</the dog, not Farino>
User avatar
By austrotard
#643627
steve barked at me once. and then he went back to sleep.
User avatar
By Upsetter
#643631
Jon wrote:To claim that Constitutional rights apply only to US citizens is to argue that foreigners are somehow not “persons.”
Ahhh...a constructionist debate...more catharsis...hold on...lemme get my laptop
User avatar
By Upsetter
#643633
ChaseChrome wrote:Well, you just got one who luckily "understands"...the originalist cunt Neil Gorsuch

:vomit :vomit
go mind your own socialist shithole of a government canukistani
User avatar
By peetso
#643634
Upsetter wrote:
Actually, the divide is people who understand and fail to understand the provisions of our Constitution. You know the controlling document for our federal government. You know the one that supposed to specifically limit its powers. You know the one that guarantees individual rights to CITIZENS of the United States of America. immigrants are not citizen. immigrants have no rights by any document that we are duty bound to observe. If we say no entry, no entry. End of story. It doesn't matter where they're coming from.

I find it hilarious at the same people who want to strip constitutionally protected rights from citizens of the United States of America are so fucking concerned with shitheads from the other side of the fucking world and the rights they supposedly have showing up on our doorstep with nothing to show for themselves at all.

Want to know how to make the first world the Third World? Keep letting the Third World in the fucking door.
As the grandson and great-grandson of four refugees I would sincerely like to say go fuck yourself.

cheers,
peetso

Image
User avatar
By Upsetter
#643650
Jon wrote:The Bill of Rights says nothing about “citizens.” Where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in “citizens,” but rather in "the people", “persons” or “the accused” ("...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...": “No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”). The only rights reserved for US citizens are voting and holding public office.
The first words of the constitution are "We the people of the United States of America"…not iran, not iraq, not syria. the Constitution was written by and for the citizens of the usa. A strict interpretation of the constitution leaves the firm impression that it wasnt written for the benefit of people from any other country.

I will admit the high court has held certain of the BOR attach to immigrants. Non citizens are entitled to due process, as you mention. That means a hearing, a chance to plead their case for citizenship. But they are not guaranteed a positive result. immigrants have no right to citizenship in this country. they dont even have a right to entry. United States ex. ref Knauff v. Shaughnessy held noncitizens seeking entry have no right to enter, and therefore may not object on due process grounds to the procedures used to determine whether they may enter.

but all this is besides my point anyhow. the retrads currently burning uc berkeley to the ground think immigrants have a right to entry and citizenship, a right to a certain outcome no matter what. just like they think everyone has a right to my money, to your money, so they can live the good life while living like losers. that is the fundamental divide. people who think they have a right to work hard in pursuit of their own happyness, largely unfettered by government. and those who think they simply have a right to whatever they think they have coming to them and that govt should steal from others to make it so.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 23
Happy Canada Day, Canadians

Canada's alright if you like saxophones

https://i.imgur.com/e0eifNz.jpg?1 Should be […]

So is it "Dutch ass" ham, or Dutch &qu[…]

Thumbing Through Some SBSs

Splitsville Spundun Emerger https://live.sta[…]

Subscribe to The Drake Magazine