d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Healthcare For Undocumented Immigrants
Prev1131415161725Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 105,151
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Oct 1 2019 06:24pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 1 2019 08:12pm)
The Constitution States citizen when it means Citizen and person when it means all people. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled on this issue


Yeah, I'm gonna have to see some proof of that. the 2nd A doesn't say "a people" it says "the people".

Member
Posts: 49,896
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Oct 1 2019 06:44pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 2 2019 07:57am)
You want evidence that a dependent variable is dependent on the independent variable without actually implementing the independent variable. Peak scientist form on display.

Now apply the "I have yet to see any real evidence that" to your bolded. Am i doing this right?




A high enough wall would probably limit how easily people that are overweight, disabled, small kids, etc can cross. Again common sense, if you only had an iq above 80.

I'm not a proponent for the wall but walls have worked. The Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, etc. I don't expect the same effects but to expect that crossing rates would be higher or the same with some barrier is incredibly dumb.


When the great wall of china was built there was no such thing as a plane, which is how most illegals arrive in the us.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 1 2019 06:52pm
Quote (Ghot @ Oct 1 2019 07:24pm)
Yeah, I'm gonna have to see some proof of that. the 2nd A doesn't say "a people" it says "the people".


U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark / Fong Yue Ting v. U.S - protection against unreasonable search and seizures applies to aliens living in the U.S. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez - non-citizens have rights when they are within the United States if they have developed a sufficient connection with this country (i.e. detainment on U.S. soil is not sufficient). Living and working in the country falls under "sufficient connection".



It's also ridiculous on it's face. If "the people" only meant citizens that means that the second you set foot on U.S. soil as a tourist you can be beaten to within an inch of your life and you are owed no justice from the United States because you have no rights.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Oct 1 2019 07:18pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 1 2019 08:52pm)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark / Fong Yue Ting v. U.S - protection against unreasonable search and seizures applies to aliens living in the U.S. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez - non-citizens have rights when they are within the United States if they have developed a sufficient connection with this country (i.e. detainment on U.S. soil is not sufficient). Living and working in the country falls under "sufficient connection".



It's also ridiculous on it's face. If "the people" only meant citizens that means that the second you set foot on U.S. soil as a tourist you can be beaten to within an inch of your life and you are owed no justice from the United States because you have no rights.


National security trumps personal rights. No pun intended,

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Oct 1 2019 07:18pm
Member
Posts: 105,151
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Oct 1 2019 07:24pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 1 2019 08:52pm)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark / Fong Yue Ting v. U.S - protection against unreasonable search and seizures applies to aliens living in the U.S. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez - non-citizens have rights when they are within the United States if they have developed a sufficient connection with this country (i.e. detainment on U.S. soil is not sufficient). Living and working in the country falls under "sufficient connection".



It's also ridiculous on it's face. If "the people" only meant citizens that means that the second you set foot on U.S. soil as a tourist you can be beaten to within an inch of your life and you are owed no justice from the United States because you have no rights.


An illegal alien is NOT a tourist.

non-citizens =/= illegal aliens.


In neither of those court cases, does it say "illegal aliens". The operative term being illegal.

Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 1 2019 08:02pm
Quote (Ghot @ Oct 1 2019 08:24pm)
An illegal alien is NOT a tourist.

non-citizens =/= illegal aliens.

In neither of those court cases, does it say "illegal aliens". The operative term being illegal.


Fine then, the second an illegal alien sets foot on U.S. soil they could be beaten to within an inch of their life and they would have no recourse. It's still ridiculous on it's face.

Doesn't matter, an illegal alien has almost certainly developed a sufficient connection with this country.

Quote (EndlessSky @ Oct 1 2019 08:18pm)
National security trumps personal rights. No pun intended,


Depends on the situation.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 1 2019 08:02pm
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Oct 1 2019 08:12pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Oct 1 2019 11:51am)
Indeed they are. Do you deny that government provided infrastructure isn't directly responsible for corporate profits? May I direct you to our interstate highway systems and the profit margins of every single corporation that ships goods on them? Our railways? Our rivers and ocean ports?

The government is in fact the largest driver of GDP. This is scientific fact.


It's also bullshit. Taking money out of the economy only to put it back into the economy does not a good use of money make.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Oct 1 2019 12:13pm)
Let's take that a step further and call out why they want a wall and strict immigration laws.

It's not to stop illegal immigration. They don't want that. It's to make it even more illegal and more difficult so they, conservatives and their wealthy business owner buddies, can hire terrified low-wage workers at cut rate prices.

Republican voters who actually believe a wall will stop a single illegal worker from being hired by a Republican business owner are morons.


That doesn't even make sense. In an environment like now, with more jobs than workers, diminishing the labor pool even further drives wages up as employers are forced to compete for scarce labor.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Oct 1 2019 02:29pm)
It's not about whether they do or don't. Even if they ended up contributing only $1 total, to not include it in the calculations is the result of intention bias and results in skewed data.


I fail to understand why future contributions should be counted in current cost/benefit analysis.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 1 2019 02:39pm)
Due to the need of there being a well regulated militia. We have a professional military now. Says the United States army is the well regulated militia are they the ones who have the right to bear arms now?

It's better to take the words for what they mean than start interpreting what we think they mean, going back to my original point.

You say the founding fathers meant slaves and not Mexicans and I say the founding fathers meant muskets and not machine guns.


The thing here is, my positions on both the 2nd and 14th are grammatically correct. Your positions are both wrong.

It is redundant to state "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" if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means they are subject to our laws. It would be no different than stating "All persons born or naturalized in the United States our jurisdiction and subject to the our jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State those jurisdictions wherein they reside." No, what they are indeed saying is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof don't owe their allegiance to a foreign jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Indians owed their allegiance to their tribes, so while they were born in "our jurisdiction," they were not subjects of it. Quite clearly, the founders did NOT grant outright birthright citizenship.

Additionally, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" was written precisely because they did not want a standing army (i.e. what we now have), which spreads American imperialism all over the world in true King George III fashion. We were to be defended by the collective efforts of the people themselves, and that cannot be effected without assuring that they had access to modern weapons with which to stand against those who would use them against us. Everyone has the right. It says so right in the amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the militia. It's amazing how people try to pretend all these rights limiting the power of the government to harm the people protect the individual, unless it's the 2A.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Oct 1 2019 06:41pm)
Indeed. The people; without qualification. Mexican immigrants, Antifa, Black Panthers, Muslims, trade unionists. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Yes please. #blackgunsmatter

This post was edited by Santara on Oct 1 2019 08:34pm
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
Oct 1 2019 08:21pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 1 2019 05:12pm)
The Constitution States citizen when it means Citizen and person when it means all people. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled on this issue



You can't expect conservatives to understand the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Or to have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark or Fong Yue Ting.

Quote (EndlessSky @ Oct 1 2019 06:18pm)
National security trumps personal rights. No pun intended,



And this is how they will take your guns away. With your own stupid fascist reasoning.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Oct 1 2019 08:25pm
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Oct 1 2019 08:43pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Oct 1 2019 07:21pm)
You can't expect conservatives to understand the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Or to have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark or Fong Yue Ting.




And this is how they will take your guns away. With your own stupid fascist reasoning.


They could probably understand it if they weren't afraid of everything.
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
Oct 1 2019 08:45pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ Oct 1 2019 07:43pm)
They could probably understand it if they weren't afraid of everything.


If they stopped being afraid of everything–and seething with anger as a result–they'd be liberals.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Oct 1 2019 08:46pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1131415161725Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll