Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You and I. You agree that "earning" citizenship is not something we require, because you don't have any problem with not requiring it of natural born citizens. I'm discussing your personal preferences here, not the Constitution. You believe the natural born citizen concept makes sense, so you don't really care about "earning" citizenship per se, merely in hte case of immigrants.
I mean, I don't care if they haven't earned it or if they have, because I don't think they need to "earn" anything.
You haven't earned the right, no, but you certainly have done something to attempt to earn it.
Property law fleshes this concept out. Let's say there is $30M sitting in a field somewhere. You stumble upon it. It is clearly not yours, right? Nevertheless, you have a greater claim to it than I do, because I have not stumbled upon it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
Eh, citizenship is something the government can grant at will. There's no inherent requirement that the person need be of any type. If the government chose to do away with the requirement that applicants not be serial rapists, they could do so. Except that that requirement has some actual purpose.
No, you and I do NOT agree. I stated that U.S. citizenship is conferred by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. You believe there should be no requirements for non-citizens to obtain U.S. citizenship. HUGE difference.
Sorry, but illegal aliens are not citizens, and have done NOTHING to either “earn” or “deserve” citizenship. They are interlopers, period.
No, you and I do NOT agree. I stated that U.S. citizenship is conferred by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. You believe there should be no requirements for non-citizens to obtain U.S. citizenship. HUGE difference.
Well no, that's not my belief.
But obviously my point was that we believe in one thing: citizenship is not something you must necessarily "earn."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Sorry, but illegal aliens are not citizens, and have done NOTHING to either “earn” or “deserve” citizenship. They are interlopers, period.
"And here's where I will re-state my conclusion as if it's an argument in and of itself!"
But obviously my point was that we believe in one thing: citizenship is not something you must necessarily "earn."
"And here's where I will re-state my conclusion as if it's an argument in and of itself!"
No, U.S. citizenship is not earned by those born in this country. But, it IS “earned” by non-citizens. For some reason, you refuse to accept this simple fact of life.
No, U.S. citizenship is not earned by those born in this country. But, it IS “earned” by non-citizens. For some reason, you refuse to accept this simple fact of life.
What? I'm not disputing that that's roughly how it works now. We were having a normative discussion.
It's not that Mexico doesn't care or any of the crazy things that are being posted.
This guy thought he was an American citizen. The State of Texas thought he was an American citizen. Years after the trial it is revealed to Leal that he is not a legal citizen of the United States, that he was brought to the US illegally when he was 2. The lawyers then try to use this to save his life. I see this as an involuntary mistake, not done on purpose, by all parts (prosecutors and defendant). The law says that if he is not an American citizen he is entitled to the assistance from the Consulate of his country of citizenship. This did not happen (because nobody knew he was not American). The defense then brought the issue up, contacted the Mexican government, probably hoping for a retrial where they wanted to enter some other stuff such as claims that he had brain damage and had been abused by a priest (and that all this influenced his conduct) to try to avoid the death penalty.
As on why he yelled Viva México - well I believe it was just plain gratitude at the country that tried to save his life. Not some doctrine that had been taught to him.
BTW, I think he deserved to be executed because he was guilty of a terrible crime. I'm not sad about his death. The less evil people in this word the better.
The bad thing is that at the end of the day the US has not complied with international law, and this can be used against US citizens in other countries, especially the ones that are against the US. This is the reason so many politicians opposed to the execution, not to save this murderer but to protect US citizens abroad.
They don’t have to be “fresh.” They simply need to be relevant, which NONE of your examples are. You cannot compare the behavior of soldiers during wartime, to the vicious and senseless rape and murder of this girl. Your attempts to marginalize this heinous crime are absolutely appalling. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Rape is rape, and never acceptable imo. However, if the mexican had been a soldier, his crime probably wouldn't have gotten him the death penalty.
In war, soldiers are rewarded for eliminating the enemy, and if things get "out of control" or people "lose their moral compass" at times, it's not revealed unless someone leaks it.
Yes, I am very ashamed. I'm ashamed of the hypocritical judicial system in America, and I'm ashamed of war and all of the crimes that are done "for freedom of America."
You bet I'm ashamed.
Peace,
brian
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.