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.
According to Judge Brennan in in Plyler vs Doe, the children are in fact deportable, as being here illegally is a crime. There appears to be no age limit to immigration laws or lack of accountability.
According to Judge Brennan in in Plyler vs Doe, the children are in fact deportable, as being here illegally is a crime. There appears to be no age limit to immigration laws or lack of accountability.
This is kind of an awkward way to interpret that. Deportation is not viewed as punitive by the government, nor is there necessarily a crime involved, so culpability doesn't need to be established.
This is kind of an awkward way to interpret that. Deportation is not viewed as punitive by the government, nor is there necessarily a crime involved, so culpability doesn't need to be established.
The crimes are being here in violation of immigration laws and in many instances entry without inspection, hence deportation in overwhelming cases.
The crimes are being here in violation of immigration laws and in many instances entry without inspection, hence deportation in overwhelming cases.
In order for anything to be chargeable as a "crime" it will generally need to be amenable to required levels of culpability. These are usually negligence, recklessness, knowledge, purpose. There are also strict liability crimes, and I believe illegal immigration is one of them. So is, say, employing illegal immigrants in many states. Strict liability is almost never justified, but whatever.
As I've said before, simply crossing the border illegally is not always a crime, it's frequently a civil offense. So is, say, overstaying your visa. But deportation is still on the table, because it's not deemed punishment for a crime, and so no discussion of culpability is even needed.
Yeah, we have a "representative" democracy, not a direct one. BTW please don't characterize my contempt for the policy solutions of the public being limited to Americans.
But seriously, how complex should a problem be before we don't bring it to a vote, exactly? How many votes should there be? Should we vote on the fence? What about the height of the fence? Americans voting on the height of the border fence is called democracy, dear, so please explain what is wrong with that concept.
Representatives are supposed to represent people. Our elected officials largely don't on this issue. That's not representative democracy. That's oligarchy. I'm sick of it.
Americans don't want massive numbers of unskilled laborers coming here largely from Latin America. Our policies should reflect that. Again they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
The comprehension fail continues. I'm not surprised. Let's use women's suffrage so your panties don't get all in a ruffle. I'm pretty sure we all agree that it wasn't right and women do have rights and a right to vote. For a very long time any poll done would have shown that a majority of people agree that women shouldn't have rights to vote. Now, my point which I've reiterated a few times is "just because a majority believes something, doesn't make it right and/or constitutional."
In b4 "This has nothing to do with sexism!!"
Oh cute. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of being on the rag.
Grow up. You're using inappropriate analogies to make insulting claims about your opponents. That's not a winning argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
No, I just think the idea of putting SOME but not others is, you know, a horrible idea. How are you going to determine which issues should be put up for a national vote? Who will run the election (note there are currently NO federal, nation-wide elections in the US)? How are challenges, recounts, etc going to be handled consistently?
It would be a total disaster.
The American public has made our views clear over and over again. We don't want open borders. Making laws that reflect that sentiment is simply democracy. Get over it.
Quote:
AGAIN, you argued that welfare and immigration have NOTHING to do with each other, and now you're worked up about welfare but advocating changing immigration laws. Telling me AGAIN that welfare needs fixing doesn't answer my question of why you think changing immigration laws that have nothing to do with welfare is going to fix welfare.
You are very confused. I am not irked about safety nets in our society. I am annoyed that some people seem to believe that foreigners should gain access to them. No society works like that. Why should we? You have not answered that question.
Quote:
If you want to imply that, then you should stop saying "every single person reserves the right to determine who lives in their house and who does not." Because what you actually said implies the exact opposite of "you cannot simply rent to anyone you want."
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked. How frequently should representatives be looking at polls? Should everyone have input on how to best regulate securities, too?
Grow up. You're using inappropriate analogies to make insulting claims about your opponents. That's not a winning argument.
No. I'm using real world examples where a majority support of something was still wrong even though a majority supported it. If you keep getting "OMG he's calling me a racist!" thoughts from those examples, perhaps it's your conscience.
Representatives are supposed to represent people. Our elected officials largely don't on this issue. That's not representative democracy. That's oligarchy. I'm sick of it.
It's oligarchy, but there are elections every two years.
Quote:
Americans don't want massive numbers of unskilled laborers coming here largely from Latin America. Our policies should reflect that. Again they don't.
"Americans are racist, so our policies should be racist" is your argument?
Quote:
Oh cute. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of being on the rag.
Grow up. You're using inappropriate analogies to make insulting claims about your opponents. That's not a winning argument.
You should probably try re-reading what he posted since A) it wasn't inappropriate at all and B) the analogy wasn't insulting.
Quote:
The American public has made our views clear over and over again. We don't want open borders. Making laws that reflect that sentiment is simply democracy. Get over it.
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I posted and you quoted.
Quote:
You are very confused. I am not irked about safety nets in our society. I am annoyed that some people seem to believe that foreigners should gain access to them. No society works like that. Why should we? You have not answered that question.
I haven't answered that question because it doesn't have anything to do with my position.
You argued that welfare and immigration have "nothing" to do with each other, yes or no?
If they have nothing to do with each other, why would you want to use immigration law to reduce welfare "abuse"? It makes no sense.
Quote:
Again I said no such thing.
You said those EXACT words, which is why I put them in quotes. ANyone can go back to post #193 in this very thread and read them.
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked. How frequently should representatives be looking at polls? Should everyone have input on how to best regulate securities, too?
How often does the public have to make our sentiments clear? Most Americans do not want illegals here. We don't want to grant them amnesty. We want skilled legal immigrants who are net economic contributors and speak English. We do not want to be responsible for solving the problems of Latin America's underclass.
Our immigration laws are hardly comparable to regulating the stock market. You certainly don't need an MBA to make an argument that an open borders policy would be deeply detrimental to the interests of most Americans. American immigration policy is not, to quote a clique, rocket science. It's certainly not nuclear physics or brain surgery. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous.
Really, dear, if you're actually going to be lawyer you'll have to grant your clients far more respect than this. The whole I'm so much smarter than you, Mr. Racist Joe Sixpack Who Can't Possibly Compete With My Fabulous Credentials isn't going to gain you much traction in a market oversaturated with new law school graduates.
I wind up seeking legal advice roughly once a year. I don't look for a lawyer who clearly has nothing but contempt for most people. You might want to remember that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
No. I'm using real world examples where a majority support of something was still wrong even though a majority supported it. If you keep getting "OMG he's calling me a racist!" thoughts from those examples, perhaps it's your conscience.
You're godwinizing the thread. You might want to examine your own damned ridiculously santimonious conscience and stop comparing lazy line skippers to those who bravely fought again slavery or sexism.
Pandering to the hispanic lobby at the expense of most Americans is hardly the act of a John Brown, Rosa Parks or Susan B. Anthony. You cheapen their actions and insult real courage when you imply otherwise.
It's oligarchy, but there are elections every two years.
Where American sentiments on immigration are ignored repeatedly.
Quote:
"Americans are racist, so our policies should be racist" is your argument?
Oh sweetie you wouldn't know racism if it bit you on the rear. Most illegals are from Latin America. Why is refusing to giving them preferential treatment to skip the immigration lines racism? Are you really that confused?
Quote:
You should probably try re-reading what he posted since A) it wasn't inappropriate at all and B) the analogy wasn't insulting.
Hi, you're a slave holder who thinks women shouldn't vote. But I'm not insulting oh no I'm not.
Yeah.
Quote:
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I posted and you quoted.
I haven't answered that question because it doesn't have anything to do with my position.
You argued that welfare and immigration have "nothing" to do with each other, yes or no?
If they have nothing to do with each other, why would you want to use immigration law to reduce welfare "abuse"? It makes no sense.
For the seventeeth time our national policy on safety nets has nothing to do with illegals. They shouldn't be allowed to access it. Whether or not Americans can make such laws to help our own poor people is a completely separate debate.
Quote:
You said those EXACT words, which is why I put them in quotes. ANyone can go back to post #193 in this very thread and read them.
And you misunderstood what I wrote. Please again go take reading comprehension 101. And bring Rock and Huddled Masses with you. School should be starting soon thankfully so you can work on your much needed education.
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.
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.
