|
01-19-2008, 08:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Mesa, Az
21,144 posts, read 40,607,573 times
Reputation: 3852
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye48
They wouldn't be treated as pariahs because of their place of birth. They should be treated as criminals because of their criminal conduct, and under no circumstances be awarded with a path to legalization. They are criminals and should be treated as such.
|
Anymore; I have to agree with Hawkeye48 100% here. |
|
01-19-2008, 09:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,432 posts, read 18,305,055 times
Reputation: 5224
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
It's better that they integrate into the system instead of being treated as pariahs because their place of birth is undesirable. Can you imagine how many cars with Californian license plates would be in Texas because the County Accessor-Collector will not accept their transfer because they are not Texans? Then the dumba-ses would have the gall to scream "You're breaking the law! You're breaking the law! Get out you invaders! Deport them! Deport them!"
|
californians are part of this country last time that i checked. your argument makes no sense. |
|
01-20-2008, 12:54 PM
|
|
|
|
9,762 posts, read 10,199,524 times
Reputation: 2052
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
It's better that they integrate into the system instead of being treated as pariahs because their place of birth is undesirable.
|
Huh? Their place of birth is irrelevant. What matters is the process required to immigrate. If they qualify and complete the process, they can come, regardless of where they were born.
Quote:
|
Can you imagine how many cars with Californian license plates would be in Texas because the County Accessor-Collector will not accept their transfer because they are not Texans? Then the dumba-ses would have the gall to scream "You're breaking the law! You're breaking the law! Get out you invaders! Deport them! Deport them!"
|
Double huh? Moving between the states is a constitutional right. Moving between countries is not. |
|
01-20-2008, 02:02 PM
|
|
|
|
8,978 posts, read 16,003,546 times
Reputation: 3018
|
|
|
Illegal Mexican immigrants ALREADY have a "Path to Legalization". Go to any number of large Mexican cities---Ciudad Juarez, Hermosillo, Nogales, Tijuana, Monterrey, and several others. There you'll find the American Consulate. Take the "path" (or the 'sidewalk') to their front door. Inside, you'll be able to get information regarding how to emigrate legally to the United States. That's the "legal" path.
|
|
01-26-2008, 01:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: C.R. K-T
6,202 posts, read 10,858,613 times
Reputation: 3788
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Huh? Their place of birth is irrelevant. What matters is the process required to immigrate. If they qualify and complete the process, they can come, regardless of where they were born.
Double huh? Moving between the states is a constitutional right. Moving between countries is not.
|
Freedom of Religion was not a right...until the Founding Fathers said so. The King/Prince could chose your religion according to the Peace of Augsburg.
Should you still follow the law if you don't agree with your Sovereign's decision or is it that the law itself is illegal and the wrong should be corrected by eliminating it? |
|
01-26-2008, 07:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Mesa, Az
21,144 posts, read 40,607,573 times
Reputation: 3852
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
Freedom of Religion was not a right...until the Founding Fathers said so. The King/Prince could chose your religion according to the Peace of Augsburg.
Should you still follow the law if you don't agree with your Sovereign's decision or is it that the law itself is illegal and the wrong should be corrected by eliminating it?
|
If anything: more and more countries are eliminating 'birthright' citizenship-------France and Ireland both come to mind. Read that at least one of the parents have to be a citizen of said country or; in some cases, legal residency will suffice. |
|
01-26-2008, 12:55 PM
|
|
|
|
9,762 posts, read 10,199,524 times
Reputation: 2052
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
Freedom of Religion was not a right...until the Founding Fathers said so. The King/Prince could chose your religion according to the Peace of Augsburg.
Should you still follow the law if you don't agree with your Sovereign's decision or is it that the law itself is illegal and the wrong should be corrected by eliminating it?
|
*scratches head*
I'm sorry KerrTown, but this post is even more undecipherable than the last. What on earth are you going on about?
King? Prince? In case you haven't noticed, the US is not a monarchy.
What does the First Amendment have to do with immigration law?
The Courts determine constitutionality of law, not you nor me.
*scratches head again* |
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.
