What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[kaz]

See last post

Link?

It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.

As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...

That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?

Wow. That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.

I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights. Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing. The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial. Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.

If you're here illegally, there is nothing to defend. You haven't passed Go

 

[Kondor3]

What human cost is acceptable in controlling Illegal Immigration?

In other words, what human cost is acceptable in protecting our national borders and enforcing our sovereignty over our own soil?

The quantitative answer is: as many intruder lives and ruinous deportations as may be required to achieve those paramount national strategic outcomes.

Next slide, please.

Or at least kill three million Native Americans to claim the country is sovereign over all peoples.

It's what happens when the Stone Age meets the Iron Age.

Liberal Snowflake Crybaby Safe-Zone for the Ghost of the Indians is down the hall, thirteenth door on the Left.

It's ours now... and it's going to stay that way.

 

[kaz]

Link?

It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.

As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...

That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?

Wow. That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.

I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights. Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing. The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial. Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.

But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today. Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

Yes, but even then the United States were facing various British, French, Spanish, Indian and other foes all through the colonies and especially the western territories and they never considered them having Constitutional rights.

Flopper is just full of it and the SCOTUS has never hesitated to write legislation

 

[kaz]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

 

[Kondor3]

...Donald Trump is not the GOP...

True, but it's gettin' hard to tell the difference, isn't it?

...and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy...

True, but those are mostly (a) mush-headed GOP-Libs and (b) greedy slave-labor exploiters; not the rank-and-file.

...And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.

True, but I suspect that The Beast is just getting warmed-up; separate another half-million families, and we'll see how many are still here, or want to come here.

 

[kaz]

It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.

As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...

That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?

Wow. That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.

I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights. Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing. The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial. Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.

But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today. Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War. There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition. In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law. This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.

The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.

The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution

And again, they did not do anything to "protect constitutional rights" of British, French, Spanish, Indian or other invaders of States and territories of the United States. Zero.

They were obviously not referring to invaders of sovereign US territory.

You endlessly argue for anything you can to prevent us from stopping the flow of poor, third world criminals. Man up and at least admit you believe we do not have the right to a border. Obviously I will still oppose you, but at least man up to what you are doing

 

[kaz]

...And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.

True, but I suspect that The Beast is just getting warmed-up; separate another half-million families, and we'll see how many are still here, or want to come here.

That would be a start. Separating abusive parents from their children who take their children while they commit crimes and risk their lives running across deserts is the only humanitarian thing to do for the children, and it is as you point out a deterrent to more criminals from doing the same to their kids

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system). Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.
What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org

See last post

Link?

It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.

As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...

That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

Illegal aliens do not have a temporary obedience. He was referring to people here legally. Obviously Madison did not think that British Soldiers for example has Constitutional rights. That's just moronic.

It's another way you're fighting for our having no borders

He also pretty obviously didn't think Constitutional rights extended to North American aborigines who did not choose to assimilate into society.

Bottom line is that illegals have rights only because we choose to interpret the Constitution that way and extend those rights. We could legitimately choose not to do so.

 

[dblack]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

 

[kaz]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

Because you would stop them how ...

 

[dblack]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

Because you would stop them how ...

By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.

If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.

 

[kaz]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

Because you would stop them how ...

By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.

If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.

So your position is with trump, not the Democrats

 

[dblack]

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

Because you would stop them how ...

By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.

If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.

So your position is with trump, not the Democrats

Not that I know of. Is he working to open up legitimate immigration?

 

[kaz]

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

Because you would stop them how ...

By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.

If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.

So your position is with trump, not the Democrats

Not that I know of. Is he working to open up legitimate immigration?

We have to control illegal immigration then expand legal. We've eaten an elephant.

So by al Qaeda can't fly to Mexico city and walk here with whatever they want under your plan, you meant they can until we implement massive legal immigration so we can shoot anyone crossing the border

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it

Nope. Try again.

Because you would stop them how ...

By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.

If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.

No, I'm sorry, but I DON'T automatically recognize "people looking for work" as our friends. One, I don't necessarily assume that it's a binary, either/or between "terrorist" and "looking for work". Two, even if they ARE actually looking to work, that merely makes them mildly sympathetic; doesn't make them our friends. Cockroaches are just looking to feed themselves, and not actually looking to harm anyone, as well, but that doesn't mean I want them living in my kitchen. (And before you get your panties in a ruffle about "comparing humans to cockroaches! OMG!" don't bother. I know what I said, and I meant it exactly the way I said it, and I don't recognize your moral authority, so I won't be feeling ashamed simply because you disapprove.)

The fact is, the designation of "our friends" is dependent not on the benefit they want to produce to themselves; it's dependent on the benefit they're going to bring to US. And uneducated, unskilled people who don't even speak English are really of very little benefit to the United States, particularly in job lots. I also think you're going to be hard-pressed to make the case that "the actual desires of our nation" involve "opening up legitimate immigration" to that point. Which means we're still going to have the problem of people deciding that they can circumvent the rules.

 

[protectionist]

A case could be made for open borders.

It's made every day - by Democrats who bribe foreigners, with American residency, in exchange for their illegal VOTES.

 

[protectionist]

Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War. There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition. In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law. This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.

The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.

The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution

Illegal aliens invading the US, stealing jobs and pillaging the US economy by remittances$$$ ($138 Billion) are little more than international burglars, akin to Vikings of medieval days who marauded Europe. Main difference is the quantities.

Mexico, alone is grabbing $28 Billion/year from us (just the remittances). The Vikings would be envious.

This is just one item on a long list of HARMS imposed on the American people by these international parasites.

All this is a far bigger issue than "rights" (which were conceived without the knowledge of America being the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world, in the 21st century)

 

[kaz]

Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War. There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition. In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law. This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.

The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.

The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution

Illegal aliens invading the US, stealing jobs and pillaging the US economy by remittances$$$ ($138 Billion) are little more than international burglars, akin to Vikings of medieval days who marauded Europe. Main difference is the quantities.

Mexico, alone is grabbing $28 Billion/year from us (just the remittances). The Vikings would be envious.

This is just one item on a long list of HARMS imposed on the American people by these international parasites.

All this is a far bigger issue than "rights" (which were conceived without the knowledge of America being the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world, in the 21st century)

Flopper wants in on plundering, he doesn't want to stop it

 

[Flopper]

Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?

No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.

If you are an American, yes you have rights. But I don't believe our founders (if alive today) would approve of us giving overseas terrorists constitutional rights in our country which they want to end.

They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused. I suggest you read what they have to save.

You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law. Think about what that really means. If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial. Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.

 

[Flopper]

Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War. There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition. In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law. This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.

The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.

The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution

Illegal aliens invading the US, stealing jobs and pillaging the US economy by remittances$$$ ($138 Billion) are little more than international burglars, akin to Vikings of medieval days who marauded Europe. Main difference is the quantities.

Mexico, alone is grabbing $28 Billion/year from us (just the remittances). The Vikings would be envious.

This is just one item on a long list of HARMS imposed on the American people by these international parasites.

All this is a far bigger issue than "rights" (which were conceived without the knowledge of America being the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world, in the 21st century)

So you consider illegal aliens working in America are a far bigger issue than constitutional rights? Thankfully, such nonsense is shared by few Americans.