View Poll Results: Could you deport them personally or not?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I think I could do it.

    31 51.67%
  • No, I don't think I could.

    29 48.33%
Page 34 of 39 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 383

Thread: Deportation Question.

  1. #331
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,500

    Re: Deportation Question.

    The US justice system is not blind in how punishment and justice is applied. Justice is supposed to be blind, but it is not. And that's why I am highly irritated by the posters simply saying, "the law is law," because I highly doubt those same posters are consistent in application of laws and justice every time there is a crime. Our society does not always throw the book at people and punish the to the fullest possible extent in the US, especially when they are white upper class, and the jury largely relates to them.

  2. #332
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,462
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    By combining anchor babies with chain migration the illegal alien is in charge of our immigration system. By eliminating the anchor baby interpretation and overturning chain migration the American citizens, represented by the Congress, will regain control of immigration.
    I don't know what 'chain migration' means but I'm pretty sure that the term 'anchor baby interpretation' means that you want to abandon the principle that an American is someone born in America. Are we saying here that a principle that the founders relied on is no longer valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    The nation belongs to its citizens, not to the illegal alien.

    Canada is welcome to do whatever it wants.
    We thank you for that, but we will do what we need to do, not what we want to do.
    "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
    -John Stuart Mill-

  3. #333
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    I don't know what 'chain migration' means but I'm pretty sure that the term 'anchor baby interpretation' means that you want to abandon the principle that an American is someone born in America. Are we saying here that a principle that the founders relied on is no longer valid?
    Chain migration gives preference to the relatives of immigrants. So an illegal alien gets here, drops a kid. The kid is a citizen. All of that kid's relatives advance to the front of the line for admission into the country. That is chain migration. And it begins with the anchor baby.

    If you are not born to American parents or to people who are in the country legally then you should not be considered an American citizen. The founders relied upon no such thing.

    Here is the clause of the amendment:
    Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
    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.

    One must be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen.

    It is time to fix this.

  4. #334
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    I don't know what 'chain migration' means...
    >" Chain Migration refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to bring in their non-nuclear family members.

    Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than 1 million annually since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, and school overcrowding that damage Americans’ quality of life.

    Chain Migration is about family reunification beyond the nuclear family. Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. But since then, the law has been changed to enable immigrants to also send for their siblings, parents and adult children. These non-nuclear family members actually get precedence over an immigrant’s nuclear family.

    This ill-conceived system also encourages illegal immigration because adult relatives of legal residents are known to overstay their visas (becoming illegal aliens) hoping to become legal immigrants. .

    The claim that chain migration is about “family reunification” ignores the fact that each U.S. immigrant “disunites” another family by leaving relatives behind. "<

    https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions...hain-migration

    More sources:

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...migration.html

    Chain Migration's Health Care Drain | Center for Immigration Studies

  5. #335
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,462
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Chain migration gives preference to the relatives of immigrants. So an illegal alien gets here, drops a kid. The kid is a citizen. All of that kid's relatives advance to the front of the line for admission into the country. That is chain migration. And it begins with the anchor baby.

    If you are not born to American parents or to people who are in the country legally then you should not be considered an American citizen. The founders relied upon no such thing.

    Here is the clause of the amendment:
    Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
    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.

    One must be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen.

    It is time to fix this.
    You want to amend the constitution?
    See, this is why I've always been against constitutions. They're nothing but heroic language that becomes an encumberance. Before the Bill of Rights and Freedoms was passed in Canada my rights were well protected by British Common Law, which has evolved for long centuries to reflect the changes in society. Constitution? Bah. Now you have to amend yours if you want to make a simple legal change. You can hardly pass a law without first proving it's constitutionality.
    Good luck with your 'anchor baby' cause. Ain't gonna happen, mark my words.
    "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
    -John Stuart Mill-

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Chain migration gives preference to the relatives of immigrants. So an illegal alien gets here, drops a kid. The kid is a citizen. All of that kid's relatives advance to the front of the line for admission into the country. That is chain migration. And it begins with the anchor baby.

    If you are not born to American parents or to people who are in the country legally then you should not be considered an American citizen. The founders relied upon no such thing.

    Here is the clause of the amendment:
    Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
    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.

    One must be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen.

    It is time to fix this
    .
    It's time for activist judges to stop changing the definition of words to further a political agenda.

    Intent, intent, intent.

    "Natural Law" "Son follows the condition of his father."

    >" So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits.

    There could be no alternative as the United States abandoned the English tradition of “perpetual allegiance” for the principal of expatriation, and thus, children inherit the preexisting allegiance of their father because there is no creation of allegiance through birth alone for foreigners in the United States.

    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant...."<

    What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

  7. #337
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The law is the law. If you get pulled over for 80 in a 70, all the appeals to "everyone else does it" will not help you. Not even if you have kids.
    No, it won't, that's true.

    And two minutes after the cop is out of sight, traffic will be flowing at 80 once again. It's not a very effective way of enforcing the law, is it?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #338
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    No, it won't, that's true.

    And two minutes after the cop is out of sight, traffic will be flowing at 80 once again. It's not a very effective way of enforcing the law, is it?
    improvements are coming with the digitization of everything. Soon your car will report you for speeding, or have a digital ID that will identify you to a scanner, the same as they currently have video camera's at stoplights.

  9. #339
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    the high desert
    Last Seen
    01-10-15 @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,337

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    I am all for strengthening security at the border and am closer to the mainstream Republican position on illegal immigration than I am the mainstream Democratic position on it, but despite the fact the parents broke the law in coming here and live here illegally, I don't think I could sleep at night knowing I put a family through that by deporting them. That I think is the fundamental problem with dealing with illegal immigration, many times deporting people does indeed break up families and while its easy to take a hardline in the abstract, its hard to do it if it was actually on you.
    When they crossed the border they broke the law. If they robbed a bank then had kids then got caught you still send them to prison even if it breaks up the family. Same thing.

  10. #340
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    How are they going to get right with the law once they came here illegally? Its something of a Catch-22 at that point.
    Not necessarily, they can apply for work visa status, get a sponsor, and go through the immigration process. While I realize that costs money it is no different than those who follow the legal path, I think if those who come here illegally decide to make amends then there should be a "no harm, no foul" principle at play. If same couple decides to keep ignoring the law then consequences should be on the table.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 34 of 39 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •