US Constitution

[Sean Renaud]

Immigrants don't enter the country illegally. Immigrants don't pay human traffickers thousands of dollars to "escort" their kids thousands of miles across dangerous third world nations via less then safe means of transportation to enter the country illegally.

No intellectually honest person can refer to these illegal aliens no matter what their age as immigrants.

You've got that flipped snookums. If you want to throw the illegal modifier on that's fine and accurate but they are still immigrants.

 

[contrifan32]

Some do, some don't. All are immigrants regardless.

You and your ilk would like others to believe that but you can't make up the rules or break the laws at will. The fact is that they are all illegal aliens.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You and your ilk would like others to believe that but you can't make up the rules or break the laws at will. The fact is that they are all illegal aliens.

No. The rules of English make that true. Whether or not they are even illegal aliens is technically up in the air but their status as immigrants most definitely is not.

 

[contrifan32]

No. The rules of English make that true. Whether or not they are even illegal aliens is technically up in the air but their status as immigrants most definitely is not.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with English and everything to do with the law. Changing what you call them does not change their status.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wrong. It has nothing to do with English and everything to do with the law. Changing what you call them does not change their status.

The law has nothing to with their status as immigrants.

Would you consider someone who escaped Cuba (to anywhere and for the sake of argument the place they escaped to welcomed them) an emigrant?

 

[contrifan32]

No, I don't.

 

[DooleyDarter]

Some do, some don't. All are immigrants regardless.

Bullshit. Either you are am immigrant (comes in the legal way) or you are a law breaking criminal, as in illegal immigrant AKA undocumented democratic voter.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, I don't.

Interesting. Should they be returned home?

 

[Liar]

Bullshit. Either you are am immigrant (comes in the legal way) or you are a law breaking criminal, as in illegal immigrant AKA undocumented democratic voter.

"Bullshit" he says, while actually agreeing.

 

[DooleyDarter]

"Bullshit" he says, while actually agreeing.

referring to the libtard loonies deciding to drop the world illegal in front of the word immigrant. I know that might be a bit of a stretch for ya to grasp, but feel free to ask for help anytime.

 

[contrifan32]

The law has nothing to with their status as immigrants.

Would you consider someone who escaped Cuba (to anywhere and for the sake of argument the place they escaped to welcomed them) an emigrant?

Borrowed...

"If Americans entered Mexico illegally would they be considered immigrants?"

 

[Lancecastor]

"If Americans entered Mexico illegally would they be considered immigrants?"

Immigrants?

I think the proper term would be "retards."

 

[Sean Renaud]

Borrowed...

"If Americans entered Mexico illegally would they be considered immigrants?"

Yes. That is what they would be. They might deem us illegal and turn us away (unlikely since our average income is higher. They'd probably politely ignore us) but that's beside the point.

Why didn't you answer the question. Should people who escaped Soviet Russia into the loving arms of America have been sent back since they were illegal emigrants?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Immigrants?

I think the proper term would be "retards."

Like the Mormons who fled there to escape American justice?

 

[Liar]

referring to the libtard loonies deciding to drop the world illegal in front of the word immigrant. I know that might be a bit of a stretch for ya to grasp, but feel free to ask for help anytime.

Whooshed right past ya, didn't it?

 

[Dream59]

Yes. That is what they would be. They might deem us illegal and turn us away (unlikely since our average income is higher. They'd probably politely ignore us) but that's beside the point.

Why didn't you answer the question. Should people who escaped Soviet Russia into the loving arms of America have been sent back since they were illegal emigrants?

Sean those people from the USSR sought political asylum. If it was granted then they would not be illegal immigrants. As for Mexico, they would not ignore you if you were in violation of their immigration laws, any more than any other country would. They would either send you back or jail you. Their immigration laws are more strict than ours.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean those people from the USSR sought political asylum. If it was granted then they would not be illegal immigrants. As for Mexico, they would not ignore you if you were in violation of their immigration laws, any more than any other country would. They would either send you back or jail you. Their immigration laws are more strict than ours.

They would be illegal emigrants however.

And you're claiming they are immigrants. Illegal is a modifier and an important one.

As for Mexico of course they would ignore me, their immigration laws are stricter than ours but they aren't stupid. relatively well off people are always ignored no matter where in the world they go.

 

[contrifan32]

Yes. That is what they would be. They might deem us illegal and turn us away (unlikely since our average income is higher. They'd probably politely ignore us) but that's beside the point.

Why didn't you answer the question. See post#56 Should people who escaped Soviet Russia into the loving arms of America have been sent back since they were illegal emigrants?

If they entered illegally, yes.

 

[Dream59]

They would be illegal emigrants however.

And you're claiming they are immigrants. Illegal is a modifier and an important one.

As for Mexico of course they would ignore me, their immigration laws are stricter than ours but they aren't stupid. relatively well off people are always ignored no matter where in the world they go.

Check this out. They will only ignore you if it is in their best interest.

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/...-states-mexican-immigration-laws-are-tougher/

 

[Skiddles2014]

I prefer to see them as defectors.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If they entered illegally, yes.

Okay. You're the first person I think has ever said America should have returned the people escapping from the USSR to them but I'm impressed by your balls. Carry on.

(Though it still means you don't know how words work.)

Check this out. They will only ignore you if it is in their best interest.

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/...-states-mexican-immigration-laws-are-tougher/

Exactly. And I make enough money, and would make enough money regardless of where on this rock I decided to set my computer that bothering me would stupid. I'm not rich by any means mind you but I'm well enough off that if I set up shop in Mexico they'd just pretend they didn't see me. I 'd recon that 90% of Litsters are well enough off that we'd be politely ignored.

 

[contrifan32]

This law made me snort my ice tea!

• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
– A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
– Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

I guess that doesn't count if the kiddies are just passing through.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

On the 'intent' subject. I'm certain that as individuals, with the exceptions of the criminal enterprises mentioned, they have no 'intent' of spreading disease, occupying territory, or consuming resources, but that, in fact, is exactly what they ARE doing and in that respect the results are no different than any invading army.

Ishmael

Nonsense. Let me remind you of the specific language we are arguing over. Article 1, Sec. 10 prohibits a state from "engage(ing) in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The context clearly envisions a state under military attack and responding to that attack with acts of war. Invading armies may be coincidentally responsible for the spread of disease, consumption or destruction of resources and they often have the objective of occupying large tracts of territory as mission objectives.

But whatever their primary objective, they typically achieve it by killing enemy forces in the path of the very invasion which Article I anticipates.

There is not a hint of evidence that any numbers of those crossing our borders illegally are engaged in such belligerent acts of war as the Constitution implies.

Yours is nothing but a silly overreach of Constitutional language obviously intended to address an intentional breach of national sovereignty attendant to an unmistakeable act of war by a foreign state. You have attempted to force fit that language to address individual criminal violations of immigration law simply on the basis of the large numbers of violators.

Stop being frivolous.

 

[contrifan32]

Nonsense. Let me remind you of the specific language we are arguing over. Article 1, Sec. 10 prohibits a state from "engage(ing) in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The context clearly envisions a state under military attack and responding to that attack with acts of war. Invading armies may be coincidentally responsible for the spread of disease, consumption or destruction of resources and they often have the objective of occupying large tracts of territory as mission objectives.

But whatever their primary objective, they typically achieve it by killing enemy forces in the path of the very invasion which Article I anticipates.

There is not a hint of evidence that any numbers of those crossing our borders illegally are engaged in such belligerent acts of war as the Constitution implies.

Yours is nothing but a silly overreach of Constitutional language obviously intended to address an intentional breach of national sovereignty attendant to an unmistakeable act of war by a foreign state. You have attempted to force fit that language to address individual criminal violations of immigration law simply on the basis of the large numbers of violators.

Stop being frivolous.

How many US citizens have to die to qualify Hogan?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-murder-arizona-rancher/

 

[unregistered]