PDA

View Full Version : Mexican charged with Raping 13 year old had 19 deportations, removals



Rainmaker
01-03-2017, 08:29 PM
Mexican man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl on a Greyhound bus that traveled through Kansas had been deported 10 times and voluntarily removed from the U.S. another nine times since 2003, records obtained by The Associated Press show.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexican-man-charged-rape-had-19-deportations-removals-174956450.html#comments



https://d1sui4xqepm0ps.cloudfront.net/is-this-meme-racist-full.jpg?image=cdn

garhkal
01-04-2017, 04:36 AM
I read about this over on GOPUSA and was sickened. Its cause of cretins like him, i feel ANY Governor or mayor who willfully opens his or her state (OR city) to be a sanctuary and in essence tells the feds "screw you, we don't care if they are illegally here" should be arrested and TRIED in a court as accomplices (or accessories) to each and EVERY crime committed by an illegal invader while here in the states.

AND THAT he's been deported and just walks right back, PROVES that all those dems who have been lying out of their asses about "Our borders haven't been more secure in decades" Are full of shit.
THIS IS EXACTLY Why we need that damn border wall, preferably with ARMED GUARDS patrolling it, who have orders to SHOOT ON SITE anyone trying to cross it...

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 10:12 AM
It is tragic, amplified by the fact that the suspect had been deported or voluntarily removed from the country so many times.

The suspect shows an ability / determination to get back into the country (based on the article ... to visit family), not sure that a wall would have kept him out. Let's face it, getting into this country in many places is not that hard, and a wall doesn't fix that. Not saying a wall or perimeter won't stop large numbers, it is kind of a screen for the least able / least determined to get through. As far as orders to shoot on sight ... probably not legal to use deadly force simply to prevent illegal immigration short of the commission of a crime or act that presents a danger to people, equipment vital to national security etc.

sparks82
01-04-2017, 03:57 PM
Unless that wall goes through and blocks the underground tunnels - a wall won't stop anything. Also has anyone ever actually seen the entire southern border of the US? There is video that shows aerial view of the border and there are portions where you cannot put a wall there. It would not logistically happen or be possible.

Perhaps maybe Congress needs to discuss immigration REFORM and look at the systems in place and identify the weak spots. Oh but then Congress would have to actually do their job and be at work to do it...so that won't happen.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 04:09 PM
It is tragic, amplified by the fact that the suspect had been deported or voluntarily removed from the country so many times.

The suspect shows an ability / determination to get back into the country (based on the article ... to visit family), not sure that a wall would have kept him out. Let's face it, getting into this country in many places is not that hard, and a wall doesn't fix that. Not saying a wall or perimeter won't stop large numbers, it is kind of a screen for the least able / least determined to get through.

There is probably no 100% solution...doesn't mean we shouldn't go for the 80/20 rule.


As far as orders to shoot on sight ... probably not legal to use deadly force simply to prevent illegal immigration short of the commission of a crime or act that presents a danger to people, equipment vital to national security etc.

Agree. That's just silly.


Unless that wall goes through and blocks the underground tunnels - a wall won't stop anything. Also has anyone ever actually seen the entire southern border of the US? There is video that shows aerial view of the border and there are portions where you cannot put a wall there. It would not logistically happen or be possible.

I don't think anyone said there must be a continuous wall crossing the entire border....but, how about portions of wall at portions of border?

Where those portions are that it would, theoretically, not be possible to build a wall...is it safe to say those areas are more difficult for the illegal immigrants to enter through? Perhaps a wall is not needed in those areas?


Perhaps maybe Congress needs to discuss immigration REFORM and look at the systems in place and identify the weak spots. Oh but then Congress would have to actually do their job and be at work to do it...so that won't happen.

What kind of reform would have kept this guy from re-entering 19 times?

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 05:00 PM
Unless that wall goes through and blocks the underground tunnels - a wall won't stop anything. Also has anyone ever actually seen the entire southern border of the US? There is video that shows aerial view of the border and there are portions where you cannot put a wall there. It would not logistically happen or be possible.

There's My Girl! Happy New Year Sparks!

Now, Where Were We? Oh yeah..... You're Wrong!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Security


Perhaps maybe Congress needs to discuss immigration REFORM and look at the systems in place and identify the weak spots. Oh but then Congress would have to actually do their job and be at work to do it...so that won't happen.

Perhaps they've been "discussing immigration REFORM" for 40 years.

The main problem is there's been no consequences for illegal immigrants once they illegally enter the country. And that's all getting ready to change. Because In T- MINUS 15 DAYS, The National Sovereignty of the United States gets restored .

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 05:18 PM
Also has anyone ever actually seen the entire southern border of the US? There is video that shows aerial view of the border and there are portions where you cannot put a wall there.

Ever see the Great Wall of China and where they built that thing ... in places I would think it impossible. Now, as a pragmatist ... do I think that would be practical ... absolutely not. But possible ... where there is a will, there is a way.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 05:32 PM
Ever see the Great Wall of China and where they built that thing ... in places I would think it impossible.

Exactly....and do you see Mexicans in China? NO!

So, it's clearly BS to say that a wall will do no good.


Now, as a pragmatist ... do I think that would be practical ... absolutely not. But possible ... where there is a will, there is a way.

I have not surveyed the entire border...but, I would venture to guess there are definitely stretches where a wall is practical and prudent. I'm not sure why there is such opposition to the idea.

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 05:42 PM
I'm not sure why there is such opposition to the idea.

It's Because they hate White people and want to see them displaced as the majority, in the country they built.

efmbman
01-04-2017, 05:50 PM
Neither side wants to resolve the immigration issue (or any hot button issue for that matter). If the immigration issue was solved, there would be one less issue that could be used to demonize the other side. They would be taking away important talking points that their base wants to hear about each election cycle. Stalemate and stagnation are the buzzwords of modern politics in the USA.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 06:18 PM
Exactly....and do you see Mexicans in China? NO!

Nor a lot of stray cats & dogs ...



I have not surveyed the entire border...but, I would venture to guess there are definitely stretches where a wall is practical and prudent. I'm not sure why there is such opposition to the idea.

My opinion: many people feel that a wall counters the ideals of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Many of those same people muddy the issue of legal and illegal immigration. Too many people label anyone who opposes them with one of the terrible -ists (leftist, nationalist etc.).

I don't think DJT and his support for a wall is to keep out legal immigrants ... not too many of them walking across the border.

Part of the reality though is that reforming immigration and executing DJT's plan as he has advertised it ... is going to cost a lot of money (beefing up ICE, building a wall, paying people to stand guard on the wall etc.)

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 06:43 PM
Nor a lot of stray cats & dogs ...


My opinion: many people feel that a wall counters the ideals of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

Well...any immigration controls oppose that...but, I'd think proposing a lift on all immigration controls would not be popular.


Many of those same people muddy the issue of legal and illegal immigration. Too many people label anyone who opposes them with one of the terrible -ists (leftist, nationalist etc.).

The polarization of today's politics makes reasonable solutions difficult...any suggestion of legalizing someone already here and it's "NO AMNESTY--you're rewarding criminality" etc....and vice versa.


I don't think DJT and his support for a wall is to keep out legal immigrants ... not too many of them walking across the border.

Right.


I haven't quite grasped why people are opposed to wall, really. It seems reasonable. If one is opposed to the wall, I should think they would also be advancing a "anyone can come in" immigration policy, but I don't hear anyone saying that. Everyone seems to be opposed to illegal immigration, at least in lip service, so why would they be opposed to a wall?


Part of the reality though is that reforming immigration and executing DJT's plan as he has advertised it ... is going to cost a lot of money (beefing up ICE, building a wall, paying people to stand guard on the wall etc.)

Sure..it'll cost money. Not much more than a year's worth of middle east operations I bet...plus that money is jobs. Of course, we could save money by hiring Mexicans to build it from their side...regardless of who pays for it. :-)

I would think that building a wall would mean you could have less guards....so there might be some long term savings...not to mention savings from whatever burden the illegal immigrants place on the taxpayer...which I'm not convinced is as bad as Republicans say it is...but, nevertheless.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 07:35 PM
I haven't quite grasped why people are opposed to wall, really. It seems reasonable.

I think the sheer size / length of that border makes building a wall and expecting it to work ... in many regards impractical.



If one is opposed to the wall, I should think they would also be advancing a "anyone can come in" immigration policy, but I don't hear anyone saying that. Everyone seems to be opposed to illegal immigration

I hear many that are blurring the line between legal and illegal immigration, or the declaring of a city as a sanctuary city is at the least tacit acceptance of illegal immigration.


Sure..it'll cost money. Not much more than a year's worth of middle east operations I bet...plus that money is jobs.

Yeah, but are Middle East ops going away any time soon?


I would think that building a wall would mean you could have less guards....so there might be some long term savings...not to mention savings from whatever burden the illegal immigrants place on the taxpayer...which I'm not convinced is as bad as Republicans say it is...but, nevertheless.

Still would need guards, maybe not every 100 years ... but just a wall with no reaction force to respond in a reasonable amount of time to detain personnel climbing or breaking through is fruitless.

I read somewhere that building a wall would be a $500 million - 10 year project, then there is the cost of ongoing maintenance ... then the cost of personnel to man the various sections ... it definitely isn't cheap. Now, depending on the actual impact to illegal immigration, it may in the long run save money ... maybe not. The up front cost is pretty big and the effectiveness of the project is suspect ...

The wall in many ways if not effective would be a statement that the US is attempting to secure it's border. If it isn't effective, it is an expensive statement.

garhkal
01-04-2017, 07:57 PM
Unless that wall goes through and blocks the underground tunnels - a wall won't stop anything. Also has anyone ever actually seen the entire southern border of the US? There is video that shows aerial view of the border and there are portions where you cannot put a wall there. It would not logistically happen or be possible.

Perhaps maybe Congress needs to discuss immigration REFORM and look at the systems in place and identify the weak spots. Oh but then Congress would have to actually do their job and be at work to do it...so that won't happen.

What needs to be reformed? Allowing anmesty to those here illegally? Allowing kids of those here illegally to stay??
My opinion: many people feel that a wall counters the ideals of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Many of those same people muddy the issue of legal and illegal immigration. Too many people label anyone who opposes them with one of the terrible -ists (leftist, nationalist etc.).

How so? Building a wall to keep out illegals, STILL Means we take in hundreds of thousand LEGAL immigrants each year.


Sure..it'll cost money. Not much more than a year's worth of middle east operations I bet...plus that money is jobs. Of course, we could save money by hiring Mexicans to build it from their side...regardless of who pays for it. :-)

I would think that building a wall would mean you could have less guards....so there might be some long term savings...not to mention savings from whatever burden the illegal immigrants place on the taxpayer...which I'm not convinced is as bad as Republicans say it is...but, nevertheless.

Exactly. How much is paid out to round up, ship, house and otherwise take care of the 10000s of illegals that cross each year, let alone go after all the criminal illegals already in the country?
If the wall stops only 80% of the #s of new crossers, that is STILL gonna be a massive cost savings..

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 08:21 PM
I read somewhere that building a wall would be a $500 million - 10 year project, then there is the cost of ongoing maintenance ... then the cost of personnel to man the various sections ... it definitely isn't cheap. Now, depending on the actual impact to illegal immigration, it may in the long run save money ... maybe not. The up front cost is pretty big and the effectiveness of the project is suspect ...

When God-Emporer Trump decided that he was becoming the POTUS (in Summer 15) he already had architectural plans for the wall drawn up.

The cost is estimated to be around $10-$15B. The US GDP is I 17.914 Trillion. But, Whatever it costs, It'll be a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth that's been getting sucked out of our nation for the last 40 years.

Hell we're spending $8 Billion a year just for Retards at the TSA to waste our time, fondle our balls, grope our women and make our grandma dump out her Malox bottle.



The wall in many ways if not effective would be a statement that the US is attempting to secure it's border. If it isn't effective, it is an expensive statement

The president should order the US Military to Secure the Southern Border and begin constructing the wall, ON DAY 1.

There's absolutely, no good reason for our government to refuse to enforce our laws and the sovereignty of these United States.

& It should start with immediate deportation of the 3 million criminals here in the country illegally. Because, that would go a-long way to getting the rest of these illegal alien douchebags to either get in-line and start complying with our laws or GET THE FUCK OUT!!!

https://d1sui4xqepm0ps.cloudfront.net/is-this-meme-racist-full.jpg?image=cdn

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 08:36 PM
I think the sheer size / length of that border makes building a wall and expecting it to work ... in many regards impractical.


I don't think so. Particularly if it were sectioned by priority...and a wall built section by section according to priority.

I hear many that are blurring the line between legal and illegal immigration, or the declaring of a city as a sanctuary city is at the least tacit acceptance of illegal immigration.

Yeah, but are Middle East ops going away any time soon? [/quote]


I'm just sayin...we ALWAYS find money for that...budgeted or unbudgeted.


Still would need guards, maybe not every 100 years ... but just a wall with no reaction force to respond in a reasonable amount of time to detain personnel climbing or breaking through is fruitless.

Of course we still need guards...but your previous post made it sound like we would need more guards to guard the wall.

I was only saying that it seems like we would need less guards...and some of that savings could be projected to help pay for the wall.


I read somewhere that building a wall would be a $500 million - 10 year project,

Only $50M a year?

I find that to be exceedingly cheap and have a hard time believing it would be that cheap.


then there is the cost of ongoing maintenance ... then the cost of personnel to man the various sections ... it definitely isn't cheap.


Well, I would assume we already have personnel costs and if anything a wall could drive those down.


Maintenance...sure.


Now, depending on the actual impact to illegal immigration, it may in the long run save money ... maybe not. The up front cost is pretty big and the effectiveness of the project is suspect ...

The wall in many ways if not effective would be a statement that the US is attempting to secure it's border. If it isn't effective, it is an expensive statement.

I don't know if it would be a real money-maker long term...but I think the costs would be reasonable over time when other savings offset it.

Mjölnir
01-05-2017, 10:48 AM
What needs to be reformed? Allowing anmesty to those here illegally? Allowing kids of those here illegally to stay??

A couple of things that need to be considered IRT immigration reform:

-The kids (Dreamers) who where brought here illegally by their parents. Many of these kids know no other home than the US. They have lived here, gone to school here, in most cases contributed to society ... but they are here illegally. The 'law and order' part of me says "the law is the law" ... the practical side of me says that deporting them is an injustice. Have to find a middle ground.

-In lieu of a wall ... I think a better way to curb illegal immigration is to de-incentivize coming here illegally:

a. Make the penalties for hiring illegal immigrants so painful that companies and people won't want to do it, cutting off the main reason people come here illegally -- jobs. I go to Home Depot and Lowes ALOT (see other thread), at both there are groups of mostly Hispanics that have a section of the parking lot where they congregate in the mornings. It is well known, need a laborer for the day, that is where you go, most don't speak English too well, they only take cash. Are they illegal immigrants? I don't know ... I have my suspicions, the local police and sheriff's deputies cannot query them on their status -- congregating in the parking lot is not a crime. But ... if hiring them became such a pain in the ass if you got caught that people no longer hired them... they wouldn't have a reason to be there.

b. Cut all but the most necessary of assistance programs (to save a life) for people who are not citizens or legal residents ... some people come here because if they show up in an ER, with non-life threatening illness ... they will get treated and we will absorb the cost.

c. Figure out what to do about 'anchor babies' (and their parents). Anyone born in the US is a citizen, if you have an 'anchor baby', they get to stay along with their custodial parents. removing the natural born citizenship from those babies would require amending the Constitution (likely to not happen), but maybe figuring out how to better handle the influx of parents and family should be addressed.

Mjölnir
01-05-2017, 10:55 AM
Only $50M a year?

I find that to be exceedingly cheap and have a hard time believing it would be that cheap.

Meant 500 mil per year ... hard to type on the iPad

Bos Mutus
01-05-2017, 02:36 PM
Meant 500 mil per year ... hard to type on the iPad

If you consider how much of a political priority it is....bang for the buck is pretty good....whether it works or not, they can always claim it works

WILDJOKER5
01-05-2017, 03:02 PM
The real crime here is that the US doesn't let in more people like this. If we had open borders, this guy wouldn't have been deported 19 times. This is Trumps fault. And also because of slavery. And white people.

Rainmaker
01-05-2017, 04:33 PM
the local police and sheriff's deputies cannot query them on their status-- congregating in the parking lot is not a crime.

WTF? So you mean loitering on private property is no longer illegal in Maryland? Or does Home Depot just allow it?



The kids (Dreamers) who where brought here illegally by their parents. Many of these kids know no other home than the US. They have lived here, gone to school here, in most cases contributed to society ... but they are here illegally. The 'law and order' part of me says "the law is the law" ... the practical side of me says that deporting them is an injustice. Have to find a middle ground.

The middle ground is to send them packing back to their side of the Rio Grande (Which they're lucky we didn't take back from the murdering tyrant Santa Anna).

Kids born to Foreign Nationals in other countries ILLEGALLY have no right to be there.

But, as soon as they arrive in Mexico, they can try Shitting out a kid and start telling them how their "dream" is to demand a free lunch on the Mexican citizenry's dime, for their entire extended family.


Anyone born in the US is a citizen, if you have an 'anchor baby', they get to stay along with their custodial parents.

The status of Illegal anchor babies has never really been challenged at the Supreme court. Leftists have gotten away with perpetuating this historical lie , to justify their planned destruction of our country.


removing the natural born citizenship from those babies would require amending the Constitution (likely to not happen), but maybe figuring out how to better handle the influx of parents and family should be addressed.

Congress needs to pass a bill and let it get challenged & taken up by the SCOTUS.

Hopefully by the time that happens, Scalia's vacancy will have been filled & the treasonous Marxist Jew pervert Ginsburg will have kicked the bucket and both been replaced with Christian Protestant White Males restoring some demographic balance (and integrity) to the court.

Mjölnir
01-05-2017, 05:01 PM
WTF? So you mean loitering on private property is no longer illegal in Maryland? Or does Home Depot just allow it?

WTF? So you mean loitering on private property is no longer illegal in Maryland? Or does Home Depot just allow it?[/quote]

It is ... I don't see Home Depot or Lowes asking the local police to move them off.



The middle ground is to send them packing back to their side of the Rio Grande (Which they're lucky we didn't take back from the murdering tyrant Santa Anna).

I don't think that is middle ground.


The status of Illegal anchor babies has never really been challenged at the Supreme court. Leftists have gotten away with perpetuating this historical lie , to justify their planned destruction of our country.

Congress needs to pass a bill and let it get challenged & taken up by the SCOTUS.

Directly challenged, no ... but it has been discussed in rulings by the Supreme Court several times and appears to be assumed by the Court:


It appears to have been assumed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804) 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 64, 119, 2 L.Ed. 208, 226, that all persons born in the United States were citizens thereof. ... In M'Creery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 354, 6 L.Ed. 109, which concerned the title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state to an alien were native-born citizens of the United States


The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),[54] which similarly held a child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a "natural born" U.S. citizen.


Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in America and raised in another country was a natural born citizen, and specifically stated that they could "become President of the United States".



[/quote]Hopefully by the time that happens, Scalia's vacancy will have been filled & the treasonous Marxist Jew pervert Ginsburg will have kicked the bucket and both been replaced with Christian Protestant White Males restoring some demographic balance (and integrity) to the court.[/QUOTE]

So, you aren't a fan of Justice Ginsburg then?

Justice Scalia was a very smart man, I heard him speak a few times and had the honor of asking him a question at a book forum; very polite and funny man.

garhkal
01-05-2017, 07:43 PM
A couple of things that need to be considered IRT immigration reform:

-The kids (Dreamers) who where brought here illegally by their parents. Many of these kids know no other home than the US. They have lived here, gone to school here, in most cases contributed to society ... but they are here illegally. The 'law and order' part of me says "the law is the law" ... the practical side of me says that deporting them is an injustice. Have to find a middle ground.

SO we let them stay, and get citizenship. THEN they put in to get illegal mom and dad, cousins, uncles etc all brought over.. AND the mess gets worse.
IMO if they are here illegally, regardless of born here, or brought over, they should GO..
THEN we need to repeal the whole 'anchor baby' law. If neither of your parents are US citizens, then YOU ARE NOT a citizen, just cause your mamma snuck across the border and dropped you out on US soil..



-In lieu of a wall ... I think a better way to curb illegal immigration is to de-incentivize coming here illegally:

That would work for a good chunk. BUT there's still quite a bit who come here illegally NOT cause of our handouts, but for criminal activities.. AND THAT is why we need the wall.


a. Make the penalties for hiring illegal immigrants so painful that companies and people won't want to do it, cutting off the main reason people come here illegally -- jobs. I go to Home Depot and Lowes ALOT (see other thread), at both there are groups of mostly Hispanics that have a section of the parking lot where they congregate in the mornings. It is well known, need a laborer for the day, that is where you go, most don't speak English too well, they only take cash. Are they illegal immigrants? I don't know ... I have my suspicions, the local police and sheriff's deputies cannot query them on their status -- congregating in the parking lot is not a crime. But ... if hiring them became such a pain in the ass if you got caught that people no longer hired them... they wouldn't have a reason to be there.

I fully agree. THAT is something i have been saying for years. FINE the ever loving crap out of companies (OR private individuals) who hire illegal immigrants. MAKE the fine at least 5 times what 'the savings' that company/individual would have enjoyed from hiring the illegal vice getting a US citizen to do the job..
AND if they do it again and again, JAIL THEIR ASSES!


b. Cut all but the most necessary of assistance programs (to save a life) for people who are not citizens or legal residents ... some people come here because if they show up in an ER, with non-life threatening illness ... they will get treated and we will absorb the cost.


I disagree. I know several people lving in AZ and Tx who have kin who work for/at hospitals, who say they are shutting DOWN, cause of having to 'absorb all that cost' of illegal invaders just showing up and clogging the hell out of ERs..
Reagan who was the reason hospitals can't turn away non-citizens/illegal invaders, was WRONG imo to make it a law that hospitals CAN'T verify you have the funds or capacity to pay for your health care before receiving it. NOTHING ELSE in life can you get without showing you can 'repay it'.. SO Why should ER visits be that way??
Especially when a sizable chunk of those illegals who DO show up, then jump right back across the border so they DON'T have to pay the bill, then sneak back into the US elsewhere??


c. Figure out what to do about 'anchor babies' (and their parents). Anyone born in the US is a citizen, if you have an 'anchor baby', they get to stay along with their custodial parents. removing the natural born citizenship from those babies would require amending the Constitution (likely to not happen), but maybe figuring out how to better handle the influx of parents and family should be addressed.

That will just encourage MORE illegals to sneak in and have a kid, JUST so they get anchor baby status and thus get to stay.
AND THE USA is one of only a FEW 1st world nations that still GRANTS birthright citizenship.
WHICH IS WHY I feel it needs to be repealed..
Put it to a national vote.

And why is it the kids of those ILLEGALLY in this nation are granted 'birthright citizenship' just cause their parents snuck into the US and popped out the kid, while the kids of Diplmats HERE LEGALLY, are not??
What assinine rule is it that LEGAL foreigners who pop out a kid are EXEMPT from the "birthright" law, but the kids of those illegally here are covered?
That's insane!


Kids born to Foreign Nationals in other countries ILLEGALLY have no right to be there.

Which is what i told Mj.. Here's the full list of countries that DO grant birthright citizenship..
Of the 40 nations considered "developed nations" ONLY the US and Canada do grant it. The UK used to but repealed that way back in 1983. New Zeland used to as well but repealed it back in 2005, the same time Ireland did, with Australia following suit 2 years later...


The status of Illegal anchor babies has never really been challenged at the Supreme court. Leftists have gotten away with perpetuating this historical lie , to justify their planned destruction of our country.

And its all because the leftists and the anti-american commie lovers union (ACLU) keeps MISINTERPRETING the 14th amendment.

Mjölnir
01-05-2017, 09:45 PM
SO we let them stay, and get citizenship. THEN they put in to get illegal mom and dad, cousins, uncles etc all brought over.. AND the mess gets worse.

But they are already citizens ... at the moment of birth.



IMO if they are here illegally, regardless of born here, or brought over, they should GO..
THEN we need to repeal the whole 'anchor baby' law. If neither of your parents are US citizens, then YOU ARE NOT a citizen, just cause your mamma snuck across the border and dropped you out on US soil..

But, according to the Supreme Court, they are.



That would work for a good chunk. BUT there's still quite a bit who come here illegally NOT cause of our handouts, but for criminal activities.. AND THAT is why we need the wall.

It would get a fair portion, which is the point. Again, in so many ways I find a wall impractical. In part because getting over, under or around it would not be hard for someone determined to do so.


I disagree. I know several people lving in AZ and Tx who have kin who work for/at hospitals, who say they are shutting DOWN, cause of having to 'absorb all that cost' of illegal invaders just showing up and clogging the hell out of ERs..
Reagan who was the reason hospitals can't turn away non-citizens/illegal invaders, was WRONG imo to make it a law that hospitals CAN'T verify you have the funds or capacity to pay for your health care before receiving it. NOTHING ELSE in life can you get without showing you can 'repay it'.. SO Why should ER visits be that way??

Because, it is the right thing to do for a human being.


That will just encourage MORE illegals to sneak in and have a kid, JUST so they get anchor baby status and thus get to stay. AND THE USA is one of only a FEW 1st world nations that still GRANTS birthright citizenship. WHICH IS WHY I feel it needs to be repealed.. Put it to a national vote.

1. Putting it to a National vote may not win. More people who identify as progressive in the US than conservative etc.
2. We don't do national votes for legislation, that is the point of a representative republic.


And why is it the kids of those ILLEGALLY in this nation are granted 'birthright citizenship' just cause their parents snuck into the US and popped out the kid, while the kids of Diplmats HERE LEGALLY, are not??

What assinine rule is it that LEGAL foreigners who pop out a kid are EXEMPT from the "birthright" law, but the kids of those illegally here are covered?
That's insane!

It is Title 8 of the US Code.

Children of diplomats are not citizens because of a specific exclusion in the law they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". This is the crux of the duality here; based on the way the law is written, a child born to an illegal immigrant IS subject to the laws of the United States ... and thereby a natural born citizen. You may disagree, but in doing so you are saying the child (and de facto) the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Can't have it both ways.

garhkal
01-06-2017, 06:59 AM
But they are already citizens ... at the moment of birth.
p/quote]

Only cause of an improper reading of the 14th amendment, which is what the Scotus used to make their improper ruling (just like they did with gay marriage, but that's an entire other discussion...

[QUOTE=Mjölnir;369024]It would get a fair portion, which is the point. Again, in so many ways I find a wall impractical. In part because getting over, under or around it would not be hard for someone determined to do so.

ANY thing we do, can be gotten around by someone determined enough. JUST look at all the damn hacks we have, even WITH some great firewalls and IT techs..
BUT that's no reason NOT TO DO SOMETHING..


Because, it is the right thing to do for a human being.


And what of all the human AMERICANS who either go without, or go bankrupt, cause of the HIGH costs, that all these hospitals have to charge, to MAKE UP FOR THE lost money from 'servicing' all these illegals??
Or do they not count??


1.Putting it to a National vote may not win. More people who identify as progressive in the US than conservative etc.
2. We don't do national votes for legislation, that is the point of a representative republic.

There are times we have had national referendums before... And though i agree there are lots of 'progressives', i feel the tide has turned to the right, after seeing all these sorts of stories in the media, and everyone saying how "THEY HAVE had enough of this shit"..


Children of diplomats are not citizens because of a specific exclusion in the law they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". This is the crux of the duality here; based on the way the law is written, a child born to an illegal immigrant IS subject to the laws of the United States ... and thereby a natural born citizen. You may disagree, but in doing so you are saying the child (and de facto) the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Can't have it both ways.

BUT what i am not understanding, is WHY were foreign diplomats excluded, but the kids of illegal invaders, who are NOT under American jursdiction included???

Mjölnir
01-06-2017, 08:21 AM
Only cause of an improper reading of the 14th amendment, which is what the Scotus used to make their improper ruling (just like they did with gay marriage, but that's an entire other discussion...


Section 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What are they not reading correctly? I think the verbiage is very plain.

Now, did the writers of the 14th Amendment intend for "All persons born" to mean those born to legal residents etc.? We will never know ... I would say they likely didn't because at the time (1865) there was no immigration law at the time ... federal immigration law was not introduced until 1875 ... 10 years later ... so there was no concept of an "illegal immigrant".

Now, my opinion is that it is prudent to reexamine to whom we grant birthright citizenship, which would require a Constitutional amendment which requires passage by 2/3ds of the House and the Senate (not likely in the Senate) and then ratification by 3/4ths of the states ... OR ... the states could go around Congress, if 2/3ds of the states call for a Constitutional Convention they could propose amendments which would then require ratification by 3/4ths of the total states (this method has never been used). Amending the Constitution is hard, it was designed to be hard ... this would be really hard given the current political makeup of the US.


ANY thing we do, can be gotten around by someone determined enough. JUST look at all the damn hacks we have, even WITH some great firewalls and IT techs..
BUT that's no reason NOT TO DO SOMETHING..

True, anyone determined enough will find a way. I also agree we should do something, I just think there are more practical methods than spending billions of dollars on a wall.


And what of all the human AMERICANS who either go without, or go bankrupt, cause of the HIGH costs, that all these hospitals have to charge, to MAKE UP FOR THE lost money from 'servicing' all these illegals?? Or do they not count??

I am saying that anyone showing up at a hospital with life threatening injuries ... I am not saying that we provide sustained care for these folks.


There are times we have had national referendums before... And though i agree there are lots of 'progressives', i feel the tide has turned to the right, after seeing all these sorts of stories in the media, and everyone saying how "THEY HAVE had enough of this shit"..

I think the tide is turning ... but not enough to support this and actually enact an Amendment.


BUT what i am not understanding, is WHY were foreign diplomats excluded, but the kids of illegal invaders, who are NOT under American jursdiction included???

It is the way the 14th Amendment and the law was written ... the 14th Amendment only applies to those under the jurisdiction of the US. Why? Probably connected to the concept of diplomatic immunity or something to that effect. The fact is that per Title 8, children of people not under the jurisdiction of the US (in this case diplomats) are not granted birthright citizenship.

garhkal
01-06-2017, 08:04 PM
What are they not reading correctly? I think the verbiage is very plain.

Now, did the writers of the 14th Amendment intend for "All persons born" to mean those born to legal residents etc.? We will never know ...

How though can it NOT mean "citizens', since if they are not citizens, they are not 'subject to the juristiction of!


I am saying that anyone showing up at a hospital with life threatening injuries ... I am not saying that we provide sustained care for these folks.

And what happens to that bill? Does the hospital just have to eat it up? Force it onto all the rest of us law abiding citizns??


It is the way the 14th Amendment and the law was written ... the 14th Amendment only applies to those under the jurisdiction of the US. Why? Probably connected to the concept of diplomatic immunity or something to that effect. The fact is that per Title 8, children of people not under the jurisdiction of the US (in this case diplomats) are not granted birthright citizenship.

Then how is it seen that the kids of ILLEGALS (WHO are also not under the jurisdiction of the US) ARE considered us citizns just cause they are born here???

Mjölnir
01-06-2017, 09:18 PM
How though can it NOT mean "citizens', since if they are not citizens, they are not 'subject to the juristiction of!

Non-citizens inside the borders of the US are subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the US -- if they commit a murder, they can be put on trial etc. Those here with diplomatic immunity are not, if they commit a murder, we send them back to their parent country because we have waived our jurisdiction over them.


And what happens to that bill? Does the hospital just have to eat it up? Force it onto all the rest of us law abiding citizns??

Pretty much, the hospital absorbs (passes that on to us) the bill, just like they do for ANYONE who comes into an ER requiring urgent care. What do you do with someone brought in who is not responsive and you can't determine if they can pay, if they are a resident or citizen etc.? Treat them. Going back to 1985/6 it is has been federal law that an ER could not turn away ANYONE requiring urgent care; this does not mean people were admitted for continuing care, but if you came in from a car accident, knife in your chest, gunshot to the head ... no ER could turn you away regardless of ability to pay. The costs of that urgent care was generally absorbed &/or paid for by the government.

Is it perfect? No. But the thought of turning someone away who is dying on the doorstep of an ER is sickening, this is the United States ... we are better than that.


Then how is it seen that the kids of ILLEGALS (WHO are also not under the jurisdiction of the US) ARE considered us citizns just cause they are born here???

See above, illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US.

Bos Mutus
01-06-2017, 11:01 PM
Unless that wall goes through and blocks the underground tunnels - a wall won't stop anything.

I don't believe that is true.

If you had said, "...a wall won't stop everything"...then I would agree, but logic would dictate that a wall will stop some. How much, I'm not sure.

I think if we suddenly opened our borders and invited everyone to come in...probably millions more Mexicans would be coming to the U.S. than are now.

The law alone prevents many from even trying.

The risk of being caught stops more from trying.

The physical difficulty stops probably some others.

It only follows that the more difficult and risky the trip, the less people will be willing to do it. It might be an interesting survey to do....but I think its safe to say that more people are willing and able to walk 10 miles across open terrain than crawl 10 miles through a tunnel....not only that, but I'd imagine those tunnels are limited access controlled by those who made them....hidden just as well on their side as they are on ours


Without any data to back it up...my hypothesis is that people coming over would decrease exponentially as difficulty in crossing increases linearly.


BC=(1/D^2)*PC

Where BC = Border Crossers, D=Relative Difficulty and PC=Potential Crossers (population that would cross were it completely legal and easy...recognizing that even if it were completely legal and easy a fair percentage of the population would choose to stay in Mexico.

Of course, this is only an unproven hypothesis...but if it were true...every step of increasing difficulty results in an exponential decrease in illegal immigrants. Naturally there would be some kind of constant multiplier or divider to flatten or steepen the curve accordingly...but nonetheless, I'd suspect a logarithmic relationship.


Also has anyone ever actually seen the entire southern border of the US? There is video that shows aerial view of the border and there are portions where you cannot put a wall there. It would not logistically happen or be possible.

Perhaps maybe Congress needs to discuss immigration REFORM and look at the systems in place and identify the weak spots. Oh but then Congress would have to actually do their job and be at work to do it...so that won't happen.

I was listening to a radio program the other day talking about Work Visas. They were interviewing some people about instituting a work visa program, etc.

One interview really threw me...it was an interview with an undocumented farm worker who was against work visas. His reasoning went something like this, "If they institute work visas then a lot of the people in Mexico can come here legally and do farm work...what then happens to us that are already here illegally and can not get visas? We will lose our jobs."

The irony.

Bos Mutus
01-06-2017, 11:52 PM
A couple of things that need to be considered IRT immigration reform:

-The kids (Dreamers) who where brought here illegally by their parents. Many of these kids know no other home than the US. They have lived here, gone to school here, in most cases contributed to society ... but they are here illegally. The 'law and order' part of me says "the law is the law" ... the practical side of me says that deporting them is an injustice. Have to find a middle ground.

I agree that a good many of illegals contribute positively to our society and economy.

Naturally, another many do not, or contribute negatively.

On the whole...would you guess that illegal immigration is a net gain or net loss to our economy?

I'm reasonably sure that burden of illegals on entitlements, medical etc. is not nearly as bad as the right/repubs/conservatives would have us believe.

Likewise, I think the left/dems/libs downplay the problems they bring.

I don't know on the balance if they detract more or contribute more.


-In lieu of a wall ... I think a better way to curb illegal immigration is to de-incentivize coming here illegally:

a. Make the penalties for hiring illegal immigrants so painful that companies and people won't want to do it, cutting off the main reason people come here illegally -- jobs. I go to Home Depot and Lowes ALOT (see other thread), at both there are groups of mostly Hispanics that have a section of the parking lot where they congregate in the mornings. It is well known, need a laborer for the day, that is where you go, most don't speak English too well, they only take cash. Are they illegal immigrants? I don't know ... I have my suspicions, the local police and sheriff's deputies cannot query them on their status -- congregating in the parking lot is not a crime. But ... if hiring them became such a pain in the ass if you got caught that people no longer hired them... they wouldn't have a reason to be there.

Shifts the burden of controlling immigration from the govt. to the employer.

I'm sure there are a lot of illegal immigrants in my town...but, strangely, we don't have those guys outside Home Depot. I don't know why, I've seen them in other cities, but not here...and we have a high percentage, I'd say. We are also a farming community, so most can stay well employed on the farms...so maybe that is it...they probably make better money over there.


b. Cut all but the most necessary of assistance programs (to save a life) for people who are not citizens or legal residents ... some people come here because if they show up in an ER, with non-life threatening illness ... they will get treated and we will absorb the cost.

What happens if they go to an ER in Mexico?


c. Figure out what to do about 'anchor babies' (and their parents). Anyone born in the US is a citizen, if you have an 'anchor baby', they get to stay along with their custodial parents. removing the natural born citizenship from those babies would require amending the Constitution (likely to not happen), but maybe figuring out how to better handle the influx of parents and family should be addressed.

That's a tough one.

My understanding of the birth tourism amongst Chinese is that these women that come to have their babies here are not poor and not likely to be a drain on us...they are wealthy Chinese who do this to provide their children options later on in life, if necessary, but really do not have the plan to have the baby anchor the entire family and move here to take advantage of entitlements.

A side question:

Can you swear to "support and defend the U.S. Constitution" while at the same time advocating it changes? How is that supporting and defending it? I'm not saying YOU are doing that...it's just more of a ponderance...don't all our lawmakers swear to uphold the Constitution? How can you change it if you swore to uphold it?

efmbman
01-07-2017, 01:52 AM
Can you swear to "support and defend the U.S. Constitution" while at the same time advocating it changes? How is that supporting and defending it? I'm not saying YOU are doing that...it's just more of a ponderance...don't all our lawmakers swear to uphold the Constitution? How can you change it if you swore to uphold it?

I think so, yes. To me, the US Constitution not only refers to the document itself, but also what constitutes the values and ideals of the country. Over time, those values and ideals can (and will) change. The best interest of the country should drive any change to the document and one would hope the change would strengthen the country.

I am in favor of several changes to the document and I served 22 years in the Army and now I am sworn as a federal employee. While I support changes, I am equally committed to the US Constitution in its present form. I may not like what the document states in its current form (anchor babies is the #1 dislike) but it is the law of the land at the moment.

Rainmaker
01-07-2017, 02:09 AM
On the whole...would you guess that illegal immigration is a net gain or net loss to our economy?

Depends on how you define "our"

If by "our" you mean "the American worker". Then it's a clear failure.

However, If by "our" you mean "a numerically small clique of transnational socialist, kingmakers" then, it's been an overwhelming success.

Mjölnir
01-07-2017, 10:58 AM
What happens if they go to an ER in Mexico?

I am not sure, not familiar with their laws. But, not really concerned about the law in Mexico. In America ... I think we are better than letting someone die at the entrance of an ER that could have been helped ... regardless of who they are.

I do think we should take a look at EMTALA to prevent the humaniatrian aspects of the law from being used ... ERs should be used for emergencies, not routine medical issues.


A side question:

Can you swear to "support and defend the U.S. Constitution" while at the same time advocating it changes? How is that supporting and defending it? I'm not saying YOU are doing that...it's just more of a ponderance...don't all our lawmakers swear to uphold the Constitution? How can you change it if you swore to uphold it?

I absolutely feel someone can support and defend the Constitution but advocate for changing it to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" . This was an explicit intent of the framers by establishing that exact process in Article 5 of the document itself which has a method for Congress (lawmakers) to actually propose, pass and submit for ratification to the states amendments ... otherwise why have it written into the document at all?

I think the big point in people (anyone really) advocating for that change, is the peaceful, purposeful use of the system in place to do so. Change was meant to be difficult, meaning it required overwhelming support, not concentrated in population centers, nor via popular vote (think Electoral College). The Constitution lays out a system to effect change either via the Congress (because we are a representative republic) or via the States (to go around the federal legislature) via the convening of a Constitutional Convention. To date the latter method has never been used.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Rainmaker
01-07-2017, 03:42 PM
I am not sure, not familiar with their laws. But, not really concerned about the law in Mexico.

We should be. Because, America's in danger of regressing to the 3rd world mean.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fg-immigration-trek-america-tijuana/

Now we can all sit around and debate the meaning of the 14th amendment, and fondly contemplate the founders noble desire to" secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity" and tear up while visualizing idealistic scenes from Ellis island and that's great.......

But, the fact of the matter is, that if we don't get a handle on this soon, then we're at risk of our systems being overwhelmed, collapsed and our country devolving into an ungovernable shithole.

Bos Mutus
01-07-2017, 09:28 PM
I am not sure, not familiar with their laws. But, not really concerned about the law in Mexico. In America ... I think we are better than letting someone die at the entrance of an ER that could have been helped ... regardless of who they are.

I agree that emergencies should not be turned away from the ER.

If the idea is to disincentive people from coming here illegal...then we need to compare what they get here to what they have at home. Saying we need to limit access to healthcare only works if we know people are coming here for healthcare because they can't get it at home. If they are getting it the same at home, it's probably not an incentive to come here.


I do think we should take a look at EMTALA to prevent the humaniatrian aspects of the law from being used ... ERs should be used for emergencies, not routine medical issues.

I would tend to agree with that.


I absolutely feel someone can support and defend the Constitution but advocate for changing it to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" . This was an explicit intent of the framers by establishing that exact process in Article 5 of the document itself which has a method for Congress (lawmakers) to actually propose, pass and submit for ratification to the states amendments ... otherwise why have it written into the document at all?

I think the big point in people (anyone really) advocating for that change, is the peaceful, purposeful use of the system in place to do so. Change was meant to be difficult, meaning it required overwhelming support, not concentrated in population centers, nor via popular vote (think Electoral College). The Constitution lays out a system to effect change either via the Congress (because we are a representative republic) or via the States (to go around the federal legislature) via the convening of a Constitutional Convention. To date the latter method has never been used.

Yeah, I get it.

Mjölnir
01-07-2017, 09:51 PM
We should be. Because, America's in danger of regressing to the 3rd world mean.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fg-immigration-trek-america-tijuana/[/quote]

I don't think we should allow another countries laws to effect what we (Americans) are as a society.


Now we can all sit around and debate the meaning of the 14th amendment, and fondly contemplate the founders noble desire to" secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity" and tear up while visualizing idealistic scenes from Ellis island and that's great.......

But, the fact of the matter is, that if we don't get a handle on this soon, then we're at risk of our systems being overwhelmed, collapsed and our country devolving into an ungovernable shithole.

We should keep in mind the founders noble desires ... otherwise we stray from what they wanted the country to be and more into what they left behind. I think we are a great country, great enough to be firm and compassionate, strong and humanitarian. I would say that we should dial back on some of the 'freebies' to non-citizens and citizens alike, that we need to get ourselves away from an entitlement or government caretaker mentality.

garhkal
01-08-2017, 04:11 AM
Non-citizens inside the borders of the US are subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the US -- if they commit a murder, they can be put on trial etc. Those here with diplomatic immunity are not, if they commit a murder, we send them back to their parent country because we have waived our jurisdiction over them.

They may be subject to our laws, but they still fall under the jusridiction of their home country..


Pretty much, the hospital absorbs (passes that on to us) the bill, just like they do for ANYONE who comes into an ER requiring urgent care.

So they eat it up like they have been doing, which is why we have had several hospitals shut down in several border states (tx and NM iirc).


If you had said, "...a wall won't stop everything"...then I would agree, but logic would dictate that a wall will stop some. How much, I'm not sure.

I think if we suddenly opened our borders and invited everyone to come in...probably millions more Mexicans would be coming to the U.S. than are now.

The law alone prevents many from even trying.

The risk of being caught stops more from trying.

The physical difficulty stops probably some others.

Exactly Bos.. The harder we make it, the less that sneak in...
And personally since we do have sensor units (like those seizmographs) that Supposedly can detect a Gopher or the like burrowing, or people trying to dig into a bank, i don't know WHY we can't have similar things along the border to detect people making those drug tunnels we keep hearing about..


I was listening to a radio program the other day talking about Work Visas. They were interviewing some people about instituting a work visa program, etc.

One interview really threw me...it was an interview with an undocumented farm worker who was against work visas. His reasoning went something like this, "If they institute work visas then a lot of the people in Mexico can come here legally and do farm work...what then happens to us that are already here illegally and can not get visas? We will lose our jobs."

The irony.

Irony indeed. Just like i had to laugh yesterday when i read a news story about certain restaurants joining in as "Sanctuary restaurants", even if the 'customers'(Or workers) are illegal'. Yet the ones pushing for it are linked to the service people's union.. and they are the one's pushing for higher min wage..
But doesn't work places who hire illegals, drive the Wage DOWN??


I agree that a good many of illegals contribute positively to our society and economy.

How do you think they contribute positively?
Many illegals either don't work, or if they do they work 'under the table', so don't pay in via payroll taxes etc. A large chunk seem to NOT bother learning English.


On the whole...would you guess that illegal immigration is a net gain or net loss to our economy?

I lean heavily to the 'net loss' group. But i think you knew that.


Shifts the burden of controlling immigration from the govt. to the employer.

In what manner? Force all employers to use E=verify? I thought they already were?


My understanding of the birth tourism amongst Chinese is that these women that come to have their babies here are not poor and not likely to be a drain on us...they are wealthy Chinese who do this to provide their children options later on in life, if necessary, but really do not have the plan to have the baby anchor the entire family and move here to take advantage of entitlements.

And that is part of the reason i feel we need to do away with the whole 'anchor baby' law.. CAUSE of those birth hotels that many areas in CA have been inundated with. IIRC 20/20 did a piece on cops busting a few in one of the san-diego suburbs, and one of the houses they busted, was fit (size/bedroom wise) for a LIVABLE family of 6 or 7. However the 3 Triad that ran the place had almost 2 dozen pregnant woman living in it.. And those woman just paid to come OVER so they COULD give birth here for the express purpose of it being taken care of financially By our hospital systems, AND that the kid would become a citizen, then they flee back to China and welch out on the bills they have..


Can you swear to "support and defend the U.S. Constitution" while at the same time advocating it changes? How is that supporting and defending it? I'm not saying YOU are doing that...it's just more of a ponderance...don't all our lawmakers swear to uphold the Constitution? How can you change it if you swore to uphold it?

Yes. Just like a cop may not agree with and wish to see the law changed for say speeding, doesn't mean he can't enforce and uphold said law..

Cont next post.

garhkal
01-08-2017, 04:18 AM
I think so, yes. To me, the US Constitution not only refers to the document itself, but also what constitutes the values and ideals of the country. Over time, those values and ideals can (and will) change. The best interest of the country should drive any change to the document and one would hope the change would strengthen the country.

I am in favor of several changes to the document and I served 22 years in the Army and now I am sworn as a federal employee. While I support changes, I am equally committed to the US Constitution in its present form. I may not like what the document states in its current form (anchor babies is the #1 dislike) but it is the law of the land at the moment.

What aspects of our current constitution do you feel need changing?


I agree that emergencies should not be turned away from the ER.

If the idea is to disincentive people from coming here illegal...then we need to compare what they get here to what they have at home. Saying we need to limit access to healthcare only works if we know people are coming here for healthcare because they can't get it at home. If they are getting it the same at home, it's probably not an incentive to come here.

And who decides whether its an emergency?
Also, if they don't have it at home, why then is it upon US to provide it for them here?



We should keep in mind the founders noble desires ... otherwise we stray from what they wanted the country to be and more into what they left behind. I think we are a great country, great enough to be firm and compassionate, strong and humanitarian. I would say that we should dial back on some of the 'freebies' to non-citizens and citizens alike, that we need to get ourselves away from an entitlement or government caretaker mentality.

If they are here illegally they shouldn't be getting ANY freebies/entitlements..
BUT i do agree, we need to tone down what we give out, as imo that is a good chunk of our yearly budget, is the whole 'welfare' state..

Bos Mutus
01-08-2017, 03:54 PM
How do you think they contribute positively?
Many illegals either don't work, or if they do they work 'under the table', so don't pay in via payroll taxes etc.

Many do work. Do pay taxes. Volunteer in their communities.


A large chunk seem to NOT bother learning English.

Not a factor. But, of course, a large chunk learn English.


I lean heavily to the 'net loss' group. But i think you knew that.

Yes, but also knowing that you needed no facts to arrive at that conclusion, I don't find it persuasive.


In what manner? Force all employers to use E=verify? I thought they already were?

I don't know if they are or not...but simply putting heavy penalties on the employer for hiring illegals puts the burden on the employers to check their ducks.


And that is part of the reason i feel we need to do away with the whole 'anchor baby' law.. CAUSE of those birth hotels that many areas in CA have been inundated with. IIRC 20/20 did a piece on cops busting a few in one of the san-diego suburbs, and one of the houses they busted, was fit (size/bedroom wise) for a LIVABLE family of 6 or 7. However the 3 Triad that ran the place had almost 2 dozen pregnant woman living in it.. And those woman just paid to come OVER so they COULD give birth here for the express purpose of it being taken care of financially By our hospital systems, AND that the kid would become a citizen, then they flee back to China and welch out on the bills they have..

Again...my understanding of the Chinese issue is not that they are wanting or needing to be taken care of financially....but, rather they are wealthy Chinese who want to provide their kids options later on to come here for college or to move here for opportunity...but that they are not particularly a burden financially on us.

I still think it's wrong...

Bos Mutus
01-08-2017, 03:59 PM
And who decides whether its an emergency?

The hospital I'd guess....probably would have some list of standards to follow. There is probably a huge liability there if they're wrong, though.


Also, if they don't have it at home

I don't know if they don't have it at home.


, why then is it upon US to provide it for them here?

because it is the morally right thing to do.


If they are here illegally they shouldn't be getting ANY freebies/entitlements..
BUT i do agree, we need to tone down what we give out, as imo that is a good chunk of our yearly budget, is the whole 'welfare' state..

I think the 'whole welfare state' thing is exaggerated...

efmbman
01-08-2017, 04:34 PM
What aspects of our current constitution do you feel need changing?

The 12th - remove the position of Elector. I am not comfortable with the human element in the Electoral College. Once the votes are totaled for a state, then the number of electoral votes for that state are awarded to the candidate that received the highest number of votes. I do not want it possible for an elector to vote for whomever they wish and ignore the will of the people. Partisanship is at an all-time high and as we recently saw, many Electors ignored to popular vote. It will likely only get worse.

The 14th - repeal completely. I will give credit where credit is due... and that is to Rainmaker. A while back, he suggested this and I asked about the due process clause. He correctly pointed out that due process is guaranteed in the 5th, so the clause in the 14th is redundant. The 14th, in my opinion, was to grant immediate citizenship to the newly freed slaves. The rationale was that since slavery had been in existence for so long in the US, those slaves currently in the US were all born here. The quickest way to grant these freed slaves their rights was to grant citizenship. Therefore, if you are born here, you are a citizen. This is not applicable anymore. The rest of the 14th seems to be punishments for the confederacy. No one is still alive that would have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." I am OK with a separate Amendment to retain the clauses "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 22nd - repeal completely. I am not a fan of term limits. A person is elected to a term, and that is the limit unless re-elected. If the will of the people is to keep someone in office for 50 years then so be it. To me, this undermines the will of the people and isn't that what our form of government is all about in the first place?

Those are the highlights.

Rainmaker
01-08-2017, 05:28 PM
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fg-immigration-trek-america-tijuana/

I don't think we should allow another countries laws to effect what we (Americans) are as a society.
Just as JFK refused to allow nukes in the western hemisphere, we can't allow gangs of narco- terrorists to turn a country on our southern border into a failed state, and penetrate our border at will. It's a matter of National security.

President Trump should order the Military to immediately begin construction of the wall and support the deportation of the invaders.

It'd be a much better use of our troops than having them run all over the MENA, training and equipping "Moderate" Sunni Jihadists, in some futile Neocon pipe dream of overthrowing secular dictators and replacing them with western style democracies (led by fucking Al Qaeda and the Muslim brotherhood).

Mjölnir
01-08-2017, 05:38 PM
I don't think we should allow another countries laws to effect what we (Americans) are as a society.

Just as JFK refused to allow nukes in the western hemisphere, we can't allow narco-terrorists to turn a country on our southern border into a failed state, and penetrate our border at will.

Concur.


Trump should order the Military to build the wall and support Deportation of invaders.

Maybe the Mexican military ... Mexico is supposed to pay for it ;)


It'd be a better use of our troops than having them run all over the MENA training and equipping "Moderate" Sunni Jihadists, in some futile pipe dream of overthrowing secular dictators and replacing them with western style democracies led by fucking Al Qaeda and the Muslim brotherhood.


well that's great and i get what you're saying. But, what would the founders think about 17 Intel agencies spying on Americans, or the TSA groping Grandmas at the airport or lifetime pensions for congressmen or affirmative action preferences or cradle to grave welfare or any other number of things we now have?

If 17 Intel agencies were writ large spying on Americans without specific reasons, warrants, limitations, oversight and legal authority ... they would likely pitch a hissy fit.

About the TSA, won't argue that a lot of how the TSA does things is confusing at best, down right idiotic at worst.

Overall, I think we have a pretty good system here, again ... trying to keep the intent of the founders in line with the realities of the 21st century is the challenge.


Bottom line. It's time to do what needs to be done and stop worrying about what a bunch of atheist/ socialist traitors in black robes, who constantly pervert the meaning of the founders intent, are gonna say about it.

If you are referring to the Supreme Court Justices, and that they have likely ruled against what you consider to be right, I get it. What I don't get is that earlier you seemed to marginalize the founders intent ... now you are upset about the Justices perverting it.

Mjölnir
01-08-2017, 05:54 PM
They may be subject to our laws, but they still fall under the jusridiction of their home country..

If they are here, unless waived, they are under the jurisdiction of the US, that is why they are subject to our laws and not the laws of their home nation while they are here. That is basically the textbook definition of jurisdiction ... not sure what the confusion is.

On this point, the horse has been led to the water, shown the water ... and had the water splashed in its face.


So they eat it up like they have been doing, which is why we have had several hospitals shut down in several border states (tx and NM iirc).

Some hospitals have shut down, in many cases because people (illegal immigrants and US Citizens) go to the ER to be seen for things that are not urgent care and under EMTALA they cannot be turned away. The larger burden on the taxpayer is from abuse of this clause of the law by US citizens and not illegals. My point is that non-urgent care should not be granted to an illegal alien. Urgent, at that moment life saving care should be denied to no one.


Exactly Bos.. The harder we make it, the less that sneak in...
And personally since we do have sensor units (like those seizmographs) that Supposedly can detect a Gopher or the like burrowing, or people trying to dig into a bank, i don't know WHY we can't have similar things along the border to detect people making those drug tunnels we keep hearing about..

Cost. We utilized some of that when I was at Camp David, they work well. Detection range is limited so you need sensors that are not too far apart and they are not cheap. It works well in areas of low surface / ground traffic, in many of the areas where the tunnels are it would be hard to distinguish between tunneling and road traffic.


How do you think they contribute positively?
Many illegals either don't work, or if they do they work 'under the table', so don't pay in via payroll taxes etc.

Illegal immigrants contributed $12 billion in payroll, sales, property, state and local taxes per year, granted ... many draw benefits which almost negates that number. Sure, many don't pay anything, Pew research reported that approx 50% of illegals pay taxes ... a number just below the percentage of US citizens that pay taxes.

Rainmaker
01-08-2017, 06:05 PM
Concur.



Maybe the Mexican military ... Mexico is supposed to pay for it ;)

The plan's been out for many months (actually years) now.

Mexico is going to pay for the wall thru seizing part of the $25 billion a year that flow out thru remittances.

http://www.cairco.org/issues/remittances

whether or not that happens before or after construction doesn't matter. Because, the end result is they're paying.


If 17 Intel agencies were writ large spying on Americans without specific reasons, warrants, limitations, oversight and legal authority ... they would likely pitch a hissy fit.

Is lying to Congress a Federal offense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08


What I don't get is that earlier you seemed to marginalize the founders intent ... now you are upset about the Justices perverting it.


Yes I know. I have cognitive dissonance.

We're effectively living post-constitution now. The founder's intended Classic liberalism for us.

But, Classic liberalism can't work in a multi-racial society, because without the government interference, then the majority of the population (in this case whites) will always dominate.

So, We've reached peak immigration. Now, we can all pretend that we're going to assimilate 100 million more, non-white foreigners from the 3rd world, while at the same time providing them with cradle to grave welfare.

But, it ain't gonna happen. It's not sustainable. we can't keep blaming whitey and transferring wealth to level the field for everyone else.

So, we either close the door now and try to assimilate what we have or we can brutally deport them later (or cease to exist)

Rainmaker
01-08-2017, 06:22 PM
Illegal immigrants contributed $12 billion in payroll, sales, property, state and local taxes per year, granted ... many draw benefits which almost negates that number.



This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level.

The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy.

Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

Whatever the numbers. There's no good reason for our elected representatives to refuse to follow our laws.

Mjölnir
01-08-2017, 08:48 PM
The plan's been out for many months (actually years) now.

Mexico is going to pay for the wall thru seizing part of the $25 billion a year that flow out thru remittances.

http://www.cairco.org/issues/remittances

whether or not that happens before or after construction doesn't matter. Because, the end result is they're paying.

Will see.




Is lying to Congress a Federal offense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08

Each and every time.

Note that in the clip the Member asks Clapper if the NSA collects data on "hundreds of millions of Americans" and Clapper responds "not wittingly, there are cases where they could in advertently ... perhaps collect." That is much closer to the truth than what is generally portrayed and what you insinuate.

A better expounding on FISA from Clapper's and Mueller from the same hearing (is the 7 minutes of testimony prior to your clip) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs

In the past there were serious ... egregious instances where civil liberties were violated. To think or state that the Intelligence Community collects at large data on hundreds of millions of Americans or maintain dossiers on them isn't accurate.

Now, do I think he was avoiding a direct answer, yes ... absolutely ... but he didn't say that no information is collected by the IC, but that it is not purposely done against "hundreds of millions of Americans" ... that is the actual question being asked.

IAW with the Freedom Act since mid-2015 telephone companies are required to keep telephonic metadata records and if supplied with a valid warrant have to turn that data over. I think the Freedom Act handles required domestic collection / surveillance for law enforcement much better than the Patriot Act (specifically Section 215) ... the Patriot Act was very quickly thrown together and many of the laws were created in the days of single channel unencrypted voice radio comms and did not account for cell or email communications.

Do I think the founders would be on board with this. In many cases ... no ... I think there would be concerns for civil liberties. I know that we will never find something in the Constitution that would really cover this, no concept of this existed then. However, as you likely know, George Washington relied heavily on intelligence during the War for Independence and as President, sometimes targeting Americans; he likely would have looked for a logical, pragmatic balance.


Yes, I have cognitive dissonance.

We're effectively living post-constitution now. The founder's intended Classic liberalism.

But, Classic liberalism can't work in a multi-racial society, because without the government interference then the majority of the population (in this case whites) will always dominate.

So, We've reached peak immigration. Now, we can pretend that we're going to assimilate 100 million more, non-white foreigners from the 3rd world, while at the same time providing them cradle to grave welfare.

But, it ain't gonna happen. It's not sustainable. we can't keep blaming whitey and transferring wealth to pay for everything.

So, we either close the door now and try to assimilate what we have or we can brutally deport them later (or cease to exist)

Concur, immigration (both illegal AND legal) present a problem for the US ... economically, socially, and from a standpoint of national security. I don't think we will ever really be able to slam the door on legal immigration nor will we fully stop illegal immigration.

sandsjames
01-08-2017, 09:40 PM
The plan's been out for many months (actually years) now.

Mexico is going to pay for the wall thru seizing part of the $25 billion a year that flow out thru remittances.

That's such a cop out explanation for Trump supporters who have already realized that he was full of shit on making Mexico pay.

Tell you what. I am going to mow your lawn this entire year. I swear. It's gonna happen. There's no doubt that I'm going to do it...you can trust me. You get a pension...I pay taxes which help pay that pension. The gas in your lawn mower, as well as the mower itself, was purchased with money you earned from money I paid in taxes, so that's the same thing as me doing it...right?

garhkal
01-08-2017, 09:53 PM
Many do work. Do pay taxes. Volunteer in their communities.


And how are they working if not illegally?? Since they are here illegally, they can't LEGALLY get work, and other than paying sales taxes, normally DON'T pay payroll, income or SSI taxes.. And if they do its on a fake ID..


Idon't know if they are or not...but simply putting heavy penalties on the employer for hiring illegals puts the burden on the employers to check their ducks.


Now this i DO agree with. For me, first time, Large a%% fines, to the level of at least 5 times what that illegal worker was saving the company. AND MAKE it a mix of the COMPANY fined, and the boss/manager who hired them personally.
2nd offense fine + jail time.



Again...my understanding of the Chinese issue is not that they are wanting or needing to be taken care of financially....but, rather they are wealthy Chinese who want to provide their kids options later on to come here for college or to move here for opportunity...but that they are not particularly a burden financially on us.

I still think it's wrong...

Based on the news shows i have seen, they have not been 'wealthy chinese women'. They were mostly in the poor house...


The 12th - remove the position of Elector. I am not comfortable with the human element in the Electoral College. Once the votes are totaled for a state, then the number of electoral votes for that state are awarded to the candidate that received the highest number of votes. I do not want it possible for an elector to vote for whomever they wish and ignore the will of the people. Partisanship is at an all-time high and as we recently saw, many Electors ignored to popular vote. It will likely only get worse.

Now that i agree with. If your state voted for nominee X, YOUR VOTE should go to X. No if's, ands, or butts about it.. And if they break that law, make the penalty MORE than a paltry 1k fine, which to many of them is 'chump change'..


The 14th - repeal completely. I will give credit where credit is due... and that is to @Rainmaker. A while back, he suggested this and I asked about the due process clause. He correctly pointed out that due process is guaranteed in the 5th, so the clause in the 14th is redundant.

Agreed again...


The 22nd - repeal completely. I am not a fan of term limits. A person is elected to a term, and that is the limit unless re-elected. If the will of the people is to keep someone in office for 50 years then so be it. To me, this undermines the will of the people and isn't that what our form of government is all about in the first place?

Sorry, but i unlike you, DO feel we need term limits. PART of the issue we are in, is because of lifelong politicians, serving their OWN ends, not the USA's..
And the 22nd ONLY applies to the Potus, not congress.. WHICH i feel it should apply to.
Same with those on the Scotus.
I also feel, since so damn many aspects of the fed can impact the military (funding, base closures etc), that all who serve in congress/the presidency, should have served a min of 3 years (house of reps) 4 years (senate) or 6 years (presidency). That way THEIR time serving gives them an idea of what impact their decisions are making ON the military. Too many of them have no damn clue, cause they HAVE never served..

So.. any others??


Some hospitals have shut down, in many cases because people (illegal immigrants and US Citizens) go to the ER to be seen for things that are not urgent care and under EMTALA they cannot be turned away. The larger burden on the taxpayer is from abuse of this clause of the law by US citizens and not illegals. My point is that non-urgent care should not be granted to an illegal alien. Urgent, at that moment life saving care should be denied to no one.

So what's the solution? Repeal EMTALA?? So hospitals are not by law FORCED to see people in the ER??


Cost. We utilized some of that when I was at Camp David, they work well. Detection range is limited so you need sensors that are not too far apart and they are not cheap. It works well in areas of low surface / ground traffic, in many of the areas where the tunnels are it would be hard to distinguish between tunneling and road traffic.

True, a # of those tunnels were into residential areas/warehouses.. BUT still, we have the means to detect a 1.1 trembler, 400 miles of the frikken coast.. So why the hell can't we detect tunnels being dug?


Illegal immigrants contributed $12 billion in payroll, sales, property, state and local taxes per year, granted ... many draw benefits which almost negates that number. Sure, many don't pay anything, Pew research reported that approx 50% of illegals pay taxes ... a number just below the percentage of US citizens that pay taxes.

How is Pew researching that? For someone to own a property, don't they need valid photo ID and a ssn?? So unless the illegals are using stolen/fake IDs, how are they paying those taxes??

Rainmaker
01-09-2017, 02:29 AM
That's such a cop out explanation for Trump supporters who have already realized that he was full of shit on making Mexico pay.

That's always been the plan sandsjames.

Rainmaker posted this article here last April, when it first came out.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-05/trump-reveals-how-mexico-will-pay-wall

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

But, you were probably too busy swallowing the CNN narrative (that Hillary Clinton was already the victor) to even notice it.

Rainmaker
01-09-2017, 03:03 AM
Note that in the clip the Member asks Clapper if the NSA collects data on "hundreds of millions of Americans" and Clapper responds "not wittingly, there are cases where they could in advertently ... perhaps collect."

he didn't say that no information is collected by the IC, but that it is not purposely done against "hundreds of millions of Americans" ... that is the actual question being asked.

To think or state that the Intelligence Community collects at large data on hundreds of millions of Americans or maintain dossiers on them isn't accurate.

curious that you'd bold, Italicize and underline hundreds of millions the 3rd time you typed it.

Because, that wasn't all of the actual question being asked.

Question: Does the NSA collect ANY TYPE OF DATA AT ALL, ON MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans?

Answer: No Sir.

Question: It does not?

Answer: Not wittingly

Watch at 30 seconds in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08

He clearly lied (and that's not the first or last time he's done it).

Now, like most of these corrupt assholes we have..... Clapper's beholden to Industry and too often lets his conflict of interest, influence his decisions....

But, how in the hell he even managed to get past the ethics waiver, is another question.

His departure can't come soon enough!

Mjölnir
01-09-2017, 08:34 AM
curious that you'd bold, Italicize and underline hundreds of millions the 3rd time you typed it.

Because, that wasn't all of the actual question being asked.

Question: Does the NSA collect ANY TYPE OF DATA AT ALL, ON MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans?

Answer: No Sir.

Question: It does not?

Answer: Not wittingly

Watch at 30 seconds in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08

He clearly lied (and that's not the first or last time he's done it).

Now, like most of these corrupt assholes we have..... Clapper's beholden to Industry and too often lets his conflict of interest, influence his decisions....

But, how in the hell he even managed to get past the ethics waiver, is another question.

His departure can't come soon enough!

The reason was the emphasis. Clapper later said (after the Snowden leaks) that he misspoke. Technically ... he didn't. NSA didn't collect any metadata on Americans, the telephone companies did which they then where providing to the NSA and the NSA would pull from it data that was needed for production which was not millions or hundreds of millions of Americans; the process of getting data on Americans out of that data was pretty daunting. That method was stopped in 2015, and now the telephone companies are required to keep it and if provided a warrant for that specific data they then provide it. But, in the sense that the initial data (pre-2015) went through NSA collections systems or offices ... it didn't; and based on the question I likely would have said no with a caveat. It is 100% semantics ... no less than saying that Mexico is going to pay for the wall and then say that payment will be withholding aid that was marked for Mexico ...

Now, I am not saying Clapper wasn't trying to skirt the question ... he definitely was. Calling him on it is appropriate, but we would be 100% intellectually dishonest to say the semantic double talk isn't being done by damn near everyone in DC ... Remember DJT saying there would be a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation .... That reversed very quickly.

sandsjames
01-09-2017, 01:53 PM
That's always been the plan sandsjames.

Rainmaker posted this article here last April, when it first came out.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-05/trump-reveals-how-mexico-will-pay-wall

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

But, you were probably too busy swallowing the CNN narrative (that Hillary Clinton was already the victor) to even notice it.

So you're going to pretend that the verbal promise Trump made to his supporters didn't come across as Mexico footing the bill directly? You really going to pretend that?

Damn...at least Obama waited until after he was in office to bail on Gitmo...Trump doesn't even have that kind of respect for his voters...

I guess the New Messiah isn't all he's been boasting about.

Mjölnir
01-09-2017, 02:44 PM
I guess the New Messiah isn't all he's been boasting about.

We could get some What Would Trump Do? bracelets done up ...

Mjölnir
01-09-2017, 02:45 PM
I guess the New Messiah isn't all he's been boasting about.

We could get some What Would Trump Do? bracelets done up ...

sandsjames
01-09-2017, 09:31 PM
We could get some What Would Trump Do? bracelets done up ...

They'd be the greatest thing ever...the sales numbers would be Yuge, let me tell ya'. Then I'll tweet about them and you'll be amazed at the response, I can promise you that. You've never seen anything like it. "Make bracelets great again 2017"!

Mjölnir
01-09-2017, 09:53 PM
They'd be the greatest thing ever...the sales numbers would be Yuge, let me tell ya'. Then I'll tweet about them and you'll be amazed at the response, I can promise you that. You've never seen anything like it. "Make bracelets great again 2017"!

Only available in orange.

Rainmaker
01-10-2017, 06:03 AM
The reason was the emphasis. Clapper later said (after the Snowden leaks) that he misspoke. Technically ... he didn't. NSA didn't collect any metadata on Americans,

Are you sure about that?

Mjölnir
01-10-2017, 06:59 AM
Are you sure about that?

That I bolded it for emphasis? Pretty sure.

That he misspoke? That is what he said.

That metadata we are talking about did not go through an NSA surface, ground, air or space based collection system. The phone companies did it for them. The whole issue of the PRISM program is a topic unto itself separate from this topic (which admittedly I helped tangent away from).

Rainmaker
01-16-2017, 04:36 AM
That metadata we are talking about did not go through an NSA surface, ground, air or space based collection system. The phone companies did it for them.

Good to hear. But, I wonder...... are there any Laws, Executive orders, DoD policies or regulations governing the length of time a government Intelligence agency can store that type of information on a U.S. person (regardless of how it was "collected")?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

And also wonder....... Why did President Obama nominate and the Senate confirm, an admitted Communist sympathizer, as the CIA director?

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+brennan+cia+communist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=John+Brennan+Communist

Mjölnir
01-16-2017, 09:03 AM
Good to hear. But, I wonder...... are there any Laws, Executive orders, DoD policies or regulations governing the length of time a government Intelligence agency can store that type of information on a U.S. person (regardless of how it was "collected")?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Yes


And also wonder....... Why did President Obama nominate and the Senate confirm, an admitted Communist sympathizer, as the CIA director?

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+brennan+cia+communist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=John+Brennan+Communist

It was President Obama's prerogative. Interesting, Brennan was confirmed when I was a Fellow on the Hill, I attended some of the confirmation hearings. He voted for a communist party candidate in 1976, discussed it in his hiring polygraph in 1980 ... it was the only time he voted for a communist party candidate, he has never been a member of the communist party ... I don't know if 40 years after the that makes him a communist sympathizer ... Anymore than DJT's previous (but more recent) donations to liberal politicians or liberal political stances makes him a liberal ... Does it?

Looking at Brennan's 25 year CIA career, he was a very qualified nominee.

Rainmaker
01-16-2017, 05:59 PM
Interesting, Brennan was confirmed when I was a Fellow on the Hill, I attended some of the confirmation hearings. He voted for a communist party candidate in 1976, discussed it in his hiring polygraph in 1980 ... it was the only time he voted for a communist party candidate, he has never been a member of the communist party ... I don't know if 40 years after the that makes him a communist sympathizer ... Anymore than DJT's previous (but more recent) donations to liberal politicians or liberal political stances makes him a liberal ... Does it?

There's no comparison between Donald Trump's making campaign donations to both Democrat and Republican party candidates and Brennan's voting for the candidate of an organization that endorsed, encouraged, and advocated for the violent and unlawful overthrow of the United States of America, and the subversion of our State and Federal Constitutions (in the middle of the Cold war).


Looking at Brennan's 25 year CIA career, he was a very qualified nominee.

Qualified enough to allow ISIS to spread to 32 countries on his watch and a let a 13 year old hack his personal AOL account (with forwarded work emails and official documents) in 2015

garhkal
01-16-2017, 06:50 PM
Good to hear. But, I wonder...... are there any Laws, Executive orders, DoD policies or regulations governing the length of time a government Intelligence agency can store that type of information on a U.S. person (regardless of how it was "collected")?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

As far as i have seen, no there is no law, EO's etc that cover how long they can keep stuff. Though i do know of lawsuits challenging how long things like "sample DNAs for exclusionary purposes" can be kept...


And also wonder....... Why did President Obama nominate and the Senate confirm, an admitted Communist sympathizer, as the CIA director?

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+brennan+cia+communist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=John+Brennan+Communist

Cause he's a traitor to this nation, and anything that hurts it is in his books a good thing.

Mjölnir
01-16-2017, 08:23 PM
There's no comparison between Donald Trump's making campaign donations to both Democrat and Republican party candidates and Brennan's voting for the candidate of an organization that endorsed, encouraged, and advocated for the violent and unlawful overthrow of the United States of America, and the subversion of our State and Federal Constitutions (in the middle of the Cold war).

A direct comparison? No. But not just talking about DJT's campaign contributions, but that he has changed his mind on positions ... and appears to have done so much more than Brennan:

-42 years ago, in the middle of the Cold War, a 21-year old voted cast a vote for the Communist Party candidate for President. That a couple of years later when he was applying for employment with the CIA and taking his polygraph and asked if he had provided material or financial support to anyone advocating for the overthrow of the US government he didn't know if that counted, he asked the polygrapher and went on. That in the 42 years since he worked for the CIA for 25 years, a couple of civilian companies that dealt in counter terrorism and support to the US, and never displayed communist sympathies. He also said that he did not really support Communist Party, but cast his vote since he liked neither Ford nor Carter ... not a great reason to vote for the Communist candidate ... but seeing how that candidate had no chance of winning ... not implausible.

-In the last 18 years DJT, a man in his 50's has changed his political party affiliation 5 times (has been a registered Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Independent Republican), has been a financial contributor to both Democrats and Republicans. In 1999 was "very pro choice" (while hating the concept of abortion but believing in the right for a woman to choose), in 2015 he was pro-life. In his own book in 2000, supported assault weapons bans, background checks and longer wait periods for firearms purchases, in 2015 when speaking to the NRA he had reversed those positions. In 1999 he was in favor of universal health care, now opposes it.

So no, not a direct comparison to compare Brennan's change of heart and DJT's changing support or positions ... but it is easy to see that people change their minds. I don't really hold a vote someone made 42 years ago, one time when they were young and "finding their way"against them ... I don't really hold DJT's changing positions, which were when he was an established adult, business and economic leader (but that appear to be based more on convenience than conviction) against him either ... but I am willing to acknowledge that he (DJT) has been all over the map on both sides of issues and not really consistent on what his positions are ... not 42 years ago, but frequently in the last few decades up to the present.


Qualified enough to allow ISIS to spread to 32 countries on his watch and a let a 13 year old hack his personal AOL account (with forwarded work emails and official documents) in 2015

The ISIS spreading, more the fault of President Obama than Brennan, the AOL account ... pretty piss poor ... not just from computer security but who the hell still uses AOL???

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 03:08 AM
As far as i have seen, no there is no law, EO's etc that cover how long they can keep stuff.

Technically there is. But, they've been allowed to ignore our laws with impunity.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents


Cause he's a traitor to this nation, and anything that hurts it is in his books a good thing.

If that's so..... then he's not the only one.....

Because, It's hard to see how anyone, who takes an objective look at the happenings in Libya,Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc., couldn't have forseen the rise (and metastasis) of ISIS.

The fact that the administration allowed it to occur on their watch, means that they are either a) criminally incompetent or b) ISIS is a cut-out operation for somebody.

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 03:27 AM
-42 years ago, in the middle of the Cold War, a 21-year old voted cast a vote for the Communist Party candidate for President.

He also said that he did not really support Communist Party, but cast his vote since he liked neither Ford nor Carter ...

Sure he did.

& now folks..... For his next trick, watch as the Clinton sycophant/ trojan horse can "change his mind" and stop being a closet salafist-muslim!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQbAhqHoAo&t=1s

Mjölnir
01-17-2017, 11:07 AM
Technically there is.

Yes, there are laws, and regulations. Of course there are circumstances that (within) the law allow for waivers / extensions too ... and sometimes people screw it up; but I haven't seen anything that would make me think the IC or NSA writ large is ignoring the law.



Because, It's hard to see how anyone, who takes an objective look at the happenings in Libya,Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc., couldn't have forseen the rise (and metastasis) of ISIS.

The fact that the administration allowed it to occur on their watch, means that they are either a) criminally incompetent or b) ISIS is a cut-out operation for somebody.

Honestly, this is a topic I would love to discuss in it's own thread (far from the OP / Topic at this point) ... our strategy with ISIS is / has been flawed and consequently failed.

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 03:49 PM
Yes, there are laws, and regulations. Of course there are circumstances that (within) the law allow for waivers / extensions too ... and sometimes people screw it up; but I haven't seen anything that would make me think the IC or NSA writ large is ignoring the law.

The Military does a pretty good job with Intel oversight. But, then the services/combatant command mission doesn't require very much domestic surveillance and most service members take their constitutional oath seriously

As for the other agencies, Color me skeptical (Brennan's refusal to swear in on the Bible is a red flag)

Now, Whether you think the DNI repeatedly lies (or forgets and misspeaks) under oath doesn't matter. Because, It's supposed to be ILLEGAL for the government intelligence agencies to indefinitely store football field sized warehouses full of data on American Citizens (regardless of whether they're getting that data from Verizon or ATT or some other means).

More importantly. It's fucking stupid and a gross waste of resources.

The IC has become a giant self-licking ice cream cone, staffed with too many useless self-serving bureaucrats (and parasitic contractors) that're more concerned with empire building than producing a quality Intel.

If Rainmaker was King for a day, he'd take a Meat Cleaver to that budget.

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 04:10 PM
Honestly, this is a topic I would love to discuss in it's own thread (far from the OP / Topic at this point) ... our strategy with ISIS is / has been flawed and consequently failed.

Rainmaker can quickly sum it up for you Commander:

The State Dept and a certain agency advocated for establishing a no-fly zone in Libya.

The Pentagon advised against it, because they knew that if Gadhafi fell, Libya would become a failed state (breeding ground for Terrorists). Against the General's good advice they ordered establishment of the no-fly zone.

NATO established the no-fly zone, Gadhafi fell and Libya became a failed state (breeding ground for Terrorists).

Those Libyan weapons (among others) ended up in the hands of Syrian Jihadists (and ISIS) seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government (that protected the Christian Minority). Resulting in a Humanitarian disaster of a 1/2 million casualties and Millions of Unvetted Non-White Refugees flooding into Europe to date.

The reasons "why and how" EXACTLY this happened is another discussion.

& Now back to our regularly scheduled program: "Illegal Aliens getting deported 19 times and still raping our American Children"...... Thanks Obama!

Mjölnir
01-17-2017, 04:58 PM
The Military does a pretty good job with Intel oversight. But, then the services/combatant command mission doesn't require much domestic surveillance and most service members do take their constitutional oath seriously.

As for the other agencies, I'm not so sure.

A big problem that blurred the line on domestic surveillance was how the pre-9/11 surveillance laws were written (in a pre-internet) world. If someone in Afghanistan sent a message to someone in Afghanistan ... that data never entered the US; now you may have two people who are 5 miles from each other in Afghanistan who send an internet message to each other and that data crosses through a server in California ... prior to 9/11 that data was off limits to the CIA, NSA etc. but would have fallen under the purview of the FBI, who the IC was not really allowed to share investigative leads with. Now, that data is available to the IC, but the volume of data that has to be captured to be able to get that nugget is fairly large.


But, Brennan's refusal to swear in on the Bible is a red flag & Whether you think the DNI repeatedly lies (or forgets and misspeaks) under oath doesn't matter.

Am not bothered by anyone not taking the oath on the Bible, that is their prerogative. IRT Clapper lying under oath ... I think he knew exactly what he was doing ... in the truest sense of the term ... I don't think he committed perjury, but wasn't really being 100% honest either.


It's supposed to be ILLEGAL for the government intelligence agencies to indefinitely store football field sized warehouses full of data on American Citizens (regardless of whether they get that data from Verizon or ATT or some other means).

Depends ... indefinite no ... but even storing that data for five years quickly (exponentially) adds up.


More importantly. It's fucking stupid and a gross waste of resources.

It is ... until someone asks why we didn't put something together that we could (or maybe should) have. Hindsight is 20/20


The IC has become a giant self-licking ice cream cone, staffed with too many useless self-serving bureaucrats (and parasitic contractors) that're more concerned with empire building than producing a quality Intel.

Concur with you on most of this. Too much bureaucracy, to much 'fluff'. I think we need contractors, I think we have too many. Additionally the current administration's influx of political appointees who skewed the data to meet administration narrative is very troubling.


If Rainmaker was King for a day, he'd take a Meat Cleaver to that budget.

Capitalized meat cleaver?

sandsjames
01-17-2017, 05:41 PM
Cause he's a traitor to this nation, and anything that hurts it is in his books a good thing.You really believe this? How is that possible?

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 05:49 PM
Capitalized meat cleaver?

Yeah. It's a Major League cleaver and commands respect!


You really believe this? How is that possible?
A better question to ask might be, how is it possible that anyone doesn't believe it?

sandsjames
01-17-2017, 06:26 PM
A better question to ask might be, how is it possible that anyone doesn't believe it?

I just have a had time believing that anyone actually thinks Obama wanted to aide in the destruction/overthrow of the United States. Just seems beyond crazy...

I guess that if people could believe that crap then it's easy enough to see how Trump detractors could also think that he's going to ruin everything.

Good thing neither party has a monopoly on crazy.

Mjölnir
01-17-2017, 06:53 PM
Yeah. It's a Major League cleaver and commands respect!

Kinda like Lucille?

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 06:58 PM
I just have a had time believing that anyone actually thinks Obama wanted to aide in the destruction/overthrow of the United States.

As I recall, The term he used was "fundamentally transform The United States of America"

He certainly tried that.

garhkal
01-17-2017, 07:38 PM
Technically there is. But, they've been allowed to ignore our laws with impunity.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

Just like most all the laws it seems.
Our immigration problem is cause we DON'T properly enforce the laws we already have.
Same with crime/gangs
Same with corruption
and the list goes on.
Heck i remember back in the late 90s (iirc) a case in Miami dade county where someone sued the cops to remove his DNA from their database, cause as a 'relative of a crime victim HIS dma was collected for 'exclusionary purposes' but stored right alongside the perps and other criminals.. EVEN after 2 straight courts ruled in his favor, the cops STILL REFUSED (supposedly) to remove his DNA from their database..

That is one of the BIGGEST reasons i am against the cops just willy nilly collecting people's DNA/having access to ANY and ALL DNA databases (such as like the blood doner database, organ doner/bone marrow doner etc)...


The IC has become a giant self-licking ice cream cone, staffed with too many useless self-serving bureaucrats (and parasitic contractors) that're more concerned with empire building than producing a quality Intel.

And when these lettered orgs get so big, that they can 'tell those in charge, screw with us at your peril", they need to be smacked the hell down.


Am not bothered by anyone not taking the oath on the Bible, that is their prerogative. IRT Clapper lying under oath ... I think he knew exactly what he was doing ... in the truest sense of the term ... I don't think he committed perjury, but wasn't really being 100% honest either.

How is lying under oath NOT committing perjury?


Depends ... indefinite no ... but even storing that data for five years quickly (exponentially) adds up.

ANd once that 'time is up' how do we verify that it HAS been deleted?? With cloud storage, offline and online back ups and all sorts of other ways to copy it and 'store it elsewhere', there is NO way to ensure it has been removed/erased..


I just have a had time believing that anyone actually thinks Obama wanted to aide in the destruction/overthrow of the United States. Just seems beyond crazy...


Well lets see.
He's ignored the constitution and law way too many times, supported our enemies (his funding of the syrian rebels DID fund ISIS in its infancy), apologized To our enemies, but backtalked to our allies. Released many enemy captives, who have often gone BACK to the battlefield, welcomed back a deserter, after giving away 4 high value commanders for his release, and that deserter STILL has not been court marshalled..
Then there is the whole giving BILLIONS to Iran and Palestine....

Let me ask you.. What exactly would it take for someone IYO to be considered a traitor??



[QUOTE=Mjölnir;369295]

[QUOTE=Mjölnir;369295]

sandsjames
01-17-2017, 08:37 PM
Well lets see.
He's ignored the constitution and law way too many times, How's that? By using powers given to him by the Constitution?
supported our enemies (his funding of the syrian rebels DID fund ISIS in its infancy), apologized To our enemies, but backtalked to our allies. You mean like kissing Russia's ass while telling NATO that they're irrelevant?


Released many enemy captives, who have often gone BACK to the battlefield, welcomed back a deserter, after giving away 4 high value commanders for his release, and that deserter STILL has not been court marshalled..
Then there is the whole giving BILLIONS to Iran and Palestine.... Don't agree with a lot of the stuff he did but definitely don't find it traitorous.


Let me ask you.. What exactly would it take for someone IYO to be considered a traitor?? Anything to purposely damage the United States...PURPOSELY being the key word. Everything he has done, whether or not you, or I, or millions of others agree with it, have been completely in accordance with the laws of the country. And I'm of the strong belief that, even though he's made huge mistakes, he actually believed he was always doing what was best for the U.S.

Rainmaker
01-17-2017, 08:46 PM
You mean like kissing Russia's ass while telling NATO that they're irrelevant?

Yeah. Stuff Like that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTp_sww7OlA

garhkal
01-18-2017, 04:40 AM
How's that? By using powers given to him by the Constitution?

Exactly where in the constitution does it allow him to make executive actions?
Where does it say if he can't get something through congress, he can just sign it into law himself??

Mjölnir
01-18-2017, 10:07 AM
Exactly where in the constitution does it allow him to make executive actions?
Where does it say if he can't get something through congress, he can just sign it into law himself??

If you are looking for a line that says "the President shall have the power to issue Executive Orders", that is not in the Constitution; that said, Article II Section I says "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That has been interpreted since the Presidency of George Washington as allowing the President -- the Chief Executive to issue orders to agencies in the Executive Branch. The President explicitly cannot order actions explicitly granted to the Congress (declaring war, granting letters of marque, or regulate commerce -- those authorities are specifically allocated to the Legislature in Article I), also the President cannot make treaties or appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate. (but the President can unilaterally withdraw the US from a treaty).

Executive orders are not law (per se) as they really are only in effect as long as the (current) President retains them. IMO, this is the probably the biggest failing of the Obama Administration, who used Executive Orders too much to enact their agenda "I have a pen, and I have a phone" ... maybe they relied too much on HRC winning the election, but much of his agenda being enacted without legislative enforcement makes it not likely to survive (especially the most controversial items) a new President from a different political party.

Rainmaker
01-26-2017, 01:22 AM
Trump orders weekly publication of crimes committed by illegals in sanctuary cities


In order to better inform Americans about the impact illegal aliens are having on crime rates in sanctuary cities, President Donald Trump today ordered the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by illegals.

In an executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Trump directed Secretary John Kelly to be transparent with citizens.

“To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens,” the order reads.

The same executive order “directs that federal funds be withheld from cities and counties that don’t cooperate with immigration officials,” Patch reports

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/trump-orders-weekly-list-crimes-committed-illegals-sanctuary-cities/

sandsjames
01-26-2017, 01:40 AM
Trump orders weekly publication of crimes committed by illegals in sanctuary cities



http://www.theamericanmirror.com/trump-orders-weekly-list-crimes-committed-illegals-sanctuary-cities/

Will that include reporting the crime of being illegal in the first place?

Rainmaker
01-26-2017, 01:47 AM
Will that include reporting the crime of being illegal in the first place?

Only for the millions who voted illegally.

Rainmaker
01-26-2017, 03:33 AM
Father of Son Murdered by Illegal Immigrant: Trump is Only Person in Government Who Listened


President Donald Trump met with families who have been victimized by illegal immigrant crime on Wednesday, and pledged the support of the Department of Homeland Security.

“For years, the media has largely ignored the stories of Americans and lawful residents victimized by open borders,” Trump said in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security. “To all of those hurting out there, I repeat to you these words: We hear you. We see you — and you will never, ever be ignored again.”

Dan Golvach, whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant in January 2015, told FOX Business Network’s Liz MacDonald this is first time a government official acknowledged his son’s death.

“It appears to me [Trump] is not wasting any time,” he said. “I just have to say I think that he is sincere.”

Trump recognized members of the Remembrance Project, an organization representing families of victims killed by illegal immigrants.

Golvach’s 25-year-old son, Spencer, was stopped at a red light when a four-time deported illegal alien, who had previously done five years in prison for attempted murder, pulled up beside him and shot him in the head.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/01/25/father-son-murdered-by-illegal-immigrant-trump-is-only-person-in-government-who-listened.html

garhkal
01-26-2017, 06:47 AM
Trump orders weekly publication of crimes committed by illegals in sanctuary cities



http://www.theamericanmirror.com/trump-orders-weekly-list-crimes-committed-illegals-sanctuary-cities/

GOOD! About time we started naming and shaming these city/town mayors.
Better yet, ARREST THEM for failing to uphold the laws of the land!