3/15 Primaries - "I can't believe it's not Bernie! ®" Edition, Paid for by Hillary for America
1,278 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wystan;49943248]It's the Bill of Rights, for Americans. You aren't entitled to our 2nd Amendment. The 3rd Amendment makes no mentions of citizens or non-citizens, so should the French be allowed to house your soldiers?[/QUOTE]
United States v. Meza-Rodriguez
Again, not up to date on the issues!
Undocumented workers can possess firearms under the second amendment.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;49943247]"Does the U.S. Constitution apply to foreign nationals in America?"
"Yes"
[url]http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub[/url][/QUOTE]
Yea, it applies to people LEGALLY LIVING HERE, even if they may not be citizens yet. But a muslim off the boat doesn't not fall under here.
[QUOTE=wystan;49943269]Yea, it applies to people LEGALLY LIVING HERE, even if they may not be citizens yet. But a muslim off the boat doesn't not fall under here.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does? Lol
Per 8 USC §1182:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
[QUOTE=GunFox;49943267]United States v. Meza-Rodriguez
Again, not up to date on the issues!
Undocumented workers can possess firearms under the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
Again, applies to people legally living here.
[QUOTE=wystan;49943273]Again, applies to people legally living here.[/QUOTE]nope
[QUOTE=wystan;49943248]It's the Bill of Rights, for Americans. You aren't entitled to our 2nd Amendment. The 3rd Amendment makes no mentions of citizens or non-citizens, so should the French be allowed to house your soldiers?[/QUOTE]
Sorry - I didn't know I was allowed to ignore the 5th Amendment if a non-citizen commits a crime on my lawn. He isn't allowed to defend himself in court - I can shoot him and it's fine, right? Sixth amendment - he doesn't need a speedy or impartial jury if he's a Canadian expat, right? I can just have my friends judge him and then shoot him in the dick, right?
You're ridiculous, man. You're embarrassing yourself. Seriously.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49943259]This assumes the polling is done correctly and further it assumes the reason they are voting for a candidate is because--due to the lack of a higher education--they are unable to think critically.
I think that's a pretty poor argument because I don't see how higher education imbues individuals with more common sense or a better ability to make smart, informed, decisions or vice versa.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't necessarily, which is why it's a correlation and not a full on causation.
The point of higher education generally though [B]​also includes[/B] teaching skepticism and rationality. You learn critical thinking and critical reading skills which makes you less prone to just taking a politician, for example, on their word, and more likely to actually research their points and policies.
Again, correlation. There's still geniuses on both sides and there's idiots on both sides, I'm not saying otherwise.
[QUOTE=wystan;49943256]You aren't an Muslim immigrant, you're fine.[/QUOTE]
welp there goes half my family living overseas
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49943277]Sorry - I didn't know I was allowed to ignore the 5th Amendment if a non-citizen commits a crime on my lawn. He isn't allowed to defend himself in court - I can shoot him and it's fine, right? Sixth amendment - he doesn't need a speedy or impartial jury if he's a Canadian expat, right? I can just have my friends judge him and then shoot him in the dick, right?
You're ridiculous, man. You're embarrassing yourself. Seriously.[/QUOTE]
If only you people would read my posts. You make it sound like some person not living here is entitled to our laws.
[editline]16th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49943275]nope[/QUOTE]
yep
[QUOTE=wystan;49943281]If only you people would read my posts. You make it sound like some person not living here is entitled to our laws.[/QUOTE]they are
[QUOTE=wystan;49943273]Again, applies to people legally living here.[/QUOTE]
No, it literally doesn't.
The guy was an illegal immigrant.
"His immigration status made
his possession of the cartridge a crime under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5), which prohibits foreigners who are not entitled
2 No. 14-3271
to be in the United States (whom we will call “unauthorized
aliens”) from possessing firearms. "
[url]http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D08-20/C:14-3271:J:Flaum:con:T:fnOp:N:1608386:S:0[/url]
[QUOTE=wystan;49943281]If only you people would read my posts. You make it sound like some person not living here is entitled to our laws.[/QUOTE]
"You have the right to remain silent, everything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to an attor-
What?
He's a muslim immigrant here temporarily on business?
pfffff fuck him, shoot the twat in the brain and lets go for coffee"
[QUOTE=wystan;49943273]Again, applies to people legally living here.[/QUOTE]
So Muslims who legally come over are rejected due to their religion is perfectly ok with you? You're So ok with suppressing their religion because "goddamn turrurist!!!!"
[QUOTE=wystan;49943269]Yea, it applies to people LEGALLY LIVING HERE, even if they may not be citizens yet. But a muslim off the boat doesn't not fall under here.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/case.html[/url]
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49943283]they are[/QUOTE]
You aren't a permanent legal resident (note how I didn't say citizen), you are not a foreign national, you are not entitled to our laws.
[QUOTE=wystan;49943292]You aren't a permanent legal resident (note how I didn't say citizen), you are not a foreign national, you are not entitled to our laws.[/QUOTE]"The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “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.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court."
- YICK WO v. HOPKINS, (1886)
fucking pathetic that wystan, presumably a self-proclaimed patriot is currently torpedoing one of THE greatest political documents (this coming from a British person), designed to PROTECT PEOPLE, NOT JUST CERTAIN PEOPLE
[QUOTE=wystan;49943273]Again, applies to people legally living here.[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. Anyone on American soil, whether a citizen or not, is allowed the same legal provisions as citizens when it comes to the judicial and legal process.
Someone visiting the country from India who commits a crime isn't just shot or thrown out immediately - they're given a fair trial, and may be deported afterwards. It is completely illegal to arbitrarily deport people because of religion - you'd break the first amendment, fifth amendment, sixth amendment, and numerous other laws.
I know someone from India who was attending college in the US and got caught with a lot of drugs. He wasn't kicked out or shot - he went to court and lost and was then deported. They're given the same protections as normal citizens in those situations - mass deportation is inherently against the constitution unless you give [i]every single deported citizen[/i] a trial by jury.
I think the unspoken statement here is that this is a moot argument regardless of what laws and rulings say because some people believe that all people deserve to have natural rights and some people believe that natural rights don't apply because of where you were born.
[QUOTE=wystan;49943281]If only you people would read my posts. You make it sound like some person not living here is entitled to our laws.
[editline]16th March 2016[/editline]
yep[/QUOTE]
disregarding laws and all that, do you think this is an okay thing to morally to all muslim immigrants?
[QUOTE=wystan;49943292]You aren't a permanent legal resident (note how I didn't say citizen), you are not a foreign national, you are not entitled to our laws.[/QUOTE]
I'm done, you're a dipshit. There's like 6 people in this thread providing example after example of how wrong you are and you're ignoring it and saying "but you're not a REAL AMERICAN so it's okay if i break every law on the book to get rid of you."
If non-nationals aren't offered the same legal protections, why hasn't anyone created slave labor camps of Mexican immigrants? Why aren't the Chinese imported and forced into slave labor camps in the US to cut down on shipping costs? They're not citizens or nationals - they aren't affected by our laws, so every law we have on the book to protect people (e.g. murder is illegal) is out the window and we can abuse them as much as we want, right?
Four seconds of critical thinking and you'd realize this. Unbelievable.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight]
Not to be negative, but if Trump gets into office and elects a republican leaning Supreme Court judge, you all realize whatever the current law is won't matter, right?
[QUOTE=Firespray;49943300]disregarding laws and all that, do you think this is an okay thing to morally to all muslim immigrants?[/QUOTE]
Personally, I think it's a little extreme, but clearly this is something that needs addressing, this is a problem particularly severe within the religion of Islam, an outright temporary ban is treating more the symptom than the problem.
[QUOTE=wystan;49943313]Personally, I think it's a little extreme, but clearly this is something that needs addressing, this is a problem particularly severe within the religion of Islam, an outright temporary ban is treating more the symptom than the problem.[/QUOTE]
Addressing HOW
[QUOTE=wystan;49943313]an outright temporary ban is treating more the symptom than the problem.[/QUOTE]o_o
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49943323]i think there needs to be more finality to the solution if you catch my drift[/QUOTE]
christian conversion camps :smile:
[QUOTE=GunFox;49943319]Addressing HOW[/QUOTE]
Good question, and I don't have an answer for you, but ignoring it is not going to make it go away. Like I said, I don't really support the Muslim ban but just allowing it to keep happening is unacceptable.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49943320]o_o[/QUOTE]
I guess what he's saying is that we need more of a final solution regarding the muslims. :fp:
fucking ninjad
ahahaha oh my god did wystan just refer to islam as a problem requiring a 'solution' (addressing)
are titles still a thing
that is utterly deserving of a title, possibly along the lines of "I don't think we should ban muslims from entering, that's treating a symptom, we need to address the muslim 'problem'"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.