10 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Everyone else is an illegal immigrant.

Go back way further and map the world.  Let’s get down to who was first in human evolution.  Going to play history, why 1500 ?

 

19 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

Go back way further and map the world.  Let’s get down to who was first in human evolution.  Going to play history, why 1500 ?

we stole all land from the neanderthals. in other words, we owe it back to russia. 

 

1 hour ago, Talkingbirds said:

Go back way further and map the world.  Let’s get down to who was first in human evolution.  Going to play history, why 1500 ?

What does the world have to do with a map of America. 

Do you support mass deportations? 

4 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

we stole all land from the neanderthals. in other words, we owe it back to russia. 

 

Sorry the Neanderthals were absorbed by  homosapains through inter species sex. It was  Afro-European-Asians.  Did mid century explorers destroy the indigenous population.  Yes. So did the indigenous population before they arrived that was doing the same.  History is a strange bed fellow.  Now I’m all for legal immigration.  Work visas, green cards, path to US Citizenship needs to be regulated.

3 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Do you support mass deportations? 

No, and do you really think this will happen ?   Trump can’t get it done unless Congress and the Courts uphold it. I’ll put money on it.  GOP has a problem they can’t escape, women’s reproductive rights.  Trump would lose to anyone Dems decide to run on that platform alone.

5 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Yeah, but most, like my parents, are legal immigrants. This is where the Democrats lose the argument. They should be strongly in favor of expanding legal immigration, with a focus on highly educated workers. Make the legal system less cumbersome and more merit based. Crack down on illegal immigrants and expand legal immigration. And for the love of God change the asylum laws.

Doing dumb crap by refusing to call them illegals drives voters to Trump.

I’m not even sure we need to expand legal immigration. At least at first. If it’s just merit based then you’d have an enormous number of spots open up.

5 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

What does the world have to do with a map of America. 

Do you support mass deportations? 

So if Europeans were somehow in North America before the asiatic crossing of the Bearing Straight, you would say the Comanches etc should go back to Russia?

12 hours ago, TEW said:

I’m not even sure we need to expand legal immigration. At least at first. If it’s just merit based then you’d have an enormous number of spots open up.

Should end birth citizenship for illegals kids too. One parent should have to be a legal citizen 

26 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Should end birth citizenship for illegals kids too. One parent should have to be a legal citizen 

That requires a Constitutional amendment which will never be adopted.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

That requires a Constitutional amendment which will never be adopted.

Im aware. There are lots of positive things we should do but wont

7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Im aware. There are lots of positive things we should do but wont

I'd adjust your amendment to say one parent should be a citizen or legal resident. The children of legal immigrants should be citizens. I'd support that amendment. 

34 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

That requires a Constitutional amendment which will never be adopted.

SCOTUS could get creative…

Use originalism to say it was meant to apply to slaves. 

11 minutes ago, TEW said:

SCOTUS could get creative…

Use originalism to say it was meant to apply to slaves. 

You support mass deportations. Thanks for clearing that up.

6 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

You support mass deportations. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, "mass” doesn’t quite encapsulate the level of deportations I support. "Industrialized mass deportations” or something along those lines. Really have to emphasize the fact that this should be in the tens of millions since estimates of their numbers can reach upwards of 30 million illegals.

Just now, TEW said:

Well, "mass” doesn’t quite encapsulate the level of deportations I support. "Industrialized mass deportations” or something along those lines. Really have to emphasize the fact that this should be in the tens of millions since estimates of their numbers can reach upwards of 30 million illegals.

Of course it doesn't. 

Just now, jsdarkstar said:

Of course it doesn't. 

And you support illegal immigration. We all know this.

23 minutes ago, TEW said:

SCOTUS could get creative…

Use originalism to say it was meant to apply to slaves. 

While that was clearly the intent, the language really is clear and doesn't leave much room for interpretation. I'd rather see fidelity to the document. I would support an amendment. 

I don't like it when courts go beyond the plain language.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

While that was clearly the intent, the language really is clear and doesn't leave much room for interpretation. I'd rather see fidelity to the document. I would support an amendment. 

I don't like it when courts go beyond the plain language.

Yeah, obviously we want an amendment to make it clear and decisive.

But the political reality is that will never happen. And as we’ve seen with Roe V Wade, this court does not have a problem upending rulings. This would obviously be even more controversial, but if you read what’s coming out of the heritage foundation (which is also the group behind most of the recent conservative nominations) they’re building the case.

Frankly, if one takes an originalist interpretation, it seems rather straight forward even by the language of the 14th that it did not apply to illegals.

Just something to think about…

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

I'd adjust your amendment to say one parent should be a citizen or legal resident. The children of legal immigrants should be citizens. I'd support that amendment. 

That would be logical

21 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yeah, obviously we want an amendment to make it clear and decisive.

But the political reality is that will never happen. And as we’ve seen with Roe V Wade, this court does not have a problem upending rulings. This would obviously be even more controversial, but if you read what’s coming out of the heritage foundation (which is also the group behind most of the recent conservative nominations) they’re building the case.

Frankly, if one takes an originalist interpretation, it seems rather straight forward even by the language of the 14th that it did not apply to illegals.

Just something to think about…

While I agree that wasn't the intent, I'm not OK with the court ignoring plain and obvious language. It's the same reason I can't support the massive expansion of the meaning of "general welfare" by the courts. I realize what I want is unrealistic, but opening up the meaning of words to a court's interpretation, whether in the Constitution or a simple contract law case, is a slippery slope I'd prefer to avoid.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

While I agree that wasn't the intent, I'm not OK with the court ignoring plain and obvious language. It's the same reason I can't support the massive expansion of the meaning of "general welfare" by the courts. I realize what I want is unrealistic, but opening up the meaning of words to a court's interpretation, whether in the Constitution or a simple contract law case, is a slippery slope I'd prefer to avoid.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

Just saying it’s coming.

Olympics are off to an amazing start. So far, an Australian woman has been gang raped and the Australian cycle team had all their stuff stolen. Paris has truly been enriched. 

 

90% of fentanyl comes across legal checkpoints, and 91% of the seizures are from US Citizens.