A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those who are undocumented/illegal aliens in this country are far more likely to be law-abiding than those who are citizens.  Not only do they not cause trouble, but they pay taxes and provide needed labor to our economy.  My ancestors were the same, and they did not ask permission to come here.  They just came.  People often vote with their feet.  We need them.

I agree! I have a Mexican son-in-law and he fits the bill as you describe, and he came over with his dad, sister and brother right out of high school. I wish he'd been younger to enable him the protection with DACA. But I guess it wouldn't matter now the DACA is probably going to be discontinued.

I can't understand some people that have a problem with immigrants. Especially if they don't understand that some US leaders swiped Mexico's land. So it really belongs to Mexico. And we also kicked out/killed hundreds of Native Americans. How do we even say what we do. Especially when our ancestors began as immigrants. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I agree! I have an undocumented son-in-law and he fits the bill as you describe, and he came over with his dad, sister and brother right out of high school. I wish he'd been younger to enable him the protection with DACA. But I guess it wouldn't matter now the DACA is probably going to be discontinued.

We may end up with DACA as Congressional legislation, or possibly Pres Trump will continue it.  I doubt that it will just go away.

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I can't understand some people that have a problem with immigrants. Especially if they don't understand that some US leaders swiped Mexico's land. So it really belongs to Mexico. And we also kicked out/killed hundreds of Native Americans. How do we even say what we do. Especially when our ancestors began as immigrants. 

Right, Tacenda.  We stole one-third of Mexico  and then imposed the 1847 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on Mexico.  Later we expelled many Latinos who were in the U.S. legally.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Executive orders are issued regularly by presidents, and no emergency is needed.  "Totalitarians" are people who believe in controlling other people and in denying them their constitutional rights.  A good example is the belief of many police officers that you must obey them, even when their orders are unlawful.  The false arrest of nurse Wubbles in SLC is a prime example.

So you believe that American politics is all sweetness and light.

Like most Americans, you don't understand Constitutional law.  The central issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases brought to them on appeal is whether any law is in conformity with the Constitution -- which is the supreme law of the land.  Any legislation or action not  in conformity with the Constitution is unconstitutional.  It has nothing to do with whether there is a territory or state, or even D.C.

"Executive orders are issued regularly by presidents, and no emergency is needed.  "Totalitarians" are people who believe in controlling other people and in denying them their constitutional rights.  A good example is the belief of many police officers that you must obey them, even when their orders are unlawful.  The false arrest of nurse Wubbles in SLC is a prime example."

A prime example of what the right despises about government was the arrest of Wubbles. Using the excuse of "it's fir his own protection" majes the right cringe. The right very much believes in individual rights. When things like "marriage" come up, our names are associated with that right therefore you'll likely see more on the political right than the left opposing gay marriage. The vast majority of the country did too until very recently. 

"So you believe that American politics is all sweetness and light." 

Yes. That's exactly what I said Robert. Thank you for that unbiased scholary assesment. 

"Like most Americans, you don't understand Constitutional law.  The central issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases brought to them on appeal is whether any law is in conformity with the Constitution -- which is the supreme law of the land.  Any legislation or action not  in conformity with the Constitution is unconstitutional.  It has nothing to do with whether there is a territory or state, or even D.C."

As appauling as the Dread Scott decision was, the US Supreme Court decided that case on whether ir not slaves were property. They ruled they were. Malbury vs Madidon has run a muck of the Constitution in the first place. It was a self granted power the supreme Court bestowed on itself. A power nowhere to be found in the Constitution. It is what it is now but its decision was not founded on the Constitution. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This does not answer a CFR, so my original CFR still stands. And I'll add a second one to it: CFR that kids getting free lunches are being picked up in vehicles ranging from $30-40 grand.

Gotta go and observe. It'll be right there in front of your eyes. Anecdotal but no less true. 

[Darren10]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree! I have a Mexican son-in-law and he fits the bill as you describe, and he came over with his dad, sister and brother right out of high school. I wish he'd been younger to enable him the protection with DACA. But I guess it wouldn't matter now the DACA is probably going to be discontinued.

I can't understand some people that have a problem with immigrants. Especially if they don't understand that some US leaders swiped Mexico's land. So it really belongs to Mexico. And we also kicked out/killed hundreds of Native Americans. How do we even say what we do. Especially when our ancestors began as immigrants. 

The brother-in-law of a family I home taught had to return to Mexico to get back here kegally. It was a very hard time for the wife. Why the government cracks down on workers and not gang bangers is beyond me. It hasn't been until Trump's presidency that even the rhetoric has changed to that end. 

Your son-in-law seems like a perfect example of who should stay. 

[why me]

No country can survive open borders which is why most countries have immigration laws. The United States shares a rather open border with Mexico. Many come through that border illegally. And this is the problem. No one knows who these people are and what their criminal history is. Nor do we know why they wish to enter the country. Also, the word "dreamer" is an interesting name to describe some of these people. It was coined by someone to soften people up about such immigration of children.

In Europe, there is a different problem. The growing Muslim population. More and more Muslims are entering the EU illegally. Many are economic migrants from North Africa and other parts of the Muslim world. And more and more muslim women can be seen on the streets wearing the Nijab throughout Europe, a veil that covers the face. Eventually, one must ask what are European values. And the pope wishes to have more muslim migrants to enter the EU. Why? Throughout the Muslim world, christians are oppressed. When Islam is the dominant religion in Europe and it will be based on population growth, how will Mormons survive with a prophet on par with Mohammed?

America has lost control of is borders and so has the EU. Only the future will know the outcome. One thing is for certain, 100 years from now, we will all be dead. So, it may not matter for us. But for the children and their children....it will be a different world, espeically in western based nations. Will it be for the better? Now that is the debate.

Edited September 11, 2017 by why me

[why me]

Interesting video about immigration.

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by why me
delete

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

My great grandparents came to Florida by sailing into port and applying for citizenship. That was over a hundred years ago. It is much different now. Many come who have no way to support themselves. They apply for benefits and some even drive around in their Mercedes and pull out food stamps.  There are those here because they want to pull down this county. The cowards that flew into the twin towers are at the top of the list. And now many short flights are not worth the wait at the airport because of the precautions we feel we must take because of such people. The cost they have caused this country is tremendous. I did not say I am against immigration. I am against open borders. We definitely do not need everyone who votes with their feet. I strongly disagree. That is inviting in extremists and crazies we can live without. Not everyone in the world wants to live under a constitution. The countries of the Middle East are prime examples of that. The cultures don't mix. They are opposites. Those who wish to leave for a free life are welcome in my book. Others have ulterior motives.

Not true.  Undocumented aliens are  not eligible for food stamps or other benefits.  Someone has fed you a fairytale.  Those coming here usually come to work hard and send money home.  They typically commit no crime and are in constant fear of being deported.

You have it exactly backwards.  The Saudi men who flew into Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not undocumented aliens.  They were rich and well educated. They were here legally on visas, and the idiots at FBI ignored all the warning signs which could have prevented their success.  The terrorists come here legally.

Your fairytales will not keep America safe.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"Executive orders are issued regularly by presidents, and no emergency is needed.  "Totalitarians" are people who believe in controlling other people and in denying them their constitutional rights.  A good example is the belief of many police officers that you must obey them, even when their orders are unlawful.  The false arrest of nurse Wubbles in SLC is a prime example."

A prime example of what the right despises about government was the arrest of Wubbles. Using the excuse of "it's fir his own protection" majes the right cringe. The right very much believes in individual rights. When things like "marriage" come up, our names are associated with that right therefore you'll likely see more on the political right than the left opposing gay marriage. The vast majority of the country did too until very recently. 

False.  Most cops, like the totalitarian who arrested Wubbles, are right wingers and Republicans.  Your characterization of the right is false.

As to marriage, the totalitarians declare that everyone has to conform to their beliefs, including those who want non-traditional marriage (same sex marriage, polygamy, or whatever).  The right loves to tell other people what they can and can't do.  They most certainly do not believe in individual rights.

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"So you believe that American politics is all sweetness and light." 

Yes. That's exactly what I said Robert. Thank you for that unbiased scholary assesment. 

What did you expect.  You said, "Huh," leaving me to wonder what you think.  Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"Like most Americans, you don't understand Constitutional law.  The central issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases brought to them on appeal is whether any law is in conformity with the Constitution -- which is the supreme law of the land.  Any legislation or action not  in conformity with the Constitution is unconstitutional.  It has nothing to do with whether there is a territory or state, or even D.C."

As appauling as the Dread Scott decision was, the US Supreme Court decided that case on whether ir not slaves were property. They ruled they were. Malbury vs Madidon has run a muck of the Constitution in the first place. It was a self granted power the supreme Court bestowed on itself. A power nowhere to be found in the Constitution. It is what it is now but its decision was not founded on the Constitution. 

This is proof positive that you do  not believe in our Constitution, which establishes three coequal branches of govt, which act as a check and balance on each other.  Without judicial review, we could not function properly and this country would be in shambles.  Marbury v Madison (1803) was the first case I ever briefed (back in 1963), and it is the foundation of good govt.  Chief Justice John Marshall is my hero.

[Danzo]

8 hours ago, why me said:

No country can survive open borders which is why most countries have immigration laws. The United States shares a rather open border with Mexico. Many come through that border illegally. And this is the problem. No one knows who these people are and what their criminal history is. Nor do we know why they wish to enter the country. Also, the word "dreamer" is an interesting name to describe some of these people. It was coined by someone to soften people up about such immigration of children.

In Europe, there is a different problem. The growing Muslim population. More and more Muslims are entering the EU illegally. Many are economic migrants from North Africa and other parts of the Muslim world. And more and more muslim women can be seen on the streets wearing the Nijab throughout Europe, a veil that covers the face. Eventually, one must ask what are European values. And the pope wishes to have more muslim migrants to enter the EU. Why? Throughout the Muslim world, christians are oppressed. When Islam is the dominant religion in Europe and it will be based on population growth, how will Mormons survive with a prophet on par with Mohammed?

America has lost control of is borders and so has the EU. Only the future will know the outcome. One thing is for certain, 100 years from now, we will all be dead. So, it may not matter for us. But for the children and their children....it will be a different world, espeically in western based nations. Will it be for the better? Now that is the debate.

The US survived it's first hundred years just fine with open borders

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The nation needs and welcomes immigrants but no nation can survive if it does not control who comes in and how many comes in.  I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church or any other organization advocating for the illegal aliens.  They have a right to voice their concern as anyone else.  It is the job of government to protect its citizens and control the borders.  I have no problem keeping the adult DACA kids here as long as the border situation is solved and we hold the parents of those DACA kids accountable.  We can't have an immigration system where people know that if they bring kids along with them to this country, that those kids anchor them to the US and they are allowed to stay as well. 

If you were a non-citizen looking in from outside America, you might very well sing a different tune.  I know that I would.  I would be desperate to offer my children opportunity in such a great country.  My Scots Presbyterian ancestors suffered great persecution in northern Ireland, and they fled to Pennsylvania.  When it came time, they took up arms against King George III and Lord North.  We need more such people who yearn to be free.   That is what this country is all about.  We are a nation of immigrants.  We need to stop forgetting that.