The vanguard of the Caravan is already in Mexico City, more than halfway to the border

[Max Rockatansky]

"Have to" as in forced to? Are you seriously asking that question?



Compassion. Assistance. Due process. Humanity. And only because Trump is a worthless, evil piece of shit, planting lies and fear mongering in the minds of ignorant, easily manipulated followers, the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

What does the Constitution say about this?

What does your cat say about this? It's just as relevant a question as the one you just asked.

Yes, and your dodge of the question is noted.

There is no mention of compassion or due process for foreigners outside the US. Nice try.

My cat isn’t covered by the Constitution but the Federal government is required to abide by the Constitution....but LWers obviously dislike the Constituion and seek to ignore it.

 

[PyramidHead]

"Have to" as in forced to? Are you seriously asking that question?



Compassion. Assistance. Due process. Humanity. And only because Trump is a worthless, evil piece of shit, planting lies and fear mongering in the minds of ignorant, easily manipulated followers, the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

What does the Constitution say about this?

What does your cat say about this? It's just as relevant a question as the one you just asked.

Yes, and your dodge of the question is noted.

There is no mention of compassion or due process for foreigners outside the US. Nice try.

The 14th amendment refers to persons, not just citizens. Persons within the jurisdiction of the US cannot be denied due process, even if they are not citizens. This is spelled out explicitly in a sentence that uses both terms:

"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."

This is basically to say the government cannot take away the privileges of its citizens NOR can it deny them to PERSONS. If the terms were synonymous and just meant 'citizen', then the second part of the sentence would not have been included as it would be redundant.

 

[Elixir]

My post is consistent. As noted previously, refugees are limited by geography. Are you saying none of those who’ve come previously nor any on the present group think they have a right to asylum, jobs or anything else? Would you care to amend your claims that none have done so nor will they again?

You have not shown that these migrants are demanding anything. Nor have you shown that hiking to the USA means that they expect the world owes them something.

But I do agree that your post and response are consistent – pure handwaved assertions of fact with no logic nor evidence.

Correct, and I don’t need to. Are you saying we have to let them in? Do we owe them anything? What does the Constitution say about this?

I believe that existing law allows them to apply for asylum/refugee status if they are standing on US soil. Whether the question of how they got here bears on that right seems to be an open question - or more open that it once was.
Obviously "we" don't have to let ANYONE in as long as a xenophobic chief executive with zero regard for laws inhabits the White House. Hell - that guy can even appoint his own sycophant to the top law enforcement position in the Nation without any Senate confirmation or previous experience in such a position, despite constitutional requirements to the contrary! So your questions are moot until those chickens come home to roost.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Can't the Pequot tribe simply sue White America as an ongoing caravan and begin to reclaim territory? They have standing, as in, their lodges used to stand on the Atlantic shoreline. Then, SCOTUS could start to deport various parts of the Caucasian Caravan, beginning with the plainly disease-ridden elements. I would suggest the Drumpfs of Prussia and their descendants as a starting point. Any downsides? Don't we have a SCOTUS that's strong on both property rights and sensible immigration regulations?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, and your dodge of the question is noted.

There is no mention of compassion or due process for foreigners outside the US. Nice try.

The 14th amendment refers to persons, not just citizens. Persons within the jurisdiction of the US cannot be denied due process, even if they are not citizens. This is spelled out explicitly in a sentence that uses both terms:

"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."

This is basically to say the government cannot take away the privileges of its citizens NOR can it deny them to PERSONS. If the terms were synonymous and just meant 'citizen', then the second part of the sentence would not have been included as it would be redundant.

Absolutely correct: “within the jurisdiction”. Not on the Mexican or Canadian side of the border.

 

[Elixir]

"any person within its jurisdiction"

Does not specify that they arrived here "legally", does it? That stipulation is Cheato's own invention.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

"any person within its jurisdiction"

Does not specify that they arrived here "legally", does it? That stipulation is Cheato's own invention.

Correct on both points. The fact remains that foreigners outside our borders don’t have “due process” rights, but that babies born to illegals inside the US are, per the Constitution, US citizens.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, and your dodge of the question is noted.

"Dodge"?

There is no mention of compassion or due process for foreigners outside the US.

First, compassion is what Americans are SUPPOSED to be about. It's not a Constitutional thing; it's a humanity thing. Second, there's this little thing called "google." I suggest you use it. For examples:

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? (Spoiler: Yes, they are)

Substantive Due Process and U.S. Jurisdiction over Foreign Nationals

And, of course, the actual due process for anyone seeking asylum: IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 208 - ASYLUM 1 and the definition(s) of a Refugee under US law.

Why do I quote US law you ask? Because of this fun little codicil in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3:

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

So, since it's US law that we provide asylum seekers with due process and the Constitution specifically requires that the President take care that US laws are "faithfully executed"....see where this is headed yet?

Nice try.

My cat isn’t covered by the Constitution but the Federal government is required to abide by the Constitution

And the relevance of that observation is fish.

....but LWers obviously dislike the Constituion and seek to ignore it.

Do you have a mirror in your basement that you practice in before you post these vacuous comments you obviously think are "sick burns" or something?

 

[Elixir]

"any person within its jurisdiction"

Does not specify that they arrived here "legally", does it? That stipulation is Cheato's own invention.

Correct on both points. The fact remains that foreigners outside our borders don’t have “due process” rights, but that babies born to illegals inside the US are, per the Constitution, US citizens.

Yeah... and I'm not sure that this shouldn't be addressed and further refined. But i AM sure that it can't (shouldn't per the Constitution) be modified by executive order.

 

[skepticalbip]

Correct on both points. The fact remains that foreigners outside our borders don’t have “due process” rights, but that babies born to illegals inside the US are, per the Constitution, US citizens.

Yeah... and I'm not sure that this shouldn't be addressed and further refined. But i AM sure that it can't (shouldn't per the Constitution) be modified by executive order.

Such an executive order would be a method of getting his interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court so they would decide on that amendment's purpose and meaning. It is the same as was done with executive order on the travel ban from specified countries which the Supreme Court ended up agreeing with.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Correct on both points. The fact remains that foreigners outside our borders don’t have “due process” rights, but that babies born to illegals inside the US are, per the Constitution, US citizens.

Yeah... and I'm not sure that this shouldn't be addressed and further refined. But i AM sure that it can't (shouldn't per the Constitution) be modified by executive order.

Such an executive order would be a method of getting his interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court so they would decide on that amendment's purpose and meaning. It is the same as was done with executive order on the travel ban from specified countries which the Supreme Court ended up agreeing with.

The supreme court should reject the request as a waste of time for the supreme court. The interpretation is pretty clear: "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." All 50 states in the US require that all people living in the states are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. IOW, they are required to follow the law, or they will suffer the consequences.

 

[skepticalbip]

Such an executive order would be a method of getting his interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court so they would decide on that amendment's purpose and meaning. It is the same as was done with executive order on the travel ban from specified countries which the Supreme Court ended up agreeing with.

The supreme court should reject the request as a waste of time for the supreme court. The interpretation is pretty clear: "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." All 50 states in the US require that all people living in the states are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. IOW, they are required to follow the law, or they will suffer the consequences.

Not entirely true. A British tourist is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US in matters such as draft status, income tax laws, etc. and any arrest of them for any reason can be challenged by the British government.

 

[Elixir]

... they are required to follow the law, or they will suffer the consequences.

Meh. Consequences are for Demofuckingcrats!

 

[laughing dog]

My post is consistent. As noted previously, refugees are limited by geography. Are you saying none of those who’ve come previously nor any on the present group think they have a right to asylum, jobs or anything else? Would you care to amend your claims that none have done so nor will they again?

You have not shown that these migrants are demanding anything. Nor have you shown that hiking to the USA means that they expect the world owes them something.

But I do agree that your post and response are consistent – pure handwaved assertions of fact with no logic nor evidence.

Correct, and I don’t need to.

So you agree that your claim that these migrants are demanding that the world owes them something is pure handwaved assertions of act with no logic or evidence. And while you certainly do not need to substantiate any claim of fact, no one needs to take your claims seriously either,

Are you saying we have to let them in? Do we owe them anything? What does the Constitution say about this?

Shift the goal posts much? We do not have to do anything. The issue is not what we have to do, but what do we, as a nation, wish to do.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

So you agree that your claim that these migrants are demanding that the world owes them something is pure handwaved assertions of act with no logic or evidence.

No, but it doesn't surprise me that's the conclusion you've drawn.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So you agree that your claim that these migrants are demanding that the world owes them something is pure handwaved assertions of act with no logic or evidence.

No, but it doesn't surprise me that's the conclusion you've drawn.

Based on your recent posting history here, your posts do in fact contain many an unsupported assertion. If you want your posts to move beyond an echo chamber level of persuasion, then it'd be a good idea to post the "logic or evidence," in question, preferably both.

 

[untermensche]

What would you call somebody living in luxury that spits on homeless and hungry migrants?

 

[Patooka]

What would you call somebody living in luxury that spits on homeless and hungry migrants?

A compassionate conservative.

 

[untermensche]

What would you call somebody living in luxury that spits on homeless and hungry migrants?

A compassionate conservative.

Trump lives and has lived in extreme luxury his entire life. Greater luxury than many kings.

All he knows is luxury, extreme luxury.

These migrants to him are nothing but cockroaches.

Most Americans, most humans, are nothing but lowly scum to serve him.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Based on your recent posting history here, your posts do in fact contain many an unsupported assertion....

Prove it.

The fact remains "5,000 to 7,000" are migrating north to the US. Why? If they are fleeing abuse, why not stop in Mexico? Why march 2000 miles when they can just stop in Mexico?...unless they feel the US owes them something or will give them something for free.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/nov/02/heres-latest-migrant-caravans/