Candidate for Arizona utility commission wants to cut off utilities of illegals

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The Constitution very clearly states which rights belong expressly to citizens and which rights belong to people. Claiming that someone who isn't a citizen doesn't have Constitutional rights is not correct.

worlock77

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

"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.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] I don't see anything in the constitution pertaining to their rights as illegals..

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

"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.

"Meh"? You're shown to be wrong and your response is "meh"?

"The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" - namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law." ..because the children had no choice as to their legal status.. And "because discrimination on the basis of immigration status did not further a substantial state interest"..In regards to this law they believe it may further their interests as a state..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Of course the proponents of this idea believe it will further their state interests; however, I see no substantial difference between this proposed law and the law barring children from receiving education. In both cases illegal immigrants were or will be barred from receiving a public service based on their status as illegal immigrants, in violation of the equal protections clause. As I already said, there are already legal venues by which illegal immigrants may be dealt with, which renders tenuous any attempted case that there is a compelling reason to allow this.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

"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.

worlock77

"Meh"? You're shown to be wrong and your response is "meh"?

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]"The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and imposed its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" - namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law." ..because the children had no choice as to their legal status.. And "because discrimination on the basis of immigration status did not further a substantial state interest"..In regards to this law they believe it may further their interests as a state..GabuEx

Of course the proponents of this idea believe it will further their state interests; however, I see no substantial difference between this proposed law and the law barring children from receiving education. In both cases illegal immigrants were or will be barred from receiving a public service based on their status as illegal immigrants, in violation of the equal protections clause. As I already said, there are already legal venues by which illegal immigrants may be dealt with, which renders tenuous any attempted case that there is a compelling reason to allow this.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]"The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and imposed its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" - namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law." ..because the children had no choice as to their legal status.. And "because discrimination on the basis of immigration status did not further a substantial state interest"..In regards to this law they believe it may further their interests as a state..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Of course the proponents of this idea believe it will further their state interests; however, I see no substantial difference between this proposed law and the law barring children from receiving education. In both cases illegal immigrants were or will be barred from receiving a public service based on their status as illegal immigrants, in violation of the equal protections clause. As I already said, there are already legal venues by which illegal immigrants may be dealt with, which renders tenuous any attempted case that there is a compelling reason to allow this.

When i was a kid, i was always confused as to why there were "americans" or "canadians" or "mexicans".

"But...we're all the same, aren't we?"

Anyway..

Illegal or not...they are still people...they deserve to have like...you know...utilities just as much as the next schmuck.

Ah, i see where you're coming from...but i feel it's unfair to legal residents of the US to have to pay higher rates in regards to their utilities because of the illegals..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

They're not paying higher rates because of illegal immigrants; they're paying higher rates because of more customers who happen to be illegal immigrants. Let's be clear about this: these illegal immigrants are not stealing their utilities. They're paid for like anyone else's utilities.

You could make the same argument - and the argument was made, I'm sure - that the illegal immigrant children participating in the education system raised the tax burden on legal residents of the US... but that argument clearly did not hold water.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Ah, i see where you're coming from...but i feel it's unfair to legal residents of the US to have to pay higher rates in regards to their utilities because of the illegals..

GabuEx

They're not paying higher rates because of illegal immigrants; they're paying higher rates because of more customers who happen to be illegal immigrants. You could make the same argument - and the argument was made, I'm sure - that the illegal immigrant children participating in the education system raised the tax burden on legal residents of the US... but that argument clearly did not hold water.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]"The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and imposed its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" - namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law." ..because the children had no choice as to their legal status.. And "because discrimination on the basis of immigration status did not further a substantial state interest"..In regards to this law they believe it may further their interests as a state..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Of course the proponents of this idea believe it will further their state interests; however, I see no substantial difference between this proposed law and the law barring children from receiving education. In both cases illegal immigrants were or will be barred from receiving a public service based on their status as illegal immigrants, in violation of the equal protections clause. As I already said, there are already legal venues by which illegal immigrants may be dealt with, which renders tenuous any attempted case that there is a compelling reason to allow this.

If anything more people buying into a service means more revenue going to the service provider which makes it more affordable to everyone buying into that service. You why Wal-Mart is able to offer the low prices that it does? Because it deals in such huge volume.

You know what, i agree that instead of doing something like this the authorities should probably be contacted, but in the meantime, i totally support this.

Way to go Arizona.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't see anything in the constitution pertaining to their rights as illegals..

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

GabuEx

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't see anything in the constitution pertaining to their rights as illegals..

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

topsemag55

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

Seeing as we deem them as a war hecould be treated as a PoW and should be put on trial for warcrimes under the UN.. That being said he is at least subject to the geneva convention, luckily Obama has already banned torture.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

sSubZerOo

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

Seeing as we deem them as a war hecould be treated as a PoW and should be put on trial for warcrimes under the UN.. That being said he is at least subject to the geneva convention, luckily Obama has already banned torture.

He's not fighting in another country's armed forces, doesn't qualify for POW status.

That's just totally wrong. You cannot equate him to our soldiers in any way, shape, or form.

I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

topsemag55

Captured enemy combatants in a wartime situation is a sticky scenario for which I'm not completely familiar regarding the applicable legal precedent, but as this is clearly not a case where the persons in question are enemy combatants, which makes what might or might not happen to bin Laden kind of irrelevant. The point is that the legal status of a person's presence in the United States does not have any implications on what Constitutional rights are afforded to that person. The Constitution does set aside certain rights applicable only to citizens, but these are in the minority, and are not applicable here.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

topsemag55

Seeing as we deem them as a war hecould be treated as a PoW and should be put on trial for warcrimes under the UN.. That being said he is at least subject to the geneva convention, luckily Obama has already banned torture.

He's not fighting in another country's armed forces, doesn't qualify for POW status.

That's just totally wrong. You cannot equate him to our soldiers in any way, shape, or form.

I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

..... Its not whether he is a terrorist or not its about upholding values even when its a inconvience.. And yet again I am merely pointing out the fact that the United States has consistently declared that they are at "war" with them.. Not ot mention the US is not the only country his organization has attacked.....

.. Conservatives in this regard seem to throw any form of ideals or rules when it becomes a inconvience.. The whole torture point was this... Yeah who cares if it goes against everything we stand for as a nation, being illegal under geneva convention, is highly ineffective, and can lead to the innocent incriminating them selves with false information just to make the pain stop.. It seems to me your mistakening peopel who are willing to uphold the values and the like that they believe in, even when its a severe incovience..

I think its pretty stupid, especially since they pay for the utilities. Maybe if it was a free service.

I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

topsemag55

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Seeing as we deem them as a war hecould be treated as a PoW and should be put on trial for warcrimes under the UN.. That being said he is at least subject to the geneva convention, luckily Obama has already banned torture.

sSubZerOo

He's not fighting in another country's armed forces, doesn't qualify for POW status.

That's just totally wrong. You cannot equate him to our soldiers in any way, shape, or form.

I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

..... Its not whether he is a terrorist or not its about upholding values even when its a inconvience.. And yet again I am merely pointing out the fact that the United States has consistently declared that they are at "war" with them.. Not ot mention the US is not the only country his organization has attacked.....

.. Conservatives in this regard seem to throw any form of ideals or rules when it becomes a inconvience.. The whole torture point was this... Yeah who cares if it goes against everything we stand for as a nation, being illegal under geneva convention, is highly ineffective, and can lead to the innocent incriminating them selves with false information just to make the pain stop.. It seems to me your mistakening peopel who are willing to uphold the values and the like that they believe in, even when its a severe incovience..

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't see anything in the constitution pertaining to their rights as illegals..

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

topsemag55

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

Hello topsemag55, meet Mr. Strawman.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

StopThePresses

I find it hilarious as well that upholding values and ideals some how equates to tolerance of terrorism.. No sane person tolerates terrorism, that doesn't some how mean you should sacrifice every ideal and value because its a inconvience.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

worlock77

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

Hello topsemag55, meet Mr. Strawman.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Enemy combatant =/= POW

He's not fighting in another country's armed forces, doesn't qualify for POW status.

That's just totally wrong. You cannot equate him to our soldiers in any way, shape, or form.

I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

StopThePresses

..... Its not whether he is a terrorist or not its about upholding values even when its a inconvience.. And yet again I am merely pointing out the fact that the United States has consistently declared that they are at "war" with them.. Not ot mention the US is not the only country his organization has attacked.....

.. Conservatives in this regard seem to throw any form of ideals or rules when it becomes a inconvience.. The whole torture point was this... Yeah who cares if it goes against everything we stand for as a nation, being illegal under geneva convention, is highly ineffective, and can lead to the innocent incriminating them selves with false information just to make the pain stop.. It seems to me your mistakening peopel who are willing to uphold the values and the like that they believe in, even when its a severe incovience..

Well just the extreme conservative right such as the Bush Adminstration.. I do not like stereotyping a whole group of people, because many conservatives arnt' like that..

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

worlock77

Wait, Gabu. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden was captured and placed into Guantanamo, he would have our Constitutional rights? Come on...

Hello topsemag55, meet Mr. Strawman.

No, I actually do think it's a valid question from a legal standpoint, and I should have qualified my statement a little; that is, however, a qualification that doesn't change anything in this situation.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]I don't understand the left at all - you want to give terrorists tolerance, but never a conservative.:?

sSubZerOo

I find it hilarious as well that upholding values and ideals some how equates to tolerance of terrorism.. No sane person tolerates terrorism, that doesn't some how mean you should sacrifice every ideal and value because its a inconvience.

Uh huh lets lower the standard of living to a point in may endanger an illegal's family including children.... Obama seems to have the only one recently providing a good starter solution.. By making a standardized employee card in which businesses or peopee who hire people with out the cards are penalized.. Illegals would not be flourishing here if it weren't for the fact that there are businesses willing to break the law for cheap labor.sSubZerOo

I oppose any national identification card requirement. It is heinous and to require people to line up at a federal office to get their "permission to work" card is highly offensive. We citizens should not be inconvenience for the sake of immigration enforcement. What we need to do is militarize the Mexican border and use landmines to plug the holes. Furthermore, we should make life for illegal aliens so difficult and so intolerable that they stop coming. Cut off their utilities. Don't allow them to use health facilities. Don't allow them to rent homes or apartments. When they're found, toss them into the Mexican desert.

..... Its not whether he is a terrorist or not its about upholding values even when its a inconvience.. And yet again I am merely pointing out the fact that the United States has consistently declared that they are at "war" with them.. Not ot mention the US is not the only country his organization has attacked.....

.. Conservatives in this regard seem to throw any form of ideals or rules when it becomes a inconvience.. The whole torture point was this... Yeah who cares if it goes against everything we stand for as a nation, being illegal under geneva convention, is highly ineffective, and can lead to the innocent incriminating them selves with false information just to make the pain stop.. It seems to me your mistakening peopel who are willing to uphold the values and the like that they believe in, even when its a severe incovience..

sSubZerOo

You conveniently skipped my last part. Why won't you give tolerance to a conservative? It nullifies all your beliefs since you do not.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Uh huh lets lower the standard of living to a point in may endanger an illegal's family including children.... Obama seems to have the only one recently providing a good starter solution.. By making a standardized employee card in which businesses or peopee who hire people with out the cards are penalized.. Illegals would not be flourishing here if it weren't for the fact that there are businesses willing to break the law for cheap labor.dkrustyklown

I oppose any national identification card requirement. It is heinous and to require people to line up at a federal office to get their "permission to work" card is highly offensive. We citizens should not be inconvenience for the sake of immigration enforcement. What we need to do is militarize the Mexican border and use landmines to plug the holes. Furthermore, we should make life for illegal aliens so difficult and so intolerable that they stop coming. Cut off their utilities. Don't allow them to use health facilities. Don't allow them to rent homes or apartments. When they're found, toss them into the Mexican desert.

.. Most jobs require a social security number, as well as other proof of identity.. So I think yoru complaint is extremely unfounded.. The point being is your going to hurt more peopel in the end.. And it still won't stop them from coming, the only reason why they come is because businesses are willing to break the law.. This is not the illegal immigrants fault, this is the fault of businesses.. So if there is any one you should blame its the businesses that are willing to illegally hire people for slave wages.. What your essentially doing is punishing and killing desperate people with your startegy.. Much like punishing the person that is starving.. Do you honestly think these people were willing to risk their lives in crossing the border ofr anything less? Many of these people are children.. Are you willling to have children killed by these landmines?

You conveniently skipped my last part. Why won't you give tolerance to a conservative? It nullifies all your beliefs since you do not.

topsemag55

This is beginning to sound a lot like that other argument we had...

Arguing that one's Constitutional rights should not be abridged when punishing that person is not the same as affirming that what one does should be tolerated.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

..... Its not whether he is a terrorist or not its about upholding values even when its a inconvience.. And yet again I am merely pointing out the fact that the United States has consistently declared that they are at "war" with them.. Not ot mention the US is not the only country his organization has attacked.....

.. Conservatives in this regard seem to throw any form of ideals or rules when it becomes a inconvience.. The whole torture point was this... Yeah who cares if it goes against everything we stand for as a nation, being illegal under geneva convention, is highly ineffective, and can lead to the innocent incriminating them selves with false information just to make the pain stop.. It seems to me your mistakening peopel who are willing to uphold the values and the like that they believe in, even when its a severe incovience..

topsemag55

You conveniently skipped my last part. Why won't you give tolerance to a conservative? It nullifies all your beliefs since you do not.

Tolerance of conservatives? I am sorry where did I say all conservatives were not allowed to live, all ocnservatives were not allowed to serve or what not? I am more pointing out the recent change in the neo cosnervative with the Bush Adminstration.. You mistaken me I see the Republican party a neccesary foil to teh Democratic party.. I infact don't affiliate my self with either side, but when it comes with this I certainly do not support the ridiculous rhetoric of the neo conservatives. And I think I misunderstood yoru statement.. I thought youw ere suggesting that a conservative actually holds up and never should tolerate the terorrist..When I was pointing out that it is often tiems the exact opposite.. And democrats never tolerate terrorism yet again, no sane person does.. That doesn't mean you should cross lines put in place just because they happen to be terrorists.

Are you willling to have children killed by these landmines?

sSubZerOo

Why, yes, I am. If they're trying to cross a militarized border without authorization, then sure, they deserve to have some ordinance detonate on their position, no matter who they are. If someone steps onto a field that is clearly labelled, "DANGER: Landmines; AVISO: Minas", then they deserve to blow up.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Are you willling to have children killed by these landmines?

dkrustyklown

Why, yes, I am. If they're trying to cross a militarized border without authorization, then sure, they deserve to have some ordinance detonate on their position, no matter who they are. If someone steps onto a field that is clearly labelled, "DANGER: Landmines; AVISO: Minas", then they deserve to blow up.

So your suggesting 5 year olds, babies and the like its their fault for being there?:| Your argument is logically and morally bankrupt.

.. Most jobs require a social security number, as well as other proof of identity..

sSubZerOo

A # is not a card. I have my SSN memorized, and the piece of paper that it is printed on is buried in a filing cabinet. I have never had to show that card to anyone. The # and my driver's license suffice.

So your suggesting 5 year olds, babies and the like its their fault for being there?:| Your argument is logically and morally bankrupt.

sSubZerOo

So you're suggesting that 5 year olds and babies are jumping the fences or swimming the Rio Grande? Your argument is devoid of truth and logic.

And, yes, if a family is so stupid that they would allow their five year old or their baby to wander into a minefield, then they deserve what they get and the human gene pool will be better off for it.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

So your suggesting 5 year olds, babies and the like its their fault for being there?:| Your argument is logically and morally bankrupt.

dkrustyklown

So you're suggesting that 5 year olds and babies are jumping the fences or swimming the Rio Grande? Your argument is devoid of truth and logic.

And, yes, if a family is so stupid that they would allow their five year old or their baby to wander into a minefield, then they deserve what they get and the human gene pool will be better off for it.

Actually it is your argument that is devoid of truth and fact.. Families constantly climb over, the children do not have a say or what not.. So what yoru suggesting is your policy should kill not only the parent but the children that were completely ignorant of it. And desperation can drive people to new levels.. Yet again this policy is not worth it if one child is killed from it, they had no control of it and its immoral.

I guess it never occured to you that these adults bring children in tow :|

Actually it is your argument that is devoid of truth and fact.. Families constantly climb over, the children do not have a say or what not.. So what yoru suggesting is your policy should kill not only the parent but the children that were completely ignorant of it. And desperation can drive people to new levels.. Yet again this policy is not worth it if one child is killed from it, they had no control of it and its immoral.

I guess it never occured to you that these adults bring children in tow :|

sSubZerOo

If there were landmines, they wouldn't attempt to cross, however. Like I said earlier, anyone that sees a sign labelled, "AVISO MINAS", and continues walking deserves to blow up. If someone blows up on a landmine while carrying a child, then it is still his or her fault. If a man or woman runs out into interstate highway traffic while carrying a child and they end up getting themselves killed, then it's still their fault.

Lay the mines down on the border and people will cease walking over the areas that are mined. That's all there is too it. It's so simple, yet everyone has such a difficult time understanding it. Lay the mines down on the border and no one in their right minds will venture across. The most difficult borders to cross are the heavily mined ones. I wonder why that is? :roll:

This whole idea, if you ask me, is the shoestring-and-gum approach to fixing a problem; it's a temporary fix that doesn't address the root of the issue. Why is it that we're more concerned with the fact that they're coming here illegally rather than the reason that they're coming here illegally? Why don't we try to be a little less near-sighted people?jalexbrown

Because people like Krust would rather not the businesses be punished nor have a extra card for work for identification.. Instead he wants to landmine our border which can lead to the loss of life, including children..

Well, I don't wish any harm to illegals, but I still think the left is more sensitive to them than their own countrymen, just because the political standpoint is opposite to theirs.

It's as though there's a bit of truth to the JibJab short "Good to Be in D.C.", where Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are holding up a "Kerry/Edwards" sign.:P:lol:

Well, I don't wish any harm to illegals, but I still think the left is more sensitive to them than their own countrymen, just because the political standpoint is opposite to theirs.

topsemag55

Well it seems to me that it's difficult to stand up for the Constitutional rights of those whose Constitutional rights are not being violated in any way, shape, or form.

This whole idea, if you ask me, is the shoestring-and-gum approach to fixing a problem; it's a temporary fix that doesn't address the root of the issue. Why is it that we're more concerned with the fact that they're coming here illegally rather than the reason that they're coming here illegally? Why don't we try to be a little less near-sighted people?jalexbrown

I guess because its their country(mexico Im talking about) and americans wants them for them to fix their own country instead of them doing it. But I really doubt mexicans are going to do about it and America will leave it be as a corrupt nation. nothing will get fix, like you said, if you don't if you dont go to the root of the problem.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Actually it is your argument that is devoid of truth and fact.. Families constantly climb over, the children do not have a say or what not.. So what yoru suggesting is your policy should kill not only the parent but the children that were completely ignorant of it. And desperation can drive people to new levels.. Yet again this policy is not worth it if one child is killed from it, they had no control of it and its immoral.

I guess it never occured to you that these adults bring children in tow :|

dkrustyklown

If there were landmines, they wouldn't attempt to cross,

............Uhh that is a ascertion that isn't true.. And its assumption..

however. Like I said earlier, anyone that sees a sign labelled, "AVISO MINAS",

See thats the thing about kids and infants they do not have control with what their parents do or whats happenign.. Desperation can lead people to new levels in trying to get across.. They are already risking their lives..

and continues walking deserves to blow up.

yet again children and infants do not have a say with this,t hey go where their parents are..

If someone blows up on a landmine while carrying a child, then it is still his or her fault.

I wasn't aware young children and infants were responsible whre they ended up..

If a man or woman runs out into interstate highway traffic while carrying a child and they end up getting themselves killed, then it's still their fault.

We try to avoid such things with said fences and such things.. spreading landmines acorss the field doesn't some how equate to the same comparison..

Lay the mines down on the border and people will cease walking over the areas that are mined.

Your silly to assume that it will not be tried..

That's all there is too it. It's so simple, yet everyone has such a difficult time understanding it. Lay the mines down on the border and no one in their right minds will venture across. The most difficult borders to cross are the heavily mined ones. I wonder why that is? :roll:

Maybe becasue we value human life and the like far more instead of being inconvienced alittle in life to getting a extra card to stop the businesses who are brekaign the law.. Yeah they are also warzones to stop troops, not desperate civilians.. You maybe able to live with it, but I certainly can't.. If me going a hour out of my way to get an extra card which will better police the bussinesses willing to breka the law and hire illegals at slave wages.. And avoid something like this that will undoubtably lead to the possibility of loss of human life including children that were not responsible.. Then yes..

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]This whole idea, if you ask me, is the shoestring-and-gum approach to fixing a problem; it's a temporary fix that doesn't address the root of the issue. Why is it that we're more concerned with the fact that they're coming here illegally rather than the reason that they're coming here illegally? Why don't we try to be a little less near-sighted people?sSubZerOo

Because people like Krust would rather not the businesses be punished nor have a extra card for work for identification.. Instead he wants to landmine our border which can lead to the loss of life, including children..

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]This whole idea, if you ask me, is the shoestring-and-gum approach to fixing a problem; it's a temporary fix that doesn't address the root of the issue. Why is it that we're more concerned with the fact that they're coming here illegally rather than the reason that they're coming here illegally? Why don't we try to be a little less near-sighted people?TheShadowLord07

I guess because its their country(mexico Im talking about) and americans wants them for them to fix their own country instead of them doing it. But I really doubt mexicans are going to do about it and America will leave it be as a corrupt nation. nothing will get fix, like you said, if you don't if you dont go to the root of the problem.

Its also extremely ignorant and arrogant to suggest that its as simple as people just "fixing" the country.. Most are just trying to get by in tryign to suppor ttheir family, going against the cartel means they put their family in danger..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]This whole idea, if you ask me, is the shoestring-and-gum approach to fixing a problem; it's a temporary fix that doesn't address the root of the issue. Why is it that we're more concerned with the fact that they're coming here illegally rather than the reason that they're coming here illegally? Why don't we try to be a little less near-sighted people?jalexbrown

Because people like Krust would rather not the businesses be punished nor have a extra card for work for identification.. Instead he wants to landmine our border which can lead to the loss of life, including children..

Yeah I guess ethics fly out the window when it becomes a personal inconvience to them.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Well, I don't wish any harm to illegals, but I still think the left is more sensitive to them than their own countrymen, just because the political standpoint is opposite to theirs.

GabuEx

Well it seems to me that it's difficult to stand up for the Constitutional rights of those whose Constitutional rights are not being violated in any way, shape, or form.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Well, I don't wish any harm to illegals, but I still think the left is more sensitive to them than their own countrymen, just because the political standpoint is opposite to theirs.

StopThePresses

Well it seems to me that it's difficult to stand up for the Constitutional rights of those whose Constitutional rights are not being violated in any way, shape, or form.

Both party are guilty of hypocrisy, its silly to suggest that one party is some how the moral superior or what not.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]forcefully depriving them of human needs is not the way to go. ferrari2001

We try to avoid such things with said fences and such things.. spreading landmines acorss the field doesn't some how equate to the same comparison..sSubZerOo

Interstate=dangerous territory to cross on foot. Landmine=dangerous territory to cross on foot. Same thing.

Your silly to assume that it will not be tried..sSubZerOo

You're silly to dismiss the efficacy of brute force. It really is the simplest solution.

Maybe becasue we value human life and the like far more instead of being inconvienced alittle in life to getting a extra card to stop the businesses who are brekaign the law.. Yeah they are also warzones to stop troops, not desperate civilians.. You maybe able to live with it, but I certainly can't.. If me going a hour out of my way to get an extra card which will better police the bussinesses willing to breka the law and hire illegals at slave wages.. And avoid something like this that will undoubtably lead to the possibility of loss of human life including children that were not responsible.. Then yes..

sSubZerOo

I value my convenience more than the lives of criminals who enter this country illegally. You might be willing to sacrifice some of your time in order that illegal aliens be kept out peacefully, but I'm not. If I have to choose between my spare time and the life of a criminal, I choose to keep my time. I'm the type of person that wouldn't think twice about gunning a burglar or vandal down.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Having access to such is an inherent human right?Stevo_the_gamer

To me it seems like people are mistakening people who do not support the methods being used as sympathic to illegals.. This just isn't true, the point being is the problem is caused by two reasons.. A) Desperation, Mexico is a extremely poor and corrupt place.. This should be expected that this were to happen.. B) Businesses are willing to break the law and illegally hire said illegals for slave wages.. Now the first problem is not only harder to achieve but its also more expensive in helping the nation.. Which leaves B, something that politicans conviently hardly talk about intil recently.. These illegals wouldn't be risking their lives crossing the borders if there were not businesses and peopel willing to breka the law in hiring them.