troutfiend1985 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 The diffrence flytyer is this, The Republican ( or Libetarian,Dem,green party member, etc..) is an American, and thus by vitue of that fact, has constituional rights and due process. There is a way again, to legaly come to this nation, and the convicted party did not take that path, which makes this even more of a tragedy. Also, the fact that an individual was granted rights that should only be granted to a LEGAL citizen is IMO, just plane scarry and should alarm any level thinking person. I can't help but think that my forefathers who fought so valiently for this country, are rolling in their graves when it comes to these sort of issues. Sad ! Here's the real easy way to shoot down this theory. Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That's due process boys and girls. That whole "person" thing, rather than "citizen" is used. Makes you think huh? I would imagine that retribution is important to this family, this guy is being tried for a case in which the wrong occurred in the US. Thus, I would, and apparently some old dead guys, would rather give him DP of law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
flytyer57 Posted April 29, 2011 Author Posted April 29, 2011 I can't help but think that my forefathers who fought so valiently for this country, are rolling in their graves when it comes to these sort of issues. Sad ! Perhaps not all of your forefathers entered this country legally and fought so valiently for the rights of non-citizens to become citizens as they have. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
troutfiend1985 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Perhaps not all of your forefathers entered this country legally and fought so valiently for the rights of non-citizens to become citizens as they have. I think the proofs in the pudding. If you don't think that an illegal immigrant who is being tried in a US court has rights, then read the Constitution. I garauntee that you will find some clauses only apply to "citizens" and that some apply to "persons" or "people." This isn't a red/blue elephant or donkey argument mind you, this is simple reading of the constitution. “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
KATroutman13 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Troutfiend, Thank you very much, for bringing that point out. A point which is obvious to most people who have actually read the Constitution rather than misquote it. P -- Most of your "forefathers" did not "fight" at all, but sent other, poor, iliterate illegal immigrants to fight for this country.
Guest P. owensby Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Here's the real easy way to shoot down this theory. Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That's due process boys and girls. That whole "person" thing, rather than "citizen" is used. Makes you think huh? I would imagine that retribution is important to this family, this guy is being tried for a case in which the wrong occurred in the US. Thus, I would, and apparently some old dead guys, would rather give him DP of law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You totally ingnored that fact that he was here illigally, but it seems pretty obious that you think entry in this country is a swinging door. And I think as far as the old dead guy's refrence, I think they would be on my side. I just love how individuials will skip past the fact that the first act they commit here in this country is a crime, and IGNORE facts such as the his butt shouldn't of been here at all, but I guess you are going to point out next that the offence of crossing the border illegally is just a misdamenor, thus no big deal right? Right.
troutfiend1985 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Troutfiend, Thank you very much, for bringing that point out. A point which is obvious to most people who have actually read the Constitution rather than misquote it. P -- Most of your "forefathers" did not "fight" at all, but sent other, poor, iliterate illegal immigrants to fight for this country. This whole schooling thing has to pay off at some point right There was a case, I want to say San Antonio School Disctrict, that held public schools cannot deny a child of an illegal immigrant the right to go to school. Anyways, If you guys listen to talk radio on political issues, read the constitution. Read it a few times, and make sure you get an idea of what it means. This is why I don't listen to talk radio. They babble, misqoute and misrepresent the actual terms of our constitution. I had the misfortune to listen to one of these guys for an hour because my girlfriend loves to listen/watch them on tv. The guy qouted the declaration of independence as the constitution. Give me a break. And then she was watching some liberal talker on tv who qouted the preamble to the constitution, and then acted like it was binding. If you're on here, that means you have internet access, which means that you can read the constitution for free. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Before you want to qoute something as being constitutional or not, read it. If a talking head, be it red or blue, says somethings unconstitutional, read it. Inform yourselves. “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
Guest P. owensby Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Troutfiend, Thank you very much, for bringing that point out. A point which is obvious to most people who have actually read the Constitution rather than misquote it. P -- Most of your "forefathers" did not "fight" at all, but sent other, poor, iliterate illegal immigrants to fight for this country. And anyone who assume's that they know who or what contribution's my family has made or in you're perception not made,is off base when it comes to service to this great nation, I wouldn't make that leap. You would definetly would have a Tiger by the tail, So I would tread lightly! By the way, I would never assume anything spcically or question you're family or their merits without personally knowing otherwise. UNREAL !!!!
troutfiend1985 Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 You totally ingnored that fact that he was here illigally, but it seems pretty obious that you think entry in this country is a swinging door. And I think as far as the old dead guy's refrence, I think they would be on my side. I just love how individuials will skip past the fact that the first act they commit here in this country is a crime, and IGNORE facts such as the his butt shouldn't of been here at all, but I guess you are going to point out next that the offence of crossing the border illegally is just a misdamenor, thus no big deal right? Right. PO, I'm going to state this in as nice of terms as I can. READ THE CONSTITUTION. What noun does the 5th Amendment begin with, "person" as oppose to "citizen" like in the 14th Amendment, or in a lot of other clauses and amendments. As for your reference to our forefathers being on your side, ask yourself who wrote the constitution. Then ask yourself whether the news journalists and radio hosts wrote or have even read the constitution or a case interpreting it, or know what the commerce clause is, or what Due Process stands for. I posted the link in the last one. Find something in that text, or case law, which gives you some authority for your stance. I believe the issue is "Whether a person, lacking the qualification as a citizen of the United States, being tried in a court of the United States, has constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment." Have fun with that. “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
flytyer57 Posted April 29, 2011 Author Posted April 29, 2011 And anyone who assume's that they know who or what contribution's my family has made or in you're perception not made,is off base when it comes to service to this great nation, I wouldn't make that leap. You would definetly would have a Tiger by the tail, So I would tread lightly! By the way, I would never assume anything spcically or question you're family or their merits without personally knowing otherwise. UNREAL !!!! You are the one who brought your forefathers into the equation. Call me a "birther." Can you provide proof positive that your forefathers came to this country legally? Can you provide proof positive that all your forefathers served this country to deny the rights of others to enter this country? Can you provide proof positive that you are in this country legally? There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Guest P. owensby Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 This whole schooling thing has to pay off at some point right There was a case, I want to say San Antonio School Disctrict, that held public schools cannot deny a child of an illegal immigrant the right to go to school. Anyways, If you guys listen to talk radio on political issues, read the constitution. Read it a few times, and make sure you get an idea of what it means. This is why I don't listen to talk radio. They babble, misqoute and misrepresent the actual terms of our constitution. I had the misfortune to listen to one of these guys for an hour because my girlfriend loves to listen/watch them on tv. The guy qouted the declaration of independence as the constitution. Give me a break. And then she was watching some liberal talker on tv who qouted the preamble to the constitution, and then acted like it was binding. If you're on here, that means you have internet access, which means that you can read the constitution for free. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Before you want to qoute something as being constitutional or not, read it. If a talking head, be it red or blue, says somethings unconstitutional, read it. Inform yourselves. By the way Troutfriend, (since you are an oracle on immigration) what are you're solutions to the problem? It is real easy to pontificate on a subject but what are you're recommondations to fix the problems? I'd really like to here you're take on the history that has led us up to this point and who is to blame? Like I said yesterday, it is a bi-partisan problem, but I seem to be the only one who point's that out. Here, lets just cut to the chase when it comes to this issue. Republicans want them here for the cheap labor and shame on them. And the left wants them here for the votes because anyone who does not have their head up their butt realizes that the left panders to the disenstablished. And who losses, the vast majority of Americans. But I bet you're Marxist butt professor won't discuss that.
Recommended Posts