LaddyBoy Loc: Queen Mary's Land - Maryland

No not questioning your comment. On the contrary, I support it. I concur. The Pres.? is not restricting entry by infiltrators then he wants to not prosacute or send them back. He does not support our country.

1OldGeezer

Catpaw,
I would tell him and his parents that they had the right to apply for citizenship just like everyone else, perhaps in this case a decision could be made to grant a temporary visa for the parents pending action on the citizenship application on an individual basis.
(an extreme example -did you mean to apply this example to all illegal immigrants? if you did, shame on you for misrepresenting the real immigration situation)

Do you not see a problem presenting an argument by using only exceptions to the rule???? That is usually done when a person doesn't want to acknowledge (or wishes to distort) the actual problem. Which are you ? Be honest and fair in your arguments for your own sake if not for ours.
1oldgeezer

VladimirPee

Actually Obama has not deported more. This is another false left wing talking point. In 5 years Obama has deported about 1.4 million. Bush deported 2 million over 8 years. Obama is on pace to pass Bush but he has not yet. Deporting every single one is no more needed than the IRS auditing every person. You just need to make some examples of some. Start imprisoning a small percent as examples. Many will just leave voluntarily.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

What would I tell that veteran, I would not need to tell them anything other than to thank them for their service. The veteran went into the service, all services require a high school diploma and during that education had to take civics, American History along with other courses to graduate. That veteran is well aware that their "Mom" is not in the country legally and it is only a matter of time when all criminals are caught. Therefore, your argument is a mute point.

Laws are not written for the protection or prosecution of a single person but for the masses. Now if you had read, and the more you talk the more I think you do not read any posts and research the comments, you will see that most of the problem with illegals can be taken care of by attrition. Try thinking with your head and not your now anemic heart (anima sets in when you loose too much blood). Read the solution of depletion by attrition I outlined for you. You may not like it, but the solution is there and does not require a mass export of the criminals you are defending.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Excellent point! :thumbup: :thumbup:

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Nobody is going to separate families? Surely sending the whole family back would keep them together. You seem to think that when they have kids that secures their rights to be here. I feel sorry for you and how you think.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

They surely are criminals so why not just tell him the truth?

Brian Devon

This is America. We don't shoot people fleeing from poverty. As my wife pointed out, people come to this country because no one volunteers to starve. These people will eventually be documented citizens. You, hung by your own words, are a documented sociopath. Their problem will be fixed. Yours won't. Unfortunately this nation has a long history of moral trogladytes bashing immigrants. In the 19th century, these cretins liked to gang up on Jews, Italians, Irish and Chinese. We even once had a "know-nothing party" built on scapegoating people who were "funny talkin" foreigners. Didn't really turn out too well for the bigots. Sorry but it aint gonna turn out any better, this time for you. You people are no better than the goons of the "golden dawn" in Greece. Their government had to teach them some manners. Maybe our government should do the same for you macho, psycho, gun totin rednecks who have no respect for your neighbors!!!!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Good point, it is against the law to shoot someone that is running away. Our founding fathers took a deliberate and unarguable stand for their God-given rights to self-defense and protection of property. As Americans, we have enjoyed that right since the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The right to defend ourselves includes the legal and justifiable right to use deadly force. Though wording is different in each one, every state has self-defense statutes or case law that defines how and when a person can use deadly force. One must abide by the individual state laws, some have an obligation to retreat law, while others simply use court cases, and other states say that if you are or someone else is in such a position that you fear your own or their lives or excessive bodily harm then lethal self defense is your obligation.

It is quite different with the military and government, either federal or state. When you are hired you take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The federal government is given may permissive powers, but only one that is mandatory. That is the defense of the United States. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Duplicate

Brian Devon

Brown skinned people, seeking to avoid starvation, are sure as hell not my enemy NOR the enemy of anybody I know. Yes, these dastardly villains are secretly conniving to pick our produce, become our cooks, wait-staff, nannies, gardeners, and hotel domestics.

Common defense is a term used for war. We are NOT at war with people seeking to better themselves and their families. As Elaine, of Seinfeld, used to say, WHAT THE HELL DID YOUR PARENTS DO TO YOU?"

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Is it that difficult for you to be civil? I ask you to stop, think. Overly emotional people have difficulty in separating facts and formulating logical and informed opinions. I do not want to be harsh or cruel, but you may want to check out the symptoms of Cluster B personality disorders. You may want to discuss this with someone competent to direct you and also you may want to discuss your anger issues.

I simply asked you some civilized questions and presented you with some comparisons. I had no intent of offending you, but to draw your attention to problems within your comment.

Brian Devon

Shocking! Somehow you got a hold of a DSM -V. Spend some more time with it. I'm sure you will find your symptoms cross-referenced under a number of different diagnoses. Start with sociopath. We are NOT at war with our southern neighbors. Watch the news. Read a newspaper. Befriend an undocumented worker.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I am a supporter of Ginny and I don't care for illegal aliens who left leaners like you insist aren't illegals but undocumented workers. Do you have a head count on how many of them are living off our government and not working, at all?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Now that we have the starvation issue out of the way, I will address your other comments.

1. The portion of the Constitution I quoted is not just in the time of war. This is a very common misconception. National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. Now invasion is defined as: in·va·sion [in-vey-zhuhn]
noun

1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.

2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.

3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun

4. infringement by intrusion

The last concern of what my parents did to me. Well, they taught me manners. They taught me to be respectful, they taught me how to love, they taught me to be calm in face of anger, they taught me to listen with an open mind, they taught me the need to stop and think before taking action our speaking, they taught me to look at all sides of issues before claiming one as my own, they taught me patience, and they taught me how to read, write, and speak with clarity. They taught me right from wrong, how to manage my finances, how to handle problems without anger. They gave me love, a home, enough latitude to form opinions, comfort, encouragement, an education, and the fellowship of the synagogue. They disciplined me when I broke the rules, and their discipline was not corporal punishment. So, what did my parents do to me they were parents. Something that many of our youth can not claim.

I hope that this answers your questions regarding my personal life, although I did consider your remark as inappropriate and bordered on intrusion of my privacy.