RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses

RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 9:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I was under the impression that the Fourteenth Amendment was drawn up to give full citizenship to freed slaves in 1868. That's what we were taught in grammer school. Does anyone in here think that it was crafted under President Grant's Administration to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who sneak into our country? And it certainly needs to be clarified so that it is not used as a loophole by criminals. quote: 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. Nope. They meant ALL persons BORN here. Doesn't matter whom. If you want it changed, Amend the Constitution.

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 9:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Amy Goodman of Democracy Now is an award winning journalist whose broadcast is listener supported... Translation: Her audience is too small to allow her to exist in a market based economy. Looks to me like The Market is providing for Democracy Now just fine. The People are The Market. Sometimes, given the perverted nature of broadcast media in the US today, we forget that the PRODUCT shouldn't be our attention, but that WE own the fucking airwaves.

Sinergy -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 9:42:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I was under the impression that the Fourteenth Amendment was drawn up to give full citizenship to freed slaves in 1868. That's what we were taught in grammer school. Does anyone in here think that it was crafted under President Grant's Administration to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who sneak into our country? And it certainly needs to be clarified so that it is not used as a loophole by criminals. quote: 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. Nope. They meant ALL persons BORN here. Doesn't matter whom. If you want it changed, Amend the Constitution. Of course, one would have to have probable cause to detain them and THEN determine their citizenship. Prior to determining their citizenship, they are considered under the protection of constitutional guarantees. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 9:42:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Oh and my papers are in my pocket right where the law of the land requires them to be. Please provide a citation showing me that to be the Law of The Land. I believe it is in Title 32 which applies to military Not everyone That's HARDLY "The Law of The Land", is it? PLEASE restrain yourself in your use of completely incorrect legal theory, ok?

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 9:44:23 PM)
quote: 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 clause extends those constitutional limits on federal authority to ALL people, regardless of citizenship. P.S.: Gitmo is US Jurisdiction. ( From Cuba-America Treaty... ARTICLE III While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas...

popeye1250 -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 9:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I was under the impression that the Fourteenth Amendment was drawn up to give full citizenship to freed slaves in 1868. That's what we were taught in grammer school. Does anyone in here think that it was crafted under President Grant's Administration to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who sneak into our country? And it certainly needs to be clarified so that it is not used as a loophole by criminals. quote: 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. Nope. They meant ALL persons BORN here. Doesn't matter whom. If you want it changed, Amend the Constitution. Fargle, I don't think that would "require" an Amendment. A few words should do it and yes I do want it changed. And I think more than 90 % of Americans would want it changed as well. What does it require for an Amendment, 2/3 of the states? I don't think that would be a problem at all! Maybe Calif, N.Y., Mass and Florida wouldn't go for it but that leaves 46 states that would. We obviously cannot have giant loopholes in our laws being exploited by foreign nationals.

WyrdRich -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:01:22 PM)
Completely typical of your 'enlightened, liberal' attitudes, Julia. I point out that your source serves a limited audience of people who agree with her, you reply with a savage personal attack on me. Don't bother trying to spin it around with your alcoholic-pothead-addict (or whatever). Your tactics clearly demonstrate who is without character. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Amy Goodman of Democracy Now is an award winning journalist whose broadcast is listener supported... Translation: Her audience is too small to allow her to exist in a market based economy. Translation, she has values and has not sold them out for a buck like the corporate whore journalists.. but one would have to have values to understand something so complex

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Fargle, I don't think that would "require" an Amendment. All changes to the powers delegated by The People to the inferior Federal government must be codified by Amendment. And if you're sure it's wanted, then by all means, lobby for it. BUT. Do not presume to give the Federal government more authority without going through the proper procedure. If it's IMPORTANT ENOUGH to spend our taxes on, it's important enough for an Amendment, isn't it?

juliaoceania -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:04:57 PM)
I know rich, waaa waaa waaa, you can only dish it out and whine when you have to take it.

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:08:15 PM)
quote: Completely typical of your 'enlightened, liberal' attitudes, Julia. I point out that your source serves a limited audience of people who agree with her If you have Satellite or Cable, you have access to her show. That said, her potential audience is exactly as broad as ny other broadcast channel. So, doesn't EVERY source serve a "limited audience", and as to that audience being comprised of people who only agree? If you grant that to be true of ALL sources, then perhaps....

popeye1250 -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:08:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Completely typical of your 'enlightened, liberal' attitudes, Julia. I point out that your source serves a limited audience of people who agree with her, you reply with a savage personal attack on me. Don't bother trying to spin it around with your alcoholic-pothead-addict (or whatever). Your tactics clearly demonstrate who is without character. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Amy Goodman of Democracy Now is an award winning journalist whose broadcast is listener supported... Translation: Her audience is too small to allow her to exist in a market based economy. Translation, she has values and has not sold them out for a buck like the corporate whore journalists.. but one would have to have values to understand something so complex Julia, Wyrdrich is right, you shouldn't get so personal and resort to flaming. It's not an attractive thing to do. If you're losing an argument simply concede that fact and move on or regroup. I disagree with people in here frequently but I don't start calling them stupid or jerks because they have an opinion different from mine. You should quit while you're behind. Now shake hands and come out fighting. (Do you really smoke pot?)

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:11:26 PM)
It does go to the heart of "Journalistic Integrity choke" vs. "Selling Out". I'm sure no one here expects Journalistic Integrity from Katie Couric, do they? She just reads what they put on the teleprompter.

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I don't think it's necessarily the right thing to do either (Geez, you'd think we could do just a wee bit better than that) But - That is exactly how huddled masses were treated (far worse, in fact) when they landed and were wended through Ellis Island near NYC, about 120140 years ago. This method of "processing immigrants" lasted for years. In fact, if they were deemed unhealthy or otherwise unfit, did they help them at all, from their "new country?" - These were very desperate people indeed - famine victims, people feeling religious persecution, very young adults with no families, and yes - children, too. Some were dying of various diseases, and either knew it, or didn't. No, they got no help (or very little help) - the immigration officials at the time just told them they had to go back to wherever they came from, and-or shipped them back there. Only healthy-able-bodied folks were welcome, for the most part. It's not particularly humane. But it's not new, either. - Susan After playing a few rounds of this: http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-EoM.html ( I managed to depopulate South America, Mexico, The US, Canada, The South Pacific, Mideast, Europe, Russia, and China, 80% of the world population ( Damn Africa and Greenland for developing Vaccines and enforcing CHI!!! ) without too much trouble, by using the borders, rather than airports as my primary vector. I sorta understand why Health Inspection at the borders might not be a bad idea. And forcing people through those Health Inspection points. In fact, I'd rather have NO RESTRICTIONS on Entry, as long as you get the Pandemic Check before you come in. Maybe in the end it's not the alleged economic issues, but the alleged Public Health issues which should be the focus of this debate?

juliaoceania -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:37:56 PM)
quote: Julia, Wyrdrich is right, you shouldn't get so personal and resort to flaming. It's not an attractive thing to do. If you're losing an argument simply concede that fact and move on or regroup. I disagree with people in here frequently but I don't start calling them stupid or jerks because they have an opinion different from mine. You should quit while you're behind. Now shake hands and come out fighting. (Do you really smoke pot?) I have not called one name here, but you are calling me a pot smoker... pot kettle black... too freaking hilarious

juliaoceania -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:41:30 PM)
I have been told to leave the country I have been ridiculed for going to work today I have been called a pot smoker I have been really flamed on this thread because I care about kids... and you know what, I am really ok with that.. flame away

WyrdRich -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:48:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It does go to the heart of "Journalistic Integrity choke" vs. "Selling Out". I'm sure no one here expects Journalistic Integrity from Katie Couric, do they? She just reads what they put on the teleprompter. Nope. It goes to being a journalist vs. a propagandist. Ms Goodman is the latter. Her appeal is to the disenfranchised (wiki) and it’s paid for by liberal guilt. The agenda comes first with her. The mainstream American media is dumbed down, corporate product but at least they are pretty honest about what they are selling. Mostly pharmaceuticals.

farglebargle -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:56:25 PM)
How can you call "Being Right", Propaganda? Aren't the people who just blindly printed the lies Doug Fieth was concocting at the Pentagon the Propagandists? "Being Right" isn't exactly what I mean. She was RIGHT about Iraq not being a threat, history shows. Credible? No not that either.

juliaoceania -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 10:59:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It does go to the heart of "Journalistic Integrity choke" vs. "Selling Out". I'm sure no one here expects Journalistic Integrity from Katie Couric, do they? She just reads what they put on the teleprompter. Greg Palast is a wonder. You know I find out things that I would never know from watching and reading independent journalists who are not out for access (spoon fed stories). How can you be an investigative journalist without investigating anything? The sad thing is broadcast journalism is not journalism, print media is only marginally better. Anyone that believes anything on TV needs their head examined.. it is very funny that Amy Goodman is called propaganda and yet those calling her that listen to nothing but propaganda they think of as news... I am not saying she isn't slanted, but that is why we should have many voices and choices... we only get one choice in the mainstream media, and that is the choice that corporates want us to have

WyrdRich -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 11:04:16 PM)
No, Popeye, I wasn’t suggesting Julia does anything of the sort. ‘Alcoholic calling the pothead an addict’ is a variation of the pot-kettle-black assertion. I’ve been using it for years. I guess I’m the one who “told her to leave the country,” though. She said she sometimes hated being an American, I pointed out merely one option to her emotional distress. I left a beautiful city that I loved simply because I didn’t like the economic climate, I can’t imagine voluntarily staying in a place I hated being part of. I’ve no idea who hassled her about working. I’m thrilled to hear it and wish her great success in a satisfying career.

Sternhand4 -> RE: Locking Up the Huddled Masses (2/24/2007 11:08:51 PM)
So I climb off my surfboard and walk up onto the beach to relate. A couple of Monkeyboy's Homeland Security Nazis walk up and demand I show them my papers. I dont have them. They dont fit in the pocket of my Kanvas By Katin board shorts. I look confused. I get hauled off to Gitmo. Please name one U.S. citizen removed from the CONUS to Gitmo. You cant because as a citizen and not an enemy combatant you have rights here. But having to identify yourself to the police is a requirement. as in HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA Sure, they followed the law, but I remember a law abiding citizenry that were not detained by law enforcement without this thing called "probable cause." Walking up onto the beach with my surfboard, please explain the probable cause which would require a law enforcement professional to try to detain me? Was a surf board reported stolen? Do you give off an odor of an illegal substance? Im sure that there are dozens of reasons to Terry stop you.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625