Support NeoGAF

[Christoff Yurievich]

story here

U.S. District Judge David Bury on Dec. 22 lifted an order temporarily blocking the law. He said opponents had little chance of success in their lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

+1 activist judges!

but seriously, why should illegal immigrants be protected by the constitution? for that matter, why should they be given ANY state/federal funds?

 

[maharg]

Because the constitution doesn't say anything about citizenship?

 

[Cherubae]

I think "We the People of the United States..." kind of implies that you're a legal resident of the country...

 

[maharg]

That states who established it, not who is covered by it. Several of the bill of rights amendments are stated as "No person," which is clearly not an exclusive statement.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

So while there are plenty of avenues for a person to become a legal immigrant you think they should be allowed to stay illegal and get money from the gov't? why?

 

[Nerevar]

but seriously, why should illegal immigrants be protected by the constitution? for that matter, why should they be given ANY state/federal funds?

woah. Calm down there. Those two statements are VERY different.

 

[XS+]

woah. Calm down there. Those two statements are VERY different.

Not really. Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to anything under our constitution or federal statute. The U.S. government isn't obligated to extend anything to someone who illegally enters our country. These people are criminals, individuals who've entered our country outside the rule of law, thus there should be no deference paid to them in any amount. If illegals were importing something of value, I might not figure amongst the anti-immigration contingent, but they don't -- they traffic in crime, illegitimacy, and the devaluation of our workforce.

 

[Nerevar]

Not really. Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to anything under our constitution or federal statute. The U.S. government isn't obligated to extend anything to someone who illegally enters our country. These people are criminals, individuals who've entered our country outside the rule of law, thus there should be no deference paid to them in any amount. If illegals were importing something of value, I might not figure amongst the anti-immigration contingent, but they don't -- they traffic in crime, illegitimacy, and the devaluation of our workforce.

look, I'm not going to be an ass about this, but if you can't find a distinction between:

a) why shouldn't (insert any group) be guaranteed constitutional rights?
and
b) why should (insert any group) be given any state / federal money?

than you're an absolute fucking retard.

 

[XS+]

look, I'm not going to be an ass about this, but if you can't find a distinction between:

a) why shouldn't (insert any group) be guaranteed constitutional rights?
and
b) why should (insert any group) be given any state / federal money?

than you're an absolute fucking retard.

Is the distinction relevant? Are illegals entitled ANYTHING? No. Does it matter if we're discussing welfare or rights guaranteed US CITIZENS under the constitution?

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

woah. Calm down there. Those two statements are VERY different.

well, since I never directly compared the two I don't know why you'd think they were the same. I agree with you - they are different - but they still need to be answered.

If illegals were importing something of value, I might not figure amongst the anti-immigration contingent, but they don't -- they traffic in crime, illegitimacy, and the devaluation of our workforce.

you know, I'd really rather you weren't arguing for me with ideas like that. Blanket statements are not a valid form of debate, sorry.

 

[XS+]

well, since I never directly compared the two I don't know why you'd think they were the same. I agree with you - they are different - but they still need to be answered.


you know, I'd really rather you weren't arguing for me with ideas like that. Blanket statements are not a valid form of debate, sorry.

Oftentimes, blanket statements can be a fair summation. If I said all illegals were criminals, you'd be correct in pegging me as a detriment to honest discourse. But that's not what I said. Look, I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm something of a neo-liberal. I'm tired of so-called "liberals" being such for the sole purpose of, well, being such. It is an incontestible fact that our country has suffered a flood of immigration that has soaked our southern shore for the past decade.

 

[Nerevar]

Is the distinction relevant? Are illegals entitled ANYTHING? No. Does it matter if we're discussing welfare or rights guaranteed US CITIZENS under the constitution?

I'm glad we have such an educated scholar in constitutional law here to enlighten us, XS+. Maybe you could turn around and type with your ass, too, because that seems to be where you're spouting all this stuff from.

 

[XS+]

I'm glad we have such an educated scholar in constitutional law here to enlighten us, XS+. Maybe you could turn around and type with your ass, too, because that seems to be where you're spouting all this stuff from.

Let me ask you this. Why should there be any consideration of rights accorded those who enter our country illegally? I'm serious. Why should the government even entertain accomodating illegal aliens?

 

[fart]

you're an absolute fucking retard.

q for truth

 

[Nerevar]

Let me ask you this. Why should there be any consideration of rights accorded those who enter our country illegally? I'm serious. Why should the government even entertain accomodating illegal aliens?

"Why should" is very different from "is it constitutionally forbidden"? The very fact is that the Constitution is very specific in it's language when dealing with US Citizens and when it is dealing with "people." Anyone can look at the Constitution to tell them that. Despite the fact that you may be a xenophobic nationalist who doesn't think illegal immigrants deserve any form of rights doesn't mean that our current government denies it to them. When you make blanket statements like:

Is the distinction relevant? Are illegals entitled ANYTHING? No. Does it matter if we're discussing welfare or rights guaranteed US CITIZENS under the constitution?

it doesn't lend me to giving your argument any respect because you're turning your personal opinions into absolutes without any sort of factual base to stand on.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Let me ask you this. Why should there be any consideration of rights accorded those who enter our country illegally? I'm serious. Why should the government even entertain accomodating illegal aliens?

just stop. you're not helping at all.

Despite the Court’s evasion, this is no small matter. The government’s selective misreading grants birthright citizenship to anyone (except diplomats’ children, highlighting federal inconsistency) born on American soil, no matter who his parents are. Birthright citizenship lures illegal aliens, who know a U.S.-born child is, thanks to American immigration law’s family-reunification bias, an anchor baby who will be able to sponsor his relatives for residence and citizenship. They also know that anchor babies’ mothers are not deported. In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births here, assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year.

link. so what if it's a conservative mag, it's still a valid point.

 

[XS+]

"Why should" is very different from "is it constitutionally forbidden"? The very fact is that the Constitution is very specific in it's language when dealing with US Citizens and when it is dealing with "people." Anyone can look at the Constitution to tell them that. Despite the fact that you may be a xenophobic nationalist who doesn't think illegal immigrants deserve any form of rights doesn't mean that our current government denies it to them. When you make blanket statements like:

it doesn't lend me to giving your argument any respect because you're turning your personal opinions into absolutes without any sort of factual base to stand on.

Illegals AREN'T GUARANTEED any rights. What part of that is so difficult to grasp? They're not citizens of our country, which, naturally, PRECLUDES them from being afforded such consideration. All you're doing is engaging in senseless pedantry to excuse illegals receiving rights that they're undeserving of. And for the record, I am not a xenophobe.

 

[bionic77]

I always found it strange that a nation that is composed almost entirely of immigrants would have such a negative attitude towards them.

 

[Nerevar]

Illegals AREN'T GUARANTEED any rights. What part of that is so difficult to grasp? They're not citizens of our country, which, naturally, PRECLUDES them from being afforded such consideration. All you're doing is engaging in senseless pedantry to excuse illegals receiving rights that they're undeserving of. And for the record, I am not a xenophobe.

Once again, I suggest you go reread the constitution, because you clearly have no understanding of it. I guarantee you that this judge is quite a bit more well-versed in the constitutional law of the United States than you are. Your opinion that illegal aliens aren't guaranteed rights is just that: an opinion. Are illegal aliens guaranteed all rights afforded to all citizens? No. Are they guaranteed a certain subset of rights in the United States? Yes, they are. This is a fact, no matter how much you bitch and moan about it on a message board.

 

[maharg]

I completely missed the part about owing them money. I was referring primarily to the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments), which say "people" and "no person" and such, which is a very different statement from "citizens" or "no citizen."

 

[XS+]

I always found it strange that a nation that is composed almost entirely of immigrants would have such a negative attitude towards them.

The immigrants you refer to migrated here legally, while those I speak of entered our country illegally, oftentimes bringing nothing of value. There's a huge difference there. And there is nothing negative about what being opposed to illegal immigration. That stigma has been assigned to wise policy that is under attack by people who've allowed misguided probity to cloud common sense.

 

[Nerevar]

I completely missed the part about owing them money. I was referring primarily to the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments), which say "people" and "no person" and such, which is a very different statement from "citizens" or "no citizen."

Exactly. Do I personally believe the government of the US owes them something in the form of money? Of course not. But the Constitution (like the Decleration of Independence) was written to guarantee everyone a certain set of rights simply for being human. Clearly, some things should not be allowed to non-US citizens (such as voting, or being President), but the founders had a clear notion of certain rights that no government should impede upon. That is what is codified into the Constitution, and therefore, afforded to anyone in the United States regardless of nationality. The notion that the Constitution only applies to US citizens is one of the most commonly found mistakes among people who don't understand how the United States government works - like XS+

Note: The right to freely live in the United States is not guaranteed. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional about deporting non-US citizens. However, violating people's "basic human rights" to determine if they are illegal aliens or not is not constitutional.

 

[bionic77]

The immigrants you refer to migrated here legally. The illegals we're speaking of entered our country illegally, oftentimes bringing nothing to our country of value. There's a huge difference there. And there is nothing negative about what being opposed to illegal immigration. That stigma has been assigned to wise policy that is under attack by people who've allowed misguided probity to cloud common sense.

Those immigrants you claim bring nothing of value do all the shit jobs that none of us want to do.

Also, I love how you think it is "wise" policy that we assign no rights to other human beings simply because they were born on the wrong part of a map.

 

[XS+]

Those immigrants you claim bring nothing of value do all the shit jobs that none of us want to do.

Also, I love how you think it is "wise" policy that we assign no rights to other human beings simply because they were born on the wrong part of a map.

They should be afforded basic human rights, sure. They want to relieve themselves? Sure. Use the bathroom. But do they have a right to healthcare? To drive a car? To consideration for employment over an American? To public schooling? No, they don't -- nor should they, as they aren't citizens.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

The immigrants you refer to migrated here legally, while those I speak of entered our country illegally, oftentimes bringing nothing of value. There's a huge difference there. And there is nothing negative about what being opposed to illegal immigration. That stigma has been assigned to wise policy that is under attack by people who've allowed misguided probity to cloud common sense.

Chief RunningFish disagrees.

 

[Loki]

Are illegals entitled to the basic legal protections afforded Americans under the Constitution (against illegal search & seizure, cruel & unusual punishment etc.)? Yes. Are they entitled to ANY sort of monetary benefit (or benefit that costs society money), be it welfare, AFDC, subsidized health care, or public schooling? No.


Seeing as how this group petitioned the court to basically gut any sort of enforcement of the STANDARDS that should logically apply to those receiving benefits (i.e., the entirely sensible requirement that one must be a citizen and/or legal resident), they are acting illogically. Guess what: in a sensible world, our government officials should report illegal aliens to the proper authorities, because <gasp!> they're here illegally. I have no problem with legal immigration, but this endless stream of illegals must stop-- the costs incurred by society as a result of illegals is roughly $10B per year; California bears much of this. It's just gotten out of hand, and the fact that our officials are PROHIBITED from reporting illegals who apply for benefits or services is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in a society FILLED with ridiculous things.

 

[way more]

What I find crazy is that is is illegal to work as a non-legal resident but perfectly legal to hire them. The entire Californian harvesting operation is built for an illegal, grossly underpaid workforce which demands migrant workers. Growers target migrant workers, they advertise far more jobs then they can supply and my not even pay the workers. Those workers which obtain legal status and are allowed to grow their own crops become so burdened with debt by managers they would be better off as indentured servents. They live in shanty town hidden in the woods. We benifit with our iceberg lettuce and fresh strawberries bought at Wal-Mart.

For more info check out Schlosser's book, a great relevent look at the subject.

 

[explodet]

THEY TOOK ER JERRRBS

 

[Loki]

THEY TOOK ER JERRRBS

I know you weren't directing this towards myself or anyone in particular, but I'd like to say that I find it ridiculous that anytime someone speaks out against illegal immigration they're tacitly derided with comments such as this one, which tries to paint them as some brain-dead, xenophobic yokel. Not sure if you intended it that way, but that's how it's often employed.


This country has serious problems that require serious discussion; this issue is but one of them, but it's nonetheless quite important.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

The immigrants you refer to migrated here legally, while those I speak of entered our country illegally, oftentimes bringing nothing of value.

so if they smuggle opium or maybe cocaine across the border it's alright?