Forgive those that trespass? Not in AZ

[DirtyMartini]

That was a fun read. Two issues with the original post.

1) Even if you accept that illegal immigration is a bad thing, how would a law that incarcerates them in the US prison system help anything?

2) Why is the president of the Arizona Police Chief's association working in Alaska?

[Kuciwalker]

OK starting here, that USC does not note that filing a form 1040 is required by law.

Yes, it does. It requires that you follow such regulations as prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. One such regulation is that you have to file a 1040.

No, I'm not going to go look it [the specific regulation] up in the Federal Register for you.

Your overstepping your bounds now. You cannot dictate to someone what they do or do not believe in.

If you say you believe in Christ, and then you say you support killing babies, I'm perfectly within my rights to say that one or the other is not true.

The Constitution was made before the federal government was. The Constitution are the set in stones guide lines that our country will abide by.

They actually aren't 'set in stone', they've been amended twenty-seven times.

See I am what you might call a Constitutionalists, a traditionalist. The Constitution has been amended over time to recognize changes in time, but these later amendments that take power from the people and place it in the hands of the federal government are illegal.

... what.

what.

Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So as long as the year is after 1808 and the amendment doesn't change the representation in the Senate, if the procedure is followed and the amendment is ratified then the amendment is now part of the Constitution, regardless of its content.

The government, the presidency, and all under offices are for the people, by the people. There for, with-in reason *as in not intelligence and military files* all actions are able to be scrutinized by the populous.

Cite me the relevant clause[s].

[Arrian]

Doesn't that qualify as a late hit?

15 yards, loss of down...

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Ah, sorry guys, didn't see we'd moved on.

[Arrian]

[KrazyHorse]

Counterargument (Paulite version):

Our welfare state, such as it is, means that it might be better for (some) Mexicans to come here and be unemployed than stay in Mexico and work. Without an entry fee to hedge against this, we're setting ourselves up to be fleeced.

-Arrian

Who said anything about allowing immigrants access to unemployment?

[KrazyHorse]

Drugs are just goods though. Unless it's Mexican weed. That ****'s disgusting.

Yes, and criminals are just people.

The point is that there is a reasonable argument to be made that outlawing drugs is a good idea. It may not be right, but it is a separate issue from the one at hand.

[Felch]

Criminals belong in Austria. It says so in the Eternal Immutable Constitution of these United States of America.

[KrazyHorse]

That's why the British used it as a prison colony, after all.

[Arrian]

Who said anything about allowing immigrants access to unemployment?

Ron Paul, I guess. Or I misunderstood his argument.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Any sane person who wants to allow free immigration to the US would not allow immigrants the same access to social services currently given to native Americans.



EDIT: native Americans as in people born in the US, of course.

[Kuciwalker]

s/native americans/citizens

[KrazyHorse]

Not necessarily. Citizenship to the US is not particularly difficult to acquire once you gain residency.

[KrazyHorse]

Probably aren't allowed to discriminate based on where somebody was born, though. So might have to simply make US citizenship harder to acquire after residency than it is currently.

[Arrian]

Woah... I dunno about that... (edit: the first part about denying naturalized citizens bennies, not the second part, about making naturalization harder).

-Arrian