That 'Caravan'

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 30 Oct 2018, 15:00

Ya know.....in some indirect ways it makes the point about Operation Sovereign Borders being illegal. The land (hypothetical) parallel is that the US heads south of the Mexico Border in force (illegal,) stops the Caravan in non US territory, and turns it back....all illegal.

And on boats being intercepted on the High Seas. We have Morrison telling us how we will exercise our rights to have our boats/ships traverse the High Seas, i.e. the South China Sea. Yet, we stop and board vessels on the High Seas in the Indian Ocean. Molan is an arsehole.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Texan » 31 Oct 2018, 08:11

I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.
User avatar
Texan
Feral cat
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Oct 2018, 14:38
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Sprintcyclist » 31 Oct 2018, 09:09

Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.



' ....... Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? ...... ' I agree, also, they automatically are denied citizenship.

' ....... without due process of law; ........... ' the law can be changed to say "Chuck them out ASAP."
Sprintcyclist
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 443
Joined: 16 Jul 2018, 08:14
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 31 Oct 2018, 11:52

Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.


Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Speed, get a ticket, kill someone....get charged with murder, work...pay tax. Anyone inside the USA is ipso facto subject to that jurisdiction.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Texan » 31 Oct 2018, 12:14

Aussie wrote:
Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.


Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Speed, get a ticket, kill someone....get charged with murder, work...pay tax. Anyone inside the USA is ipso facto subject to that jurisdiction.


They are "invading" the US. It may take longer than an armed invasion, but "reconquista" is still the goal of Mexicans and using "refugees" is just another tactic.
User avatar
Texan
Feral cat
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Oct 2018, 14:38
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby greggerypeccary » 31 Oct 2018, 12:28

Texan wrote:
Aussie wrote:
Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.


Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Speed, get a ticket, kill someone....get charged with murder, work...pay tax. Anyone inside the USA is ipso facto subject to that jurisdiction.


They are "invading" the US. It may take longer than an armed invasion, but "reconquista" is still the goal of Mexicans and using "refugees" is just another tactic.


Mexicans?

The caravan is made up of mostly Hondurans.
greggerypeccary
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 15:52
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Texan » 31 Oct 2018, 13:05

greggerypeccary wrote:
Texan wrote:
Aussie wrote:
Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.


Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Speed, get a ticket, kill someone....get charged with murder, work...pay tax. Anyone inside the USA is ipso facto subject to that jurisdiction.


They are "invading" the US. It may take longer than an armed invasion, but "reconquista" is still the goal of Mexicans and using "refugees" is just another tactic.


Mexicans?

The caravan is made up of mostly Hondurans.


Being facilitated by Mexicans to destabilize a large portion of America. They want the Southwest US. These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico? They already speak the language and have similar customs. This mass exodus is being orchestrated and funded by somebody. It didn't just happen right before our elections.
User avatar
Texan
Feral cat
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Oct 2018, 14:38
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby greggerypeccary » 31 Oct 2018, 13:08

Texan wrote: These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico?


Because the US is a much better option.

I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their place, and so would you.
greggerypeccary
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 15:52
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby SethBullock » 31 Oct 2018, 13:28

Aussie wrote:
Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.


Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Speed, get a ticket, kill someone....get charged with murder, work...pay tax. Anyone inside the USA is ipso facto subject to that jurisdiction.


It will be an interesting court case. My prediction is that lower federal courts will not support Trump's executive order, and it will go to the Supreme Court. That is where it will be interesting.

Keep in mind, that the Supreme Court may interpret the law. And an integral part of that interpretation is to discern what the intent of the law was meant to address. It is widely accepted that this amendment was aimed at protecting the rights of former slaves. That intent may be born out by this ... "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." It seems clear to me that that part of the amendment was intended to prevent individual states - in particular, the southern states - from diminishing the privileges and immunities of the former slaves.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically address the rights of illegal aliens who are citizens of other countries.

So, when this case gets to the Supreme Court - and it will - it could be interesting. And I think anything could happen.

Seth
"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower
User avatar
SethBullock
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 304
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 13:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Bongalong » 31 Oct 2018, 14:01

greggerypeccary wrote:
Texan wrote: These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico?


Because the US is a much better option.

I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their place, and so would you.

So economic refugees then!??!
Free what?
Bongalong
mountain lion
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 12:48
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby greggerypeccary » 31 Oct 2018, 14:44

Bongalong wrote:
greggerypeccary wrote:
Texan wrote: These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico?


Because the US is a much better option.

I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their place, and so would you.

So economic refugees then!??!


No.

I never said anything like that.

Just refugees striving for the best they can achieve.

Where would you rather live - Guatemala, Mexico, or the US?
greggerypeccary
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 15:52
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Bongalong » 31 Oct 2018, 15:09

greggerypeccary wrote:
Bongalong wrote:
greggerypeccary wrote:
Texan wrote: These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico?


Because the US is a much better option.

I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their place, and so would you.

So economic refugees then!??!


No.

I never said anything like that.

Just refugees striving for the best they can achieve.

Where would you rather live - Guatemala, Mexico, or the US?

Countrys have rules.... are you a complete spastic or something mate?
Free what?
Bongalong
mountain lion
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 12:48
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby greggerypeccary » 31 Oct 2018, 15:14

Bongalong wrote:
greggerypeccary wrote:
Bongalong wrote:
greggerypeccary wrote:
Texan wrote: These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico?


Because the US is a much better option.

I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their place, and so would you.

So economic refugees then!??!


No.

I never said anything like that.

Just refugees striving for the best they can achieve.

Where would you rather live - Guatemala, Mexico, or the US?

Countrys have rules.... are you a complete spastic or something mate?


'Countries', you mean?

Yes, they do.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, though.

It's perfectly legal for asylum seekers to bypass other countries before reaching the country where they will seek asylum.
greggerypeccary
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 15:52
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Invasionary Force'

Postby Panther » 01 Nov 2018, 08:33

greggerypeccary wrote:
'Countries', you mean?

Yes, they do.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, though.

It's perfectly legal for asylum seekers to bypass other countries before reaching the country where they will seek asylum.


That may or may not be true, but no foreign person has any "right to enter" a sovereign nation without first being granted permission to do so by the nation they wish to enter.

Also, the asylum seekers might "seek" asylum anywhere they wish, but granting that asylum is completely in the control of the sovereign nation the asylum seeker is seeking to enter.

If the asylum seeker is refused asylum/entry, & that refusal by a sovereign nation can be for whatever reason the sovereign nation so chooses, the asylum seeker must turn tail & go elsewhere........they have no further rights of appeal.

Entering that sovereign nation without express authorization or permission from that sovereign nation of destination.....entering illegally......puts the asylum seeker at the mercy of the full force of the sovereign nation entered, which may include anything up to & including being shot dead for illegal entry.


User avatar
Panther
puppy
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 15:32
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Invasionary Force'

Postby greggerypeccary » 01 Nov 2018, 08:56

Panther wrote:
greggerypeccary wrote:
'Countries', you mean?

Yes, they do.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, though.

It's perfectly legal for asylum seekers to bypass other countries before reaching the country where they will seek asylum.


Also, the asylum seekers might "seek" asylum anywhere they wish, but granting that asylum is completely in the control of the sovereign nation the asylum seeker is seeking to enter.



I'm not talking about granting refugee status - I'm talking about seeking asylum.

There is nothing illegal about it.
greggerypeccary
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 15:52
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Invasionary Force'

Postby Panther » 01 Nov 2018, 09:18

greggerypeccary wrote:
Panther wrote:
greggerypeccary wrote:
'Countries', you mean?

Yes, they do.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, though.

It's perfectly legal for asylum seekers to bypass other countries before reaching the country where they will seek asylum.


Also, the asylum seekers might "seek" asylum anywhere they wish, but granting that asylum is completely in the control of the sovereign nation the asylum seeker is seeking to enter.




I'm not talking about granting refugee status - I'm talking about seeking asylum.

There is nothing illegal about it.


No their isn't....I agree.....it's similar to calling someone by telephone.....anyone might call anyone they pretty much wish, but unless the person called answers there is no conversation, or if they do answer, & then hang up, that's their prerogative....

In the case of these "Invasionary Forces" , President Donald Trump has put America on the "Do Not Call List" :thumb

There is nothing illegal in refusing to hear the asylum seeker's requests either..... Image
User avatar
Panther
puppy
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 15:32
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby fisherman » 01 Nov 2018, 09:30

Aussie wrote:Ya know.....in some indirect ways it makes the point about Operation Sovereign Borders being illegal. The land (hypothetical) parallel is that the US heads south of the Mexico Border in force (illegal,) stops the Caravan in non US territory, and turns it back....all illegal.

And on boats being intercepted on the High Seas. We have Morrison telling us how we will exercise our rights to have our boats/ships traverse the High Seas, i.e. the South China Sea. Yet, we stop and board vessels on the High Seas in the Indian Ocean. Molan is an arsehole.


Who gives a shit about ILLEGAL, Aussie. The migrants and other INVADERS have been rushing, raping, mugging people for years now and all they get is a slap on the wrists. It's the street rules now. Play dirty to win, or die.
fisherman
 

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby fisherman » 01 Nov 2018, 09:33

Texan wrote:
Aussie wrote:
Texan wrote:I don't know that Trump intends to send troops over the border. I assumed that he would meet the invaders at the border and engage them as soon as they tried to cross over.

There has been talk that Trump's EO to prevent anchor baby citizenship is unconstitutional. Here is the text.

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.

The part that I highlighted in blue is what I am concerned about. Is an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. They have snuck into a sovereign country and have not subjected themselves to American law. Would this mean that they do not get automatic citizenship? The amendment was obviously written to give citizenship to the freed slaves as the 15th was to assure their right to vote. This also forced all states to recognize these rights for freed slaves.


Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Speed, get a ticket, kill someone....get charged with murder, work...pay tax. Anyone inside the USA is ipso facto subject to that jurisdiction.


They are "invading" the US. It may take longer than an armed invasion, but "reconquista" is still the goal of Mexicans and using "refugees" is just another tactic.


It's quick ENOUGH. First they settle in a new borough somewhere in UTAH. A place not a single migrant has. Then more come, their friends and relatives, settle near their house. For 5 years they've taken the whole STREET. And a few years later the NATIVES sell their properties for cheap and run, fast. That's how isolated communities appear. They're starting little by little and then it becomes too inhospitable for the peaceful natives, so the logic thing is to reallocate and not die/suffer.
fisherman
 

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby fisherman » 01 Nov 2018, 09:35

greggerypeccary wrote:
Texan wrote: These refugees have already escaped oppression in their home country. Why don't they stay in Guatamala or Mexico?


Because the US is a much better option.

I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their place, and so would you.


I won't. I fucking live in Bulgaria, mate. I had the chance to leave a thousand times, I even got invited to the US. Stuff your theories somewhere else. Not all of us are welfare beggars and resource exploitators, you lo'.
fisherman
 

Re: That 'Invasionary Force'

Postby Panther » 01 Nov 2018, 09:43

fisherman wrote:
Aussie wrote:Ya know.....in some indirect ways it makes the point about Operation Sovereign Borders being illegal. The land (hypothetical) parallel is that the US heads south of the Mexico Border in force (illegal,) stops the Caravan in non US territory, and turns it back....all illegal.

And on boats being intercepted on the High Seas. We have Morrison telling us how we will exercise our rights to have our boats/ships traverse the High Seas, i.e. the South China Sea. Yet, we stop and board vessels on the High Seas in the Indian Ocean. Molan is an arsehole.


Who gives a shit about ILLEGAL, Aussie. The migrants and other INVADERS have been rushing, raping, mugging people for years now and all they get is a slap on the wrists. It's the street rules now. Play dirty to win, or die.


A few shots of 50 cal across their bow works wonders.......oppps, Johnny needs new glasses, he's sunk another vessel full of asylum seekers....that's his third today.........oh the humanities.....oh well, on to the next vessel......Image
Last edited by Panther on 01 Nov 2018, 09:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Panther
puppy
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 15:32
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby fisherman » 01 Nov 2018, 09:48

That's about right. No humanity for criminals. Humanity is reserved for humans only.
fisherman
 

Re: That 'Invasionary Force'

Postby Panther » 01 Nov 2018, 09:50

fisherman wrote:That's about right. No humanity for criminals. Humanity is reserved for humans only.
Image Leave 'em for carrion crow......
Last edited by Panther on 01 Nov 2018, 09:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Panther
puppy
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 15:32
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 01 Nov 2018, 09:54

fisherman wrote:I won't. I fucking live in Bulgaria, mate. I had the chance to leave a thousand times, I even got invited to the US. Stuff your theories somewhere else. Not all of us are welfare beggars and resource exploitators, you lo'.


thats because you haven't got armed soldiers shooting at you ya moron. Do you even know what a refugee is?
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 6414
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby fisherman » 01 Nov 2018, 10:00

johnsmith wrote:
fisherman wrote:I won't. I fucking live in Bulgaria, mate. I had the chance to leave a thousand times, I even got invited to the US. Stuff your theories somewhere else. Not all of us are welfare beggars and resource exploitators, you lo'.


thats because you haven't got armed soldiers shooting at you ya moron. Do you even know what a refugee is?


So in HONDURAS it's a war? Weird. I never heard of that.
Of course you'll protect illegals. You have one home. I shall report you to the Immigration Office.
fisherman
 

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 01 Nov 2018, 10:07

fisherman wrote:
So in HONDURAS it's a war? Weird. I never heard of that.


that's because your an idiot. Honduras has been gripped by gang warfare for decades
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 6414
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SethBullock and 3 guests