Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: Alan Baker on 8 May 2010 21:31 In article <0hd9u5tp9kqu8a85af7f6pgakbd3i6n17k(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:24:14 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >>There is no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court would throw that > >>out without a Constitutional Amendment. > > > >Not necessarily. The original intent of this provision of the 14th > >Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being denied citizenship. > >Many legal scholars feel that an act pf Congress would be sufficient > >to clarify the law. > > They don't need the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court finds stuff > which I don't see in the Constitution (privacy). They won't allow > people born in this country to law breakers into non-citizens. It > just won't happen. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that there are rights that it doesn't mention. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 8 May 2010 21:34 On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:13:39 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:01:06 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >>>It's insane to give such freedom when you are assured that it will, in >>>fact, cause harm to others. Your opinion would be different if a >>>loved one was killed by someone driving a car while high on cocaine. >>>If not, you're certainly in the minority. >>> >>>BK >> >>Just because cocaine is legal doesn't mean that driving under the >>influence of cocaine would be legal. Alcohol is legal. > >You aren't thinking very straight. Driving under the influence of >either is illegal now. Why would that change? > >BK You were inferring that my opinion on legalization would be different if a loved one were killed by someone under the influence of cocaine. But to me it's irrelevant because driving under the influence of all drugs would still be illegal. Tens of thousands of people are killed every year in the US by people driving under the influence of alcohol and I don't think that alcohol should be illegal. Why should any other drugs be different?
From: Jack Hollis on 8 May 2010 21:40 On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:17:45 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:00:34 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >wrote: > >>I'm an ex police officer and I saw the futility of drug laws first >>hand. Putting people in jail for using drugs is idiotic. They should >>legalize all drugs and immediately release all the people in prison >>for possession of drugs, or possession with intent to sell, as long as >>there were no extraneous circumstances like gun possession or >>resisting arrest. > >Legalize the drugs, but be careful about releasing criminals just >because the crime was redefined. Especially those who were in >dangerous criminal organizations. Once drugs were legal, those dangerous organizations would be out of the drug business. But I would say that known membership in one of the major drug cartels would be one of those extraneous circumstances I mentioned.
From: bknight on 8 May 2010 21:57 On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:13:06 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >In article <mh2cu59cq5jivkcf4m9djcagci6qfio95m(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:56:27 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >Mexicans nationals cannot own property in the US. >> >> Let's see some proof of this. >> >> BK > ><http://www.mexonline.com/propmex.htm> This doesn't address the question in the least. It only discusses property in Mexico, not the U.S. However it does say this: CAN FOREIGNERS REALLY OWN PROPERTY IN MEXICO? Yes, Americans and other foreigners may obtain direct ownership of property in the interior of Mexico. However, under Mexican law, foreigners cannot own property outright within the restricted zone. So if we have a reciprocal agreement with Mexico, as BAR states, then Mexican nationals can purchase property here. BK
From: bknight on 8 May 2010 22:02
On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:34:49 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:13:39 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >>>On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:01:06 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>> >>>>It's insane to give such freedom when you are assured that it will, in >>>>fact, cause harm to others. Your opinion would be different if a >>>>loved one was killed by someone driving a car while high on cocaine. >>>>If not, you're certainly in the minority. >>>> >>>>BK >>> >>>Just because cocaine is legal doesn't mean that driving under the >>>influence of cocaine would be legal. Alcohol is legal. >> >>You aren't thinking very straight. Driving under the influence of >>either is illegal now. Why would that change? >> >>BK > >You were inferring that my opinion on legalization would be different >if a loved one were killed by someone under the influence of cocaine. >But to me it's irrelevant because driving under the influence of all >drugs would still be illegal. Tens of thousands of people are killed >every year in the US by people driving under the influence of alcohol >and I don't think that alcohol should be illegal. Why should any >other drugs be different? What part of " driving under the influence of either is illegal now. Why would that change?" did you not understand? BK |