EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

cthia wrote:Look at the very first thing on the list, E., . . .

1790
Naturalization Act of 1790

Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.

That is legal immigration, E. Legal! The US has always welcomed immigration. The US has adopted more immigrants than all other countries combined! But there is a process one must go through. There are no laws protecting illegal immigrants.

Stop right there. The idea of an illegal immigrant does not exist in that piece of legislation. It defines rules under which a resident of the US can become a citizen, but it places no restrictions on how people might come to be a resident. There are no port of entry requirements, no deportation proceedings, not even the barest hint of a mention of crime in there.

Your argument, and I quote, was "The US has always had immigration laws! And illegal immigration has always been a crime!"

So, how would one go about committing that crime in 1790? If you get caught, what's the penalty?

cthia wrote:There are no laws protecting illegal immigrants.

While we're at it, this is wrong too.

One set of laws, which are commonly known as "The Constitution of the United States", definitely does apply to illegal immigrants. SCOTUS has ruled, several times IIRC, that the 5th Amendment for example very definitively covers illegal immigrants. See also: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w ... rants-have

The entire idea of okaying anything illegal is absurd. Not even an ignorant politician wants to open the door to only God knows what kind of disease or weapon or political affirmation can be brought into this country.

God forbid you people get in contact with dangerous philosophies like social democracy.

The E wrote:God forbid you people get in contact with dangerous philosophies like social democracy.

Actually, most of us are more concerned about jihadists that do things like crashing airplanes into buildings and blowing up people watching a foot-race. I'm sure you're perfectly OK with such wackos in your country, but we're not.
———————————
A politician is worse than a toilet. They're both full of shit — but at least you can flush the toilet.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:God forbid you people get in contact with dangerous philosophies like social democracy.

Actually, most of us are more concerned about jihadists that do things like crashing airplanes into buildings and blowing up people watching a foot-race. I'm sure you're perfectly OK with such wackos in your country, but we're not.
———————————
A politician is worse than a toilet. They're both full of shit — but at least you can flush the toilet.

Most of those whackos came in from Saudi Arabia. Not Mexico. Or any other country Trump is trying to limit immigration from.

Legally.

Every single one of them.

And they weren't applying to immigrate, they came on tourist and business visas.

So yeah, I'm going to say you're as full of it as the subjects of your tag line.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:God forbid you people get in contact with dangerous philosophies like social democracy.

Actually, most of us are more concerned about jihadists that do things like crashing airplanes into buildings and blowing up people watching a foot-race. I'm sure you're perfectly OK with such wackos in your country, but we're not.

Then why do you tolerate so many "militias" and violent christian extremist groups in your midst?

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:God forbid you people get in contact with dangerous philosophies like social democracy.

Actually, most of us are more concerned about jihadists that do things like crashing airplanes into buildings and blowing up people watching a foot-race. I'm sure you're perfectly OK with such wackos in your country, but we're not.
———————————
A politician is worse than a toilet. They're both full of shit — but at least you can flush the toilet.

Have you ever wondered why terrorism exists?

Most terrorists and extremists come from disenfranchised people, and the US has managed to disenfranchise a lot of people by f*cking up a lot of countries with their able partner Russia (or aka Soviet before the breakup). It just so happens to be that mostly Muslim countries with oil got the worst of it so it's no wonder that we get jihadist from them with an ax to grind - although the majority of the jihadists perpetrate their acts on their fellow Muslims.

But the number one growing terrorist threat in the US right now is the homegrown right wing extremists. They account for a total 3/4 of all terrorist incidents (out of ~115, 35% was foiled and 29% resulted in fatalities) in the US for the last 17 years. That's an interesting statistic, especially compared Europe where homegrown terrorism has been on the decline for the last 20 years where earlier we had ETA and IRA being responsible for a majority.

The last 8 years Europe have had an upsurge in attacks or incidents where Al-Qaeda or ISIS is responsible. This can be directly correlated to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent withdrawal in 2011, especially considering ISIS - on bogus WMD reports.

So, maybe we should be more concerned about making sure we don't create more extremists while selling out our liberty for some tokens of safety.

Europe also has integration problems with Muslim immigrants because there's no guaranteed path to citizenship for immigrant communities. Your great-grandparents could have moved to Europe and you still wouldn't be a citizen. I have no idea why people in the US want to import that particular problem.

noblehunter wrote:Europe also has integration problems with Muslim immigrants because there's no guaranteed path to citizenship for immigrant communities. Your great-grandparents could have moved to Europe and you still wouldn't be a citizen. I have no idea why people in the US want to import that particular problem.

Not true. The basic rule for Europe is that if you get residency you have to wait between 5 to 10 years (depending on country) before applying for naturalization.

Joat42 wrote:Not true. The basic rule for Europe is that if you get residency you have to wait between 5 to 10 years (depending on country) before applying for naturalization.

That's a relatively new rule. It seems like German law, for instance, is trying to insure that there aren't groups of multi-generational non-citizens.

noblehunter wrote:

Joat42 wrote:Not true. The basic rule for Europe is that if you get residency you have to wait between 5 to 10 years (depending on country) before applying for naturalization.

That's a relatively new rule. It seems like German law, for instance, is trying to insure that there aren't groups of multi-generational non-citizens.

They did a harmonization of rules within EU a while back (2013 I think) so the differences between member countries wouldn't be to severe.