So you’re saying that we gave out 380 MILLION tourist visas before those 19 guys took down the WTC? I call BS…AGAIN.
1 Since when does “doing it” equals “it works?”
2 The fact that we have an illegal alien crisis.
3 See item 1.
4 Because the 2nd Amendment applies to citizens who were at least theoretically grounded in the traditions and rights recognized by our Constitution. Not as much anymore, but the illegal alien problem is part of that problem.
5 Two things: 1, the dynamics are radically different. 2, “doing it” doesn’t equal “it works.”
6 Canada is hardly a class act for how to govern these days (not that the U.S. is any prize, even though it’s still the best place to live in the world).
But that’s a non-sequitur qix.
A background check is not really capable of showing who will be an overstay. What it does is illuminate if the person is a danger.
So on that second premise, yes, it is a success, because the rate at which dangerous people were let in is lower than the rate at which we generate dangerous people all on our own.
The problem you’re pointing out is a problem regardless of what the system is. But I’ll say again, if these were workers, they’d have to check in more often, and it would be harder to duck authorities.
Which doesn’t happen, because we have an immigration system that’s low trust, and acts in bad faith.
Employers want the “low skilled” workers, and migrants know this. So if the system lies to them, saying they have the “wrong skills” and that there’s no work for them, what inevitably happens?
You’ve incentivized both parties to run-around the law to make their own arrangements.
If what you want is for migrants to follow the law, the law has to first treat them in good faith.
The system has to be high trust, which are the only ones that work.
Seems to me that I remember the 19 WTC killers WERE “visa overstays” and, on checking, turns out they were KNOWN to be radicals and dangerous, so your meme about “background checks” for visa applicants is just more BS from someone who doesn’t give a tinker’s dam about this country and its safety.
James Madison said the whole of the Constitution applies to aliens just as much as us.
The very concept upon which the Constitution recognizes rights, is that human beings are sovereign entities.
Ergo, everyone has rights.
Which means any system we put into place to manage immigrants (and I’ll admit outright that we both should, and can have one), has to work as if the Bill of Rights applies to them. Which means you can’t rule out innocent, healthy people.
I’m not seeing it; today’s drivers are the same basic premise for why illegal immigration was high in the mid 50s.
“Low Skilled immigrants/coolie labor” are people employers need, but the system is lying about it, pushing the “low skilled” away. This only ensures that the two groups will then try to make their own arrangements without the Government.
In Eisenhower’s time though, they recognized that the primary economic purpose of immigration is manpower. Not skills.
This understanding was lost when Big labor got involved in re-writing our immigration laws in the 1960s.
Illegal immigration has been upticking ever since, only stagnating in 2007 when Mexican fertility fell to borderline replacement.
In immigration they’re the model even Trump cites.
18, one was a student. Hani Hanjour, the one that flew the 757 that nearly killed my mother. He was the only one with a commercial rating.
What’s more, their actions were flagged, and the FBI nearly had them. It just didn’t result in an arrest because the intelligence agencies were acting like silos and not sharing information, either at all, or not in time.
That’s since changed, and the terrorist rate has fallen even further since 2001.
~5 terrorist out of more than 107 million people from 2002 to 2018.
Yeah… I just got a security certification and tried 3 times to join the TSA, convinced I could make sure it was doing its damn job. Because 9/11 had no impact on my life.
I once had some respect for the libertarian position, but if AS is a typical example of libertarian thinking, there is really no deference between him and the socialist Democrats. The socialist Democrats end human rights by having the government take them. AS ends human rights by rolling over and saying “It’s okay by me. Bring ‘em in here; put ‘em welfare and give them the vote.”
Cool; not a libertarian, just FYI.
Yeah, this canard of comparing me to socialists or whatever over one issue, isn’t convincing Send.
Nor is the “vote”. Poor Hispanics don’t vote, most poor minorities in general don’t vote.
Democrats know this; that’s why they want to pass a law compelling people to vote.
Even in RET’s lovely illegal-infest Kalifornia, the vote is 60% white, native born, home owners.
And republicans lose this demographic in nigh-every election, so they lose nigh every election.
The “votes” aren’t more important than the economy or civil rights. They both take precedence.
As those things are the long term. And the long term is more important than 2 or 4 year election cycles, which are mixed up in hyperbole and fantasy.
Which everyone knows, including yourself.
BS. Did you somehow miss the fact that over 400,000 Kalifornians were excused from jury duty because they weren’t citizens but the jury pool is taken from REGISTERED VOTERS?
You… don’t know Dave. You have to be polite, and ask the question first:
“Slim, what is your source for this claim?”
Maybe you dredge up some quote to that effect; I don’t know. But it’s hogwash. The Constitution applies to the people OF THE UNITED STATES. And that doesn’t mean anyone who swims the Rio Grande:
Note that it did not say “secure the blessings of liberty to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who hops the fence.”
News (if I take it at face value) to me.
And “People” includes:
- The native tribes
- The Denizens
- Spanish and French Traders from Florida and Louisiana.
When the Constitution refers to something that only applies to citizens, it uses the word.
There’s also the census to think about; it doesn’t count just citizens, it counts everyone. On purpose.
We’re talking about a legal document written by lawyers. It’s like complaining that there’s a car in a parking lot.
But what’s more, I don’t believe you FC. The Supreme Court ruled 3 times, over a century ago, that “people” meant more than citizens.
I’ll take their word, and the Founders. After all, why wouldn’t they know who the Constitution applies to?
You cited one FF who (allegedly) said what you’re promoting. As to the Supreme Court, I’ve said more than once that I don’t give a rat’s patootie what the USSC says the Constitution says, but what the Constitution actually, uhm, says. The USSC has given us such gems as the Dred Scott decision, the Obergefell decision, and the one that the Obamadon’tcare fine wasn’t a fine, among others.
Lawyer-talk hogwash I said, lawyer-talk hogwash I meant, and I don’t take it back.
The Framer of the Constitution, said it:
And definitions are important.
You’re trying to import your own, whereas the Founders said this meant more than citizens.
And wrote policy as if it more than citizens. And enforced practices in court as if it meant more than citizens.
The framers said no such thing. One guy did…MAYBE two. It would be utter INSANITY to declare that anyone who wanders across our borders should be treated the same as citizens and our founders were not insane.
It’s not, because, that’s how Common Law works.
You’re treated absolutely the same. Nationality, and any other marker of identity, does not matter.
You don’t need to be an American to have property rights or liberty.
If that weren’t the case, then as Madison said, you could throw them in jail and charge capital crimes without a trial.
Yet that doesn’t happen, does it Dave?
Are YOU insane? We may have based our law on “common law”, but we don’t LIVE by common law. We live our lives by the laws passed by our founders and by our subsequent lawmakers. Any belief contrary to that FACT is strictly “AS.”
AS is back to HIS common law again. Last time is was the right that ALL PEOPLE to walk across our borders and have ALL THE RIGHTS of U.S. citizens. Months ago he was even reluctant to stop criminals, but since he’s eager to find acceptance here for his open border policy, he’s pushed the guest worker thing. Of course once they are here as guest workers, they can stay with no requirement to go back to their home country. Bottom line - it’s still open borders.
I often why AS doesn’t go to one of the Democrat blogs with his open border ideas. There he would be welcomed with open arms. Some of them would even embrace his advocacy for Bit Coin. They would love to be “citizens of the world” who would like to be released from the “tyranny of the U.S dollar” although they would still prefer to live in relative prosperity, shared with the peoples of the world, of course. Since most of them don’t know much history, they won’t know that the Bit Coin concept was tried in 19th century America, and was a disaster.
Yes AS, your ideas on immigration fit perfectly with Democrat policy. You should check out the many candidates who are running over there. Maybe Julian Castro is your guy. He’s a totally open borders advocate and expresses your views perhaps better than anyone else.