CNN Anderson Cooper Continue to Dumb Down Climate Change and GlobalWarming

Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: The came over the border illegally!

: You mean those imaginary lines all over the world?

It becomes petty clear where that line is when all the hospitals are full
of sick Mexicans that have just crossed the desert to enter America
denying US citizens health care in the area. Damn doctros and their
oathes, right?

Speaking of lines, where does Ellis Island's borders begin and where do
they end? The point is that when boats used to come to those shores we
expected them. The border between TX, AZ, CA and Mexico allow for unknow
amounts of immigrants bringing in unknown anything.

Eric

: http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Lloyd Parker wrote:

The issue isn't bozos in Washington. It has to do with American citizens
tiring of illegal foreigners acting like they deserve the same rights.


Tell me, in the US constitution, which rights are reserved only for citizens?

The right to vote, among others.

In article ,
(Eric Chomko) wrote:
Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: Question Quigley ) wrote:
: : Didn't you ever stop playing "follow the leader" and learn to think for
: : yourself? The bozos in Washington and in the state capitals want you to
: : think illegal immigration is a real security threat. BS! I don't see
:
: The issue isn't bozos in Washington. It has to do with American citizens
: tiring of illegal foreigners acting like they deserve the same rights.

: Tell me, in the US constitution, which rights are reserved only for
citizens?

The first line states, "We the People of the United States...", not, "We
the People in the United States...". There IS a distinction.

There would be if any of the rights said "the citizens" instead of "the
people." The only ones that say "citizens" -- the 24th amendment and the
19th amendment, regarding voting. The bill of rights says "people" all the
way through, not "citizens." That's why noncitizens have freedom of speech,
non-self incrimination, etc.


Further, we can't assume that our Constitution is applicable for all
people in all countries as is what you imply.

No, but all people in the US.

We'd LIKE for them to adopt
the content but can't assume that they have. Also, just because a person
crosses a US border, doesn't imply that they are or should be granted US
constitutional rights.

The bill of rights says different.

Think about how diplomats come to this country.
Sure they have immunity in some cases, but that is because they are NOT
US citizens. These illegals are neither diplomats nor are they citizens!

"The right of the people..."


I have no problem granting citizenship to immigrants, but why punish
someone that has waited for and followed the legal steps by granting
illegals citizenship rights? It is about fairness not denial...

Eric

Further, the constitution makes citizens of anyone born here.

In article ,
(Eric Chomko) wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: The came over the border illegally!

: You mean those imaginary lines all over the world?

It becomes petty clear where that line is when all the hospitals are full
of sick Mexicans that have just crossed the desert to enter America
denying US citizens health care in the area. Damn doctros and their
oathes, right?

Actually, hospitals are only required to treat life-threatening situations,
the same as they are for US citizens.


Speaking of lines, where does Ellis Island's borders begin and where do
they end? The point is that when boats used to come to those shores we
expected them. The border between TX, AZ, CA and Mexico allow for unknow
amounts of immigrants bringing in unknown anything.

Eric

: http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

The issue isn't bozos in Washington. It has to do with American citizens
tiring of illegal foreigners acting like they deserve the same rights.


Tell me, in the US constitution, which rights are reserved only for
citizens?

The right to vote, among others.

Technically, the right to vote is not given in the constitution (although some
think it is implied by 19th and 26th amendments).

Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: : In article ,
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: : Question Quigley ) wrote:
: : : Didn't you ever stop playing "follow the leader" and learn to think for
: : : yourself? The bozos in Washington and in the state capitals want you to
: : : think illegal immigration is a real security threat. BS! I don't see
: :
: : The issue isn't bozos in Washington. It has to do with American citizens
: : tiring of illegal foreigners acting like they deserve the same rights.
:
: : Tell me, in the US constitution, which rights are reserved only for
: citizens?
:
: The first line states, "We the People of the United States...", not, "We
: the People in the United States...". There IS a distinction.

: There would be if any of the rights said "the citizens" instead of "the
: people." The only ones that say "citizens" -- the 24th amendment and the
: 19th amendment, regarding voting. The bill of rights says "people" all the
: way through, not "citizens." That's why noncitizens have freedom of speech,
: non-self incrimination, etc.

Why have immigration laws at all?

: Further, we can't assume that our Constitution is applicable for all
: people in all countries as is what you imply.

: No, but all people in the US.

That are within the law. I'd say Timothy McVeigh was denied his life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness after he blew up the building in OKC.
Granted, Mexicans crossing the border are NOT in the same category as
McVeigh, but their entry in the US is illegal. Again, why have immigration
laws?

: We'd LIKE for them to adopt
: the content but can't assume that they have. Also, just because a person
: crosses a US border, doesn't imply that they are or should be granted US
: constitutional rights.

: The bill of rights says different.

What is a work visa, then? Why have it? Why go through a naturalization
process at all?

: Think about how diplomats come to this country.
: Sure they have immunity in some cases, but that is because they are NOT
: US citizens. These illegals are neither diplomats nor are they citizens!

: "The right of the people..."

Which people? The legal citizens or illegals?

:
: I have no problem granting citizenship to immigrants, but why punish
: someone that has waited for and followed the legal steps by granting
: illegals citizenship rights? It is about fairness not denial...
:

: Further, the constitution makes citizens of anyone born here.

Yes, native born. Fine, I like that. I also like the naturalization
process. What I don't like are folks that cross the border illegally and
expect to be granted citizenship rights. Further, when those illegals take
away serives (health) from US citizens because there are too many of them
that are sick due to crossing a desert, then something is wrong with the
process. As the folks in southern Arizona about whether they like Mexicans
crossing the border into their towns and see what they tell you.

Germany went through this same sort of thing with Turks.


Eric

Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: : The came over the border illegally!
:
: : You mean those imaginary lines all over the world?
:
: It becomes petty clear where that line is when all the hospitals are full
: of sick Mexicans that have just crossed the desert to enter America
: denying US citizens health care in the area. Damn doctros and their
: oathes, right?

: Actually, hospitals are only required to treat life-threatening situations,
: the same as they are for US citizens.

Dehydration from the desert isn't happening to Americans only Mexicans in
that region (S. AZ). Non life threatening wounds to Americans are being
ignored because the illegals crossing the border in need of help according
to one AZ woman who has made a DVD video of such events.

Atlanta doesn't have the same issues as does border towns in AZ, TX and
CA.

Eric

:
: Speaking of lines, where does Ellis Island's borders begin and where do
: they end? The point is that when boats used to come to those shores we
: expected them. The border between TX, AZ, CA and Mexico allow for unknow
: amounts of immigrants bringing in unknown anything.
:
: Eric
:
: : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article ,
(Eric Chomko) wrote:
Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: : In article ,
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: : Question Quigley ) wrote:
: : : Didn't you ever stop playing "follow the leader" and learn to think
for
: : : yourself? The bozos in Washington and in the state capitals want you
to
: : : think illegal immigration is a real security threat. BS! I don't see
: :
: : The issue isn't bozos in Washington. It has to do with American
citizens
: : tiring of illegal foreigners acting like they deserve the same rights.
:
: : Tell me, in the US constitution, which rights are reserved only for
: citizens?
:
: The first line states, "We the People of the United States...", not, "We
: the People in the United States...". There IS a distinction.

: There would be if any of the rights said "the citizens" instead of "the
: people." The only ones that say "citizens" -- the 24th amendment and the
: 19th amendment, regarding voting. The bill of rights says "people" all the
: way through, not "citizens." That's why noncitizens have freedom of
speech,
: non-self incrimination, etc.

Why have immigration laws at all?

Non sequitir. What the constitution says is all people inside the US have
certain rights. It says nothing about the act of getting in itself.


: Further, we can't assume that our Constitution is applicable for all
: people in all countries as is what you imply.

: No, but all people in the US.

That are within the law. I'd say Timothy McVeigh was denied his life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness after he blew up the building in OKC.

Yes, it says "without due process."

Granted, Mexicans crossing the border are NOT in the same category as
McVeigh, but their entry in the US is illegal. Again, why have immigration
laws?

But McVeigh wasn't compelled to incriminate himself, wasn't given cruel and
unusual punishment, had freedom of speech, etc.


: We'd LIKE for them to adopt
: the content but can't assume that they have. Also, just because a person
: crosses a US border, doesn't imply that they are or should be granted US
: constitutional rights.

: The bill of rights says different.

What is a work visa, then? Why have it? Why go through a naturalization
process at all?

You're somehow confusing rights a person has when in this country with a right
to come into the country.


: Think about how diplomats come to this country.
: Sure they have immunity in some cases, but that is because they are NOT
: US citizens. These illegals are neither diplomats nor are they citizens!

: "The right of the people..."

Which people? The legal citizens or illegals?

The people, period. If you're legal or legal, you still have freedom of
religion, etc.


:
: I have no problem granting citizenship to immigrants, but why punish
: someone that has waited for and followed the legal steps by granting
: illegals citizenship rights? It is about fairness not denial...
:

: Further, the constitution makes citizens of anyone born here.

Yes, native born. Fine, I like that. I also like the naturalization
process. What I don't like are folks that cross the border illegally and
expect to be granted citizenship rights.

Which are what? What rights does the US give exclusively to citizens? Voting
is the only one I can think of.

Further, when those illegals take
away serives (health) from US citizens because there are too many of them
that are sick due to crossing a desert, then something is wrong with the
process. As the folks in southern Arizona about whether they like Mexicans
crossing the border into their towns and see what they tell you.

Germany went through this same sort of thing with Turks.

And because Germany doesn't give them a route to citizenship, it has a
permanent underclass now. Not a good thing.

Of course, most Turks came there legally, to work.



Eric

Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: : In article ,
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: : Lloyd Parker ) wrote:
: : : In article ,
: : : (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: : : Question Quigley ) wrote:
: : : : Didn't you ever stop playing "follow the leader" and learn to think
: for
: : : : yourself? The bozos in Washington and in the state capitals want you
: to
: : : : think illegal immigration is a real security threat. BS! I don't see
: : :
: : : The issue isn't bozos in Washington. It has to do with American
: citizens
: : : tiring of illegal foreigners acting like they deserve the same rights.
: :
: : : Tell me, in the US constitution, which rights are reserved only for
: : citizens?
: :
: : The first line states, "We the People of the United States...", not, "We
: : the People in the United States...". There IS a distinction.
:
: : There would be if any of the rights said "the citizens" instead of "the
: : people." The only ones that say "citizens" -- the 24th amendment and the
: : 19th amendment, regarding voting. The bill of rights says "people" all the
: : way through, not "citizens." That's why noncitizens have freedom of
: speech,
: : non-self incrimination, etc.
:
: Why have immigration laws at all?

: Non sequitir. What the constitution says is all people inside the US have
: certain rights. It says nothing about the act of getting in itself.

If the Constitution held everything for everything he'd have no National
Security Act.

:
: : Further, we can't assume that our Constitution is applicable for all
: : people in all countries as is what you imply.
:
: : No, but all people in the US.
:
: That are within the law. I'd say Timothy McVeigh was denied his life,
: liberty and pursuit of happiness after he blew up the building in OKC.

: Yes, it says "without due process."

: Granted, Mexicans crossing the border are NOT in the same category as
: McVeigh, but their entry in the US is illegal. Again, why have immigration
: laws?

: But McVeigh wasn't compelled to incriminate himself, wasn't given cruel and
: unusual punishment, had freedom of speech, etc.

What Mexicans are treated cruelly? I saw them aseeembling in at least two
different rallies in several states this past few weeks.

:
: : We'd LIKE for them to adopt
: : the content but can't assume that they have. Also, just because a person
: : crosses a US border, doesn't imply that they are or should be granted US
: : constitutional rights.
:
: : The bill of rights says different.
:
: What is a work visa, then? Why have it? Why go through a naturalization
: process at all?

: You're somehow confusing rights a person has when in this country with a right
: to come into the country.

The ones that come into the country illegally have less rights than those
with work visas, IMO. We want the latter...

:
: : Think about how diplomats come to this country.
: : Sure they have immunity in some cases, but that is because they are NOT
: : US citizens. These illegals are neither diplomats nor are they citizens!
:
: : "The right of the people..."
:
: Which people? The legal citizens or illegals?

: The people, period. If you're legal or legal, you still have freedom of
: religion, etc.

You don't need the gvoernment to tell you that!

:
: :
: : I have no problem granting citizenship to immigrants, but why punish
: : someone that has waited for and followed the legal steps by granting
: : illegals citizenship rights? It is about fairness not denial...
: :
:
: : Further, the constitution makes citizens of anyone born here.
:
: Yes, native born. Fine, I like that. I also like the naturalization
: process. What I don't like are folks that cross the border illegally and
: expect to be granted citizenship rights.

: Which are what? What rights does the US give exclusively to citizens? Voting
: is the only one I can think of.

Social security and therefore the right to legally work here. All others
are working here illegally.

: Further, when those illegals take
: away serives (health) from US citizens because there are too many of them
: that are sick due to crossing a desert, then something is wrong with the
: process. As the folks in southern Arizona about whether they like Mexicans
: crossing the border into their towns and see what they tell you.
:
: Germany went through this same sort of thing with Turks.

: And because Germany doesn't give them a route to citizenship, it has a
: permanent underclass now. Not a good thing.

: Of course, most Turks came there legally, to work.

I can't help read this and think of the song by Phil Ochs, "Love Me, Love
Me, I'm a Liberal". The best line in that song is, "I love Puerto Ricans
and Negros, just as long as they don't move in next door...".

What part of Atlanta do you live in Lloyd?

Eric

:
:
: Eric

Deja vu

Interesting reading on Mexican "repatriation" in the 1930s. Sounds like it
could be written today.

http://www.people.memphis.edu/~kenic...patration.html