What to do with illegal immigrant criminals in the U.S.?

[ballcaphair]

I believe that aliens have a positive and negative effect on who we are. If aliens are illegal, that's a negative beginning. Entering legally is presumed to be a positive. I believe we are arguing whether these aliens are immigrants, or invaders. This may be a gross stereotype, but I think the Left sees aliens as immigrants and the Right sees them as invaders. To me, I am concerned with assimilation. I think all aliens tax our system. If this sound bigoted, I apologize. I'm trying to get some perspective on who is who.

 

[Benvolio]

Where does that term appear in the Constitution?

Article IV Section 4

 

[Benvolio]

I believe that aliens have a positive and negative effect on who we are. If aliens are illegal, that's a negative beginning. Entering legally is presumed to be a positive. I believe we are arguing whether these aliens are immigrants, or invaders. This may be a gross stereotype, but I think the Left sees aliens as immigrants and the Right sees them as invaders. To me, I am concerned with assimilation. I think all aliens tax our system. If this sound bigoted, I apologize. I'm trying to get some perspective on who is who.

This will convince you if you are open minded; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4340290/Truth-t-like-says-KATIE-HOPKINS.html

 

[kallipolis]

Article IV Section 4

I quote:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Invasion infers armed ingress into the United States.

Illegal entry by immigrants is not invasion...for their purpose is to obtain work, and settle into a normal life.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

I quote:

an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

 

[ballcaphair]

This will convince you if you are open minded; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4340290/Truth-t-like-says-KATIE-HOPKINS.html

I like to think I am open minded and willing. The article is provocative, which is alright by me, but I believe that the London attacker was a Birmingham native with a history of crime known to authorities. I am trying to come to terms with immigrants, invaders and refugees. It's a hard pill to swallow, for me, that regardless their contribution, illegals initially break the law. Some natives break the law, but not initially. I'm trying to get a big perspective on the land of opportunity.

 

[Benvolio]

I quote:



Invasion infers armed ingress into the United States.

Illegal entry by immigrants is not invasion...for their purpose is to obtain work, and settle into a normal life.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

I quote:

What did the word mean in 1789? We are talking about upwards of a million people a year. It is an invasion by any definition. Our constitution and democracy would not mean much if they could be brushed aside as easily as you wish.
And you keep pretending they only want work. They consistently vote democrat to impose confiscatory taxes on Americans for welfare and freebies for immigrants, and unlimited floods of additional immigrants.

 

[Kabluey]

What did the word mean in 1789? We are talking about upwards of a million people a year. It is an invasion by any definition. Our constitution and democracy would not mean much if they could be brushed aside as easily as you wish.
And you keep pretending they only want work. They consistently vote democrat to impose confiscatory taxes on Americans for welfare and freebies for immigrants, and unlimited floods of additional immigrants.

You're quite right.
At the time of writing the constitution, invasion had a singular, military meaning.

It's only later that the word's use has been expanded. The constitution is speaking about military invasion.

 

[Stardreamer]

I quote:



Invasion infers armed ingress into the United States.

Illegal entry by immigrants is not invasion...for their purpose is to obtain work, and settle into a normal life.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

I quote:

The cited section does not define what is an invasion, it only refers to the Federal government's guarantee to provide the states protection. The Cornell Law School's LII Annotated Constitution page says the actual meaning of this section is rather obsure. The need to protect the states from armed invasion is rather redundant and the courts and legal scholars seemed more interested in the reference to putting down insurections. As best I can gather the definition of what is an invasion was left up to the Congress and Executive to define. It should be noted they end the discussion of the section with this note:

In recent years, the authority of the United States to use troops and other forces in the States has not generally been derived from this clause and it has been of little importance.

I would take that to mean that Article 10 USC and the various other war powers laws are what define an invading army and that would include the International Laws of Armed Conflict to which we are treaty signatories. Those clearly define what is a combatant and invader that is legally allowed to use military force against. Illegal immigrants and refugees are specifically identified as Non-combatants and not subject to military action. They are specifically identified as a police issue.

So basically no illegal immigrants are not invaders though they may be criminals. You can't use the military to deal with them.

 

[Kulindahr]

We are talking about upwards of a million people a year. It is an invasion by any definition.

Actually, sociologically it's a migration, not an invasion.

Other fields would also exclude the use of "invasion".

So no, by many definitions it is not an invasion.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're quite right.
At the time of writing the constitution, invasion had a singular, military meaning.

It's only later that the word's use has been expanded. The constitution is speaking about military invasion.

After perusing some colonial-time dictionaries, I find it isn't purely military. OTOH, it always means hostile intrusion, generally with violence.

So I would have to mostly concur with your final statement; a major land assault by pirates would seem to have been covered, and if such things had existed back then, an armed incursion by drug cartel members with harmful intent would qualify.

But a mass of unarmed intruders many of whom merely want to settle into a new home? No -- not in the Constitution's meaning.

 

[Kulindahr]

The cited section does not define what is an invasion, it only refers to the Federal government's guarantee to provide the states protection. The Cornell Law School's LII Annotated Constitution page says the actual meaning of this section is rather obsure. The need to protect the states from armed invasion is rather redundant and the courts and legal scholars seemed more interested in the reference to putting down insurections. As best I can gather the definition of what is an invasion was left up to the Congress and Executive to define. It should be noted they end the discussion of the section with this note:


I would take that to mean that Article 10 USC and the various other war powers laws are what define an invading army and that would include the International Laws of Armed Conflict to which we are treaty signatories. Those clearly define what is a combatant and invader that is legally allowed to use military force against. Illegal immigrants and refugees are specifically identified as Non-combatants and not subject to military action. They are specifically identified as a police issue.

So basically no illegal immigrants are not invaders though they may be criminals. You can't use the military to deal with them.

Yes. Historically, the term "intruders" would apply.

 

[Benvolio]

The cited section does not define what is an invasion, it only refers to the Federal government's guarantee to provide the states protection. The Cornell Law School's LII Annotated Constitution page says the actual meaning of this section is rather obsure. The need to protect the states from armed invasion is rather redundant and the courts and legal scholars seemed more interested in the reference to putting down insurections. As best I can gather the definition of what is an invasion was left up to the Congress and Executive to define. It should be noted they end the discussion of the section with this note:


I would take that to mean that Article 10 USC and the various other war powers laws are what define an invading army and that would include the International Laws of Armed Conflict to which we are treaty signatories. Those clearly define what is a combatant and invader that is legally allowed to use military force against. Illegal immigrants and refugees are specifically identified as Non-combatants and not subject to military action. They are specifically identified as a police issue.

So basically no illegal immigrants are not invaders though they may be criminals. You can't use the military to deal with them.

No. The duty to protect the states from invasion is a constitutional duty which Congress cannot simply brush aside with a narrow definition of invade. The states surrendered their power to repel invasions in reliance on the promise of the federal government. The simple fact is that most immigrants vote democrat so democrats have no motive to repel the invasion.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. The duty to protect the states from invasion is a constitutional duty which Congress cannot simply brush aside with a narrow definition of invade. The states surrendered their power to repel invasions in reliance on the promise of the federal government. The simple fact is that most immigrants vote democrat so democrats have no motive to repel the invasion.

So you DO believe the Constitution is a "living document", since you're insisting that a definition you like be inserted despite the fact that it is not one covered by the original meaning.

You're no originalist -- you just want the document to "live" in the direction of your preferences... exactly like Hillary Clinton.

 

[Kabluey]

No. The duty to protect the states from invasion is a constitutional duty which Congress cannot simply brush aside with a narrow definition of invade. The states surrendered their power to repel invasions in reliance on the promise of the federal government. The simple fact is that most immigrants vote democrat so democrats have no motive to repel the invasion.

Idiocy.
So by your logic, New Jersey's slowly invading Florida.

 

[Stardreamer]

No. The duty to protect the states from invasion is a constitutional duty which Congress cannot simply brush aside with a narrow definition of invade. The states surrendered their power to repel invasions in reliance on the promise of the federal government. The simple fact is that most immigrants vote democrat so democrats have no motive to repel the invasion.

I don't think that is what Cornell meant in their write-up or me in my interpretation of it. I think it is more that like most things in the Constitution, the basics are laid out and it is up to the branches to flesh it out the details.

 

[gsdx]

No. The duty to protect the states from invasion is a constitutional duty which Congress cannot simply brush aside with a narrow definition of invade. The states surrendered their power to repel invasions in reliance on the promise of the federal government. The simple fact is that most immigrants vote democrat so democrats have no motive to repel the invasion.

How ironic that thousands and thousands of Canadians have been 'invading' Florida every winter for many, many decades, but that's okay with you because we leave our money behind. Canadians have been crossing the border for cross-border shopping for many, many decades, but that's okay because we leave our money behind.

So, invasions are okay with you if the people leave their money behind?

Not only is that ironic, it is very, very hypocritical.

 

[SaskGuy]

I don't think New Jerseyans, or Canadians are forcing a hateful, regressive religion on Florida, demonstrating hate speech in the streets, and attacking Florida residents.

It's not immigration that people have a problem with, it's the hateful ideals that some of them are trying to force upon us, and the fact that we're not allowed to object to it.

If people want to come and live here, they're welcome, but they better keep their hateful religion at the door and live by our rules, or they can get the fuck out.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't think New Jerseyans, or Canadians are forcing a hateful, regressive religion on Florida, demonstrating hate speech in the streets, and attacking Florida residents.

It's not immigration that people have a problem with, it's the hateful ideals that some of them are trying to force upon us, and the fact that we're not allowed to object to it.

If people want to come and live here, they're welcome, but they better keep their hateful religion at the door and live by our rules, or they can get the fuck out.

Yeah those Mexicans are forcing their hateful Christianity on us all.

 

[kallipolis]

The cited section does not define what is an invasion, it only refers to the Federal government's guarantee to provide the states protection. The Cornell Law School's LII Annotated Constitution page says the actual meaning of this section is rather obsure. The need to protect the states from armed invasion is rather redundant and the courts and legal scholars seemed more interested in the reference to putting down insurections. As best I can gather the definition of what is an invasion was left up to the Congress and Executive to define. It should be noted they end the discussion of the section with this note:


I would take that to mean that Article 10 USC and the various other war powers laws are what define an invading army and that would include the International Laws of Armed Conflict to which we are treaty signatories. Those clearly define what is a combatant and invader that is legally allowed to use military force against. Illegal immigrants and refugees are specifically identified as Non-combatants and not subject to military action. They are specifically identified as a police issue.

So basically no illegal immigrants are not invaders though they may be criminals. You can't use the military to deal with them.

There is the further thought that illegal and legal entry into the United States by immigrants seeking a better life and/or safe refuge from oppression, and war in the land of their fathers has enabled the United States to grow into the most powerful economy on this planet.

 

[Kulindahr]

Idiocy.
So by your logic, New Jersey's slowly invading Florida.

And California continues to invade Oregon.