Dispelling a Myth Regarding Immigration

Mexicans/hispanics should get priority for two reasons: 1) they are the ones who are coming here illegally in droves and 2) they will take their money home and eventually it will balance out economically across the border which will address our immediate concerns. There is no upside in bringing in millions from India and the Middle East. Sorry but if a Indian can be productive, so can a Cuban, Sri Lankan, or anybody else.

 

Oh please. You are trying to juxtaprose your experience onto other cultures that you know nothing about. Latino culture is not homogeneious. Anyone who has practical experience with culture of any of the Latin American countries, including Mexico, would understand this. But apparently you do not.

You are talking to someone who has been to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Honduras, and Costa Rica.

 

so what you are saying is you are opposed to education....you must be a republican.

 

The constitution guarantees the right to fight with a foreign army dedicated to our destruction complete with the right of return and free travel? What clause is that?

 

Section (b) defines and states the following in regards specifically to applicants.

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-3422.html

Your attempt at trying to include something beyond that is ridiculous.

 

You have probably been to those places to visit but I doubt you know anything beyond a tourist's perspective. I have lived, worked and have family in Latin american countries so I doubt what experience you have even comes close. You do not see the real culture of these place by merely going on vacation. Tourists rarely see the real thing.

 

The Constitution guarantees innocent until proven guilty. Or do you want guilty until proven innocent?

 

Try missionary work as a teenager and young adult. As for the culture, I saw it daily in small towns and villages during the tine I was there that was not on any tourist map. So, don't go there.

 

If you would notice, presumed to be an immigrant is the phrase that I was preferring. The legal status, or lack thereof, is the procedure established for any alien to enter in the United States, but that every alien is presumed to be an immigrant.

- - - Updated - - -

Internet gossip is not education of any sort.

 

"(P)resumed to be an immigrant" is discussing that the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) . So your comment takes out of context the reality of that very section, it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants whatsoever. FAIL

 

[/QUOTE]
The application process is the procedure to be here legally, but that does not mean that intent does not apply. Again, those that are here out of status, or have not gone through the legal process, are immigrants. That is what the code says, bur those immigrants have not gone through the process, which is another aspect of immigration altogether.

 

That is not what the code says.

What intent?

INA214(b) is for an applicant applying from within their own country, an immigrant can not apply from within the US. Those that have not gone thorough the legal process are here in violation of the law, i.e. they are illegal immigrants i.e. illegal aliens.

Those that are out of status do not fall under 214(b).

 

If an American joins an army engaged in hostilities against the United States, that’s considered an act of treason and punishable by death.

 

The Constitution guarantees Due Process, it does not guarantee innocent until proven guilty.

 

Bringing in young breeders to create a work force for old people is a growing claim by some. Basically it is to import a lower class of people to provide a work force for higher class old people. Via social programs because that immigrant work forces' lower income would essentially be subsidizing their breeding large numbers of children - to then become low lever worker bees for higher income and older indigenous Americans.

For this to work requires immigrants who are vastly different from current popular American ideas of having less children who ideally then can be better cared for and better educated. Rather, it would have to be very low education, low intelligent immigrants with religious values causing them to have lots and lots of babies - who are to then enter the low level work force as basically ghetto based employees to services to old higher income people.

Sounds unseemly to me.

 

When and where was this? You really have to learn to share the specifics of your superior knowledge of history instead of just teasing us with unsupported assertions.

 

Indeed, the presumption of innocence goes back to the Romans, who noticed that, logically, one cannot prove a negative

 

It must still be proven by due process, does it not? The proof Treason requires is the only one specified in the Constitution, and is quite rigorous, I understand. Frex, the above only applies if the US is at war with the hostile nation as well, and espionage, while a separate crime, is not treason if the country is an ally or not at war with the US.

 

That is true only if that foreign entity has declared war against the United States as a foreign nation. Fatahs are not recognized as forms of declaration of war from foreign nations fighting against the United States. That is why we do not apply the term treason to groups like Sovereign citizens, Oath Keepers, anytime someone wants to "secede from the United States." and some of the militias who actively want the government destroyed. The only exception was during the time of the communist scare here in the United States where we suspended certain liberties of freedom all in the name of being safe.

 

Due process is innocent until proven. It is why we have the 4th amendment. It is why we have equal protection under the law. And it is a concept within the menaing of the Constitution that we hold dear. If not, then the United States is like any other banana republic long before immigration was an issue.

 

I was right

 

There is no anti-immigrant crowd.

 

this in the face of obvious reality

 

I love telling people like you face to face that they don't have anything to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about unless they lie and fabricate issues for them to be upset. You all say that Trump has a problem with Mexicans, but when I force them to listen to Trump say the words "illegal immigration" then all of a sudden they don't have much to say about it.

No one has a problem with legal immigration, whom I have a higher opinion of than I do many who are American by birth, but the illegal immigration is what we're upset about. Illegal.

Illegal.

 

Missionary work is still tourism. I doubt you spent much time in these places or even got to know the people that well. As for me....again... I have family there so I know you are bs'ing.....