ADVERTISEMENT

Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution

IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life

IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life

HR King
Mar 14, 2003
70,385
25,386
113
Article 33 of Mexico's constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country. ... During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...treats-undesirable-foreigners-michelle-malkin

So before you continue to cry about DACA, remember this.
 
IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life said:
Article 33 of Mexico's constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country. ... During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...treats-undesirable-foreigners-michelle-malkin

So before you continue to cry about DACA, remember this.
Click to expand...

Ok

tumblr_m3bv29tsq91rv2wyuo1_500.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman, ANYCHawk, Tunadog and 2 others
IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life said:
Article 33 of Mexico's constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country. ... During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...treats-undesirable-foreigners-michelle-malkin

So before you continue to cry about DACA, remember this.
Click to expand...
You should move to Mexico.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman, strummingram and naturalmwa
IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life said:
I've noticed that seems to be a typical progressive talking point when it comes to their "open borders" argument.

"We're better than them..."
Click to expand...

It's not a progressive thought, I hear it from Pubbers all the time that we are better. If we are, then let's act like it. We have more, we should use it to help people that need it.

Me, I'd rather we act like the Christian nation "cons" who claim to be Christian (they arent) try to say we are (it's not).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman, TheCainer and Raglefant
naturalmwa said:
A good country has just laws. You know who thought every law should be enforced no matter it's just status? Peter the Great of Russia thought like you. You have the mind of a Russian.
Click to expand...

Weak. Instead of debating the merits, you resort to name calling. Whether you think the laws of this country are "just" or not, you are required to follow them. As opposed to the reign of Peter the Great, you have the opportunity to try to convince others to change the laws to make them "just" in your opinion. Work harder to elect representatives that share your opinion of what is "just" or not. You are better than this.
 
l.todd said:
Weak. Instead of debating the merits, you resort to name calling. Whether you think the laws of this country are "just" or not, you are required to follow them. As opposed to the reign of Peter the Great, you have the opportunity to try to convince others to change the laws to make them "just" in your opinion. Work harder to elect representatives that share your opinion of what is "just" or not. You are better than this.
Click to expand...
Justice always deserve allegiance over laws. And the people already agree the immigration laws are unjust. Go back to Russia you Putin puppy, you don't know America.
 
l.todd said:
Weak. Instead of debating the merits, you resort to name calling. Whether you think the laws of this country are "just" or not, you are required to follow them. As opposed to the reign of Peter the Great, you have the opportunity to try to convince others to change the laws to make them "just" in your opinion. Work harder to elect representatives that share your opinion of what is "just" or not. You are better than this.
Click to expand...

Is the law these children can stay? Isn't that what we're following?

If we are just supposed to follow the laws on the books, why are we changing this one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
naturalmwa said:
Justice always deserve allegiance over laws. And the people already agree the immigration laws are unjust. Go back to Russia you Putin puppy, you don't know America.
Click to expand...

I actually think that the DACA people should stay. But I believe it should be done the correct way, through Congress, rather than through executive order. And perhaps you would be more comfortable in Russia, where decisions are made by one man who cultivates a cult of personality and can change the laws at will, rather than through constitutionally mandated processes. Comrade.
 
l.todd said:
I actually think that the DACA people should stay. But I believe it should be done the correct way, through Congress, rather than through executive order. And perhaps you would be more comfortable in Russia, where decisions are made by one man who cultivates a cult of personality and can change the laws at will, rather than through constitutionally mandated processes. Comrade.
Click to expand...
That sounds like Trump.
 
ANYCHawk said:
Is the law these children can stay? Isn't that what we're following?

If we are just supposed to follow the laws on the books, why are we changing this one?
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. There is no law passed by Congress that says that anyone, whether over or under the age of 18, should be allowed to stay in this country. Obama declared through executive order that they could stay temporarily (the first word of DACA is Deferred) which basically meant he was not going to enforce the law. The job of the executive branch is to enforce the law, not legislate it.
 
naturalmwa said:
That sounds like Trump.
Click to expand...

Very bright. You are proving yourself to be not as intelligent as you think you are. And yes, although I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM and think he has been disastrous on a number of issues, he is right on this one. He is giving Congress 6 months to fix the law, or he will enforce it as it has been written. As I said, I am hopeful that Congress will write a law that allows these people to STAY. I don't agree with throwing them out. I would just like to see it CODIFIED so that the debate can be over and these people can rest easy, without the looming threat of deportation over their heads. After years of incompetence on immigration, I think Trump just FORCED Congress to fix it, one way or the other, in the way it should be fixed, legislatively.
 
l.todd said:
Very bright. You are proving yourself to be not as intelligent as you think you are. And yes, although I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM and think he has been disastrous on a number of issues, he is right on this one. He is giving Congress 6 months to fix the law, or he will enforce it as it has been written. As I said, I am hopeful that Congress will write a law that allows these people to STAY. I don't agree with throwing them out. I would just like to see it CODIFIED so that the debate can be over and these people can rest easy, without the looming threat of deportation over their heads. After years of incompetence on immigration, I think Trump just FORCED Congress to fix it, one way or the other, in the way it should be fixed, legislatively.
Click to expand...
You can't fix this one way or the other. Any fix that involves deporting these people is unjust and must be opposed no matter what the law says. DACA kids need to get guns.
 
l.todd said:
Not sure what your point is. There is no law passed by Congress that says that anyone, whether over or under the age of 18, should be allowed to stay in this country. Obama declared through executive order that they could stay temporarily (the first word of DACA is Deferred) which basically meant he was not going to enforce the law. The job of the executive branch is to enforce the law, not legislate it.
Click to expand...

Aren't executive orders legal? If he passed one that said we're gonna defer on that issue, isn't that the equivalent of law then? Nobody struck it down, overturned or changed the EO right?

So then we are just following what is on the book. As you said his job is to enforce the law which is what he is doing no?

Or can we stop following Trump's EO on succession in the DOJ. Oh and I don't feel like listening to any of them Venezuela sanctions. Dear Venezuela, please send us more baseball players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman and Raglefant
naturalmwa said:
You can't fix this one way or the other. Any fix that involves deporting these people is unjust and must be opposed no matter what the law says. DACA kids need to get guns.
Click to expand...

SO CHANGE THE LAW. That is my point! It is much better to change the law than to oppose it. Because you never know what law will be opposed "no matter what it says". Such as laws that say you can't discriminate against homosexuals. When you choose to nullify a law you don't like, you open the door for others to nullify a law they don't like, but you do. That is a recipe for disaster and anarchy. I am hopeful that we can come to an effective change of the law. And as I said, I am NOT in favor of deporting these people. I think that these people who were brought over as children, are innocent of any crime, as they most likely did not have a choice in the matter and probably had no idea what they were doing was wrong or illegal. They have also integrated themselves into our society. But why not some good old political horsetrading?? If I were to give you a path to legal immigration for these folks, would you give me a wall, or something similar, to stop these types of situations from happening in the future?? Is compromise in your nature? After all, we were told after the 1986 immigration bill that this was the last time we would need something like this, that we would stem the flow of illegal immigration. So amnesty was granted, and 30 years later....the other part of the equation has not been fulfilled.
 
ANYCHawk said:
Aren't executive orders legal? If he passed one that said we're gonna defer on that issue, isn't that the equivalent of law then? Nobody struck it down, overturned or changed the EO right?

So then we are just following what is on the book. As you said his job is to enforce the law which is what he is doing no?

Or can we stop following Trump's EO on succession in the DOJ. Oh and I don't feel like listening to any of them Venezuela sanctions. Dear Venezuela, please send us more baseball players.
Click to expand...



He is not following the law. Even Dianne Feinstein said DACA was on very shaky ground as law. His executive order was basically the executive branches directive on how to follow it. And it is something that clearly overrode the intent of the current law, and can be changed by a new president. That is no way to run immigration policy and treat these people, having them sway with the wind every 4 or 8 years. Force congress to be responsible, do it's job, and write the laws.
 
SSG T said:
It's not a progressive thought, I hear it from Pubbers all the time that we are better. If we are, then let's act like it. We have more, we should use it to help people that need it.

Me, I'd rather we act like the Christian nation "cons" who claim to be Christian (they arent) try to say we are (it's not).
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph has me questioning whether an adult typed it or a sergeant in the cub scouts did.
 
naturalmwa said:
A good country has just laws. You know who thought every law should be enforced no matter it's just status? Peter the Great of Russia thought like you. You have the mind of a Russian.
Click to expand...

I thought you were a fan of Peter the Great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
SSG T said:
It's not a progressive thought, I hear it from Pubbers all the time that we are better. If we are, then let's act like it. We have more, we should use it to help people that need it.
.
Click to expand...

Why do we have to let them in to help them? We can certainly help exponentially more people in the places they live.
 
Metuo Accipiter said:
Why do we have to let them in to help them? We can certainly help exponentially more people in the places they live.
Click to expand...

Why not let them in? I'm all for helping them wherever we can...that includes here. I'm done looking at the costs to helping people, I'm going to start looking at the cost of not helping people. Want to know why we have enemies? We have the most and ignore everyone else unless we see something we want to take, then we call it a National Security Issue and go take it. We put ourselves first, instead of looking at everyone as human beings who are just like us. That isn't how we should be.

Again, if we were the Christian nation cons want to claim we are, then lets act like it. Because going to war constantly and threatening war isn't Christian, and if you think it is, then you don't follow the Christ that's in the bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
SSG T said:
Why not let them in? I'm all for helping them wherever we can...that includes here. I'm done looking at the costs to helping people, I'm going to start looking at the cost of not helping people. Want to know why we have enemies? We have the most and ignore everyone else unless we see something we want to take, then we call it a National Security Issue and go take it. We put ourselves first, instead of looking at everyone as human beings who are just like us. That isn't how we should be.

Again, if we were the Christian nation cons want to claim we are, then lets act like it. Because going to war constantly and threatening war isn't Christian, and if you think it is, then you don't follow the Christ that's in the bible.
Click to expand...
It's incredibly naive to act like costs don't matter - they most certainly do. And over-burdening our schools, health care system, social services, etc., hurts the population as a whole.

We can help more people living in poverty by spending the same sums of money around the globe. It's exponentially more expensive to bring a poor person into the US than it is to help a person in their native county. We can help dozens of people in a poor african country for the cost we pay to feed, house, educate and provide healthcare for just one uneducated immigrant. If you really wanted to provide the most good for the most people you'd be for a controlled border and a more expansive global welfare network.
 
Metuo Accipiter said:
It's incredibly naive to act like costs don't matter - they most certainly do. And over-burdening our schools, health care system, social services, etc., hurts the population as a whole.

We can help more people living in poverty by spending the same sums of money around the globe. It's exponentially more expensive to bring a poor person into the US than it is to help a person in their native county. We can help dozens of people in a poor african country for the cost we pay to feed, house, educate and provide healthcare for just one uneducated immigrant. If you really wanted to provide the most good for the most people you'd be for a controlled border and a more expansive global welfare network.
Click to expand...

Yet people like you want to cut back, or cut out entirely, foreign aid. We want to say "we can help them more there", but that's just justification to keep "them" out. We are all people. Do you consider yourself Christian? I know people who would consider themselves devout, evangelicals...and they want to keep certain people out. When I mention the parts of the Bible where man is made in His image, the parts where we are to love others as we love ourselves, where we are to take care of others, even to the point of giving all we have, I hear crickets.

I'm sick and tired of the people who try to claim this is a Christian nation, people who say we need more "good Christians" in government, people who feel the need to complain about God being taken out of our schools talking the game but acting like it's not government's job to do anything other than leave us alone and help those who need the least amount of help. People post articles and express outrage about crosses being taken down, but want to act exactly like the people who put Christ on that cross.

People like you don't even want to help the poor and needy here, why should I expect to help the poor and needy any where else? I can see why Trump appeals to the people he appeals to, Trump is all about Trump. His supporters are all about themselves. "What's in it for me?". Sorry, but that is wrong and decidedly un-Christian.

I'm not the one who's naive. I see exactly what's going on. You, and others like you, are the one's who are naive. You think you have all the answers. The most money and most power can solve the world's problems. Completely ignoring that we are causing a lot of the world's problems with that attitude. I've said consistently, the US is not my main focus and not where my ultimate loyalty lies. If the choice is between doing things the American way or the Christian way, I'll choose the Christian way every single time. And anymore, those two ways are completely different paths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
SSG T said:
Yet people like you want to cut back, or cut out entirely, foreign aid. We want to say "we can help them more there", but that's just justification to keep "them" out. We are all people. Do you consider yourself Christian? I know people who would consider themselves devout, evangelicals...and they want to keep certain people out. When I mention the parts of the Bible where man is made in His image, the parts where we are to love others as we love ourselves, where we are to take care of others, even to the point of giving all we have, I hear crickets.

I'm sick and tired of the people who try to claim this is a Christian nation, people who say we need more "good Christians" in government, people who feel the need to complain about God being taken out of our schools talking the game but acting like it's not government's job to do anything other than leave us alone and help those who need the least amount of help. People post articles and express outrage about crosses being taken down, but want to act exactly like the people who put Christ on that cross.

People like you don't even want to help the poor and needy here, why should I expect to help the poor and needy any where else? I can see why Trump appeals to the people he appeals to, Trump is all about Trump. His supporters are all about themselves. "What's in it for me?". Sorry, but that is wrong and decidedly un-Christian.

I'm not the one who's naive. I see exactly what's going on. You, and others like you, are the one's who are naive. You think you have all the answers. The most money and most power can solve the world's problems. Completely ignoring that we are causing a lot of the world's problems with that attitude. I've said consistently, the US is not my main focus and not where my ultimate loyalty lies. If the choice is between doing things the American way or the Christian way, I'll choose the Christian way every single time. And anymore, those two ways are completely different paths.
Click to expand...
Seriosly dude - much of what you say is largely filled with silly left-wing propaganda. How about you actually be honest about what others believe?

No, people like me don't want to cut foreign aid. Just because some people believe in giving aid primarily through private charity doesn't mean they don't believe in giving aid. Conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Study after study shows that. They believe it is an individual duty - not someone else's problem. So quit trying to vilify others just because they don't think exactly like you. But if you feel you are required to hate on conservatives - at least have accurate facts. Much of what you say above is either dishonest or just naive misinformation.

It seems your complaint is with government policies - and yet you are ranting and raving about others not accepting a government policy (a policy of failing to enforce our laws). Kinda ironic don't ya think?

As for you being so much more informed on what's going on than the rest of us - please tell us why you think the democrat party actually supports not enforcing immigration laws. I hope you aren't ignorant enough to think it's for humanitarian reasons.
 
Last edited:
IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life said:
Article 33 of Mexico's constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country. ... During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...treats-undesirable-foreigners-michelle-malkin

So before you continue to cry about DACA, remember this.
Click to expand...
There must be a lot of subjectivity in this or Mexico would have been, and would be, detaining American politicians by the busloads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Donald Trump Vows To Abolish A Part Of The Constitution On ‘Day One’ If He Wins

Replies
5
Views
225
Off Topic
FAUlty Gator
FAUlty Gator
cigaretteman

Opinion So Republicans want to read the Constitution? They should look at these parts.

Replies
0
Views
164
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
cigaretteman

Opinion Jim Jordan’s new stunt reveals the folly of ‘governing by Fox News’

Replies
0
Views
139
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
cigaretteman

The Abortion Ban Backlash Is Starting to Freak Out Republicans

Replies
170
Views
3K
Off Topic
TC Nole OX
TC Nole OX
cigaretteman

The conspiracy-fueled origin of the Christmas poinsettia

Replies
2
Views
201
Off Topic
Rifler
Rifler
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back