Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.

In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, he got due process under current US law. As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.

Yeah. I didn't use the right term. It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans. I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things. You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama. It doesn't. It was wrong of Bush. It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yeah. I didn't use the right term. It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans. I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things. You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama. It doesn't. It was wrong of Bush. It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.

From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong. His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush. The people who make morally/ethically wrong actions legal do bear a lasting blame for what they've done. That doesn't absolve those who then legally perform those morally/ethically wrong actions, but the future bad actors don't absolve the enablers of their lasting blame either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah. I didn't use the right term. It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans. I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things. You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama. It doesn't. It was wrong of Bush. It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.

I never said it absolves Obama. I actually said there is blame enough to go around between the last 2 presidents and our legislators. Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

However, unless & until the ACLU or someone else successfully pierces that particular veil, we have no way to accurately gauge which (if any) drone strikes were justified and which were not; which (if any) drone strikes followed proper procedures as set forth in law and which have not.

Until then, my position is that the burden of proof that the gov't has violated the procedures in place has not been met, and as such, throwing around charged prose like "murdered" and "assassinated" is not helpful to civil discussion of the issue.

 

[Maxperson]

How many? That's the question. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough.

I don't know how many, but the fact that they exist is evidence enough that you can't just toss the whole number of illegals into a neat category.

You keep on asserting these things, but give no evidence. You are not an accepted authority. And *how many* get paid more is extremely relevant to your point.

My point was that the minimum wage law is not enforced for these people - it isn't like they can file a grievance about it. So, why would we expect a significant number of them to be paid above minimum wage?

How many get paid more would be better, yes, but it's a fact that there are numbers that do get paid more. People don't pay them $5 an hour to clean the pool or do the lawn.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Sources, Links/illegal_immigration.htm

"Juan and María (not their real names) follow a simple strategy — staying out of trouble and undercutting competitors. Juan does landscaping, charging about $600 for major yard work — about $400 less than the typical legal contractor. María cleans houses for $70; house-cleaning services normally charge $85 or more."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129028587

"Annette's painter is not authorized to work in the U.S. In fact, he's not authorized to live here, either. His name is Raphael, and he's cheap. Annette says an American painter quoted her $1,200 for the job. Raphael charges $500.

Annette believes American prices are inflated, so paying Raphael the lower wage is justified.

"If Raphael didn't come, he would work in a maquiladora in Juarez, and he would make $1 an hour or $2 an hour, whereas here he can make $500 in a matter of five hours," Annette says. "So I have no problem giving him the keys to this condo, because I know he'll do a good job."

"He and his wife, Patricia Butler, pay Spanish-speaking men who roam their neighborhood seeking work about $30 a piece to trim about a half-dozen palm trees that tower above their pool."

They get paid less for the same job, but they are doing jobs that make more than minimum wage, so even making less, they're still getting minimum wage or better.

And *WHAT IS THE HUGE NUMBER*? You wave your hands around making claims, and you don't back them up. Why should anyone listen to you if you don't back up your assertions?

I did a quick search for how many people make under $10/hour, and the number I found was about 15 million. Took me about 30 seconds to find a CNN article. You're welcome.

When I went looking for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce, the number I got was about 8 million. At least twice as many as you assert. You seem to have estimated that about a third of illegals were working, when the numbers say more like 70% or more of them are working.

Now, 8 is less than 15. But, it means that illegals make up about a third of this low-wage pool, and therefore their impact can't be ignored.

I'm not saying that there won't be an impact. That impact, however, could be absorbed by out of work Americans, albeit at higher wages. There would be an increase in the cost of produce and such, but not a significant one. I'm willing to pay it.

 

[MechaPilot]

Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

I think that might be an accurate assertion myself. However, the judiciary doesn't have a great track record of going against presidential power. Certainly, one example of this is the Supreme Court's decision that forcibly resettling Native Americans was against the law. To which, it is said, President Jefferson said of the chief justice of the Court "He has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Certainly the US judiciary has a spotty track record. Some have even said the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong more often than it gets it right.

 

[Maxperson]

Danny covered this quite well. The idea of having children here to "anchor" citizenship is simply not a major factor in illegal immigrants coming to the US or for having children here. They are coming for jobs. Having children is merely a part of living their lives - no ulterior motives other than to have a family. It's essentially a manufactured issue. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

Not to mention that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically considered American Citizens. I suggest reading up on the 14th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That highlighted part has been taken as precedent that there is no valid basis for granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Subject to the jurisdiction requires living legally within the United States.

There is no court that has said otherwise, including the Supreme Court. The only way it works is if the parents are here legally.

Except that you're wrong and so are your biased websites. These children are granted citizenship. Each and every one of them. Since the rest of your arguments rely on the incorrect statements of your bad websites, I'm going to ignore them.

Nearly 100 years later, in 1982, the Supreme Court used language that seemed to indicate the protection applied to children of illegal immigrants as well.

In ruling that Texas must provide a free public education to undocumented children, the court said in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

On a personal note, I can't help but notice that this is the only post of mine to which you've replied. Reading through these most recent pages, I've noticed a trend where you remain silent on posts that provide solid references and data against a claim or statement you've made. You don't acknowledge the posts even exist, let alone state whether you agree, disagree, or acknowledge a claim or statement you've made is incorrect.

I often ignore posts where I've already answered the issues in another post. A lot of the time I'm not going to respond 3 times to the same thing.

Has anything that anybody has posted informed or changed your opinions?

If so, what?

Danny and his statement about due process. He's right. I used it incorrectly.

I'm especially interested in your thoughts on what I posted about the First Red Scare. Do you find it interesting or ironic that if Americans between 1917 and the early 1920's had given in to the desire to do the same thing you want to do now (ban ethnic groups from immigration based on fear of who might come with them), that you quite possibly might not have grown up American...?

That was different than what is going on now. Now we have very real groups that have been proven to try to sneak into our country and blow us up. It's not just imagines hysteria.

 

[Maxperson]

From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong. His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush. The people who make morally/ethically wrong actions legal do bear a lasting blame for what they've done. That doesn't absolve those who then legally perform those morally/ethically wrong actions, but the future bad actors don't absolve the enablers of their lasting blame either.

I agree. Congress was wrong, too. The Patriot Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation to be enacted that I can think of.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said it absolves Obama. I actually said there is blame enough to go around between the last 2 presidents and our legislators. Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

However, unless & until the ACLU or someone else successfully pierces that particular veil, we have no way to accurately gauge which (if any) drone strikes were justified and which were not; which (if any) drone strikes followed proper procedures as set forth in law and which have not.

Until then, my position is that the burden of proof that the gov't has violated the procedures in place has not been met, and as such, throwing around charged prose like "murdered" and "assassinated" is not helpful to civil discussion of the issue.

My position is that there is no justification for the U.S. to be targeting Americans with drone strikes. If there is a law that allows it, then that law be damned. It's murder.

 

[Umbran]

Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.

I think you're reading that wrong. Specifically, you're reading a case that granted inclusion to be a case that grants exclusion. United States v. Wong Kim Ark is about a person who's parents were in the country legally when he was born. Then, they were denied re-entry to the US when a law on Chinese immigration changed. He sued to be allowed entry, due to his being a citizen. He won.

A statement of, "We grant persons of type A citizenship," does *NOT* then also automatically mean, "We exclude people other than type A from citizenship." My understanding is that this is how the courts prefer to work - they draw lines of explicit inclusion when necessary, but avoid drawing lines of explicit exclusion when possible.

This case *does not speak* to the case of an illegal immigrant, as there were no illegal immigrants involved. The wikipedia article you link to, and the article on the specific court case, specifically notes that the Supreme Court has never heard a case questioning the citizenship of a child of illegal immigrants.