homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

Forum Home Post A Reply

my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home

» The Geek Culture Forums! » All about the comics! » The Joy of Tech » JoT of 22 Jun 18 » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password (max 13 characters):
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.


Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   Happytears  
blush   Beard of Peter Gabriel!   crazy   tired   ohwell   evil  
shake head   cry baby   hearts   weep   devil wand   thumbsup  
thumbsdown   Geek   Applause   Angel   Envy    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?

Disable Graemlins in this post.


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Member # 36425
 - posted June 22, 2018 14:56
OK, since almost all Canadians (and Americans) seem to be uninformed on how the US Constitution requires these separations. The actual item is the "Bill of Attainder" ban in Article I, Section 8 (for the Federal government; for state governments it is in Section 10). This ban has been used to prevent the incarceration of innocent family members with those arrested.

Now since it is ILLEGAL to enter these United States WITHOUT permission, federal law requires these lawbreakers to be arrested, HOWEVER the Bill of Attainder ban in the Constitution prohibits their children from being held with the parents.

So what is the solution? We either have to allow lawbreakers to go free or directly violate Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. The current administration only followed the requirements of the Constitution.

Those opposed to the separation may want to push for a constitutional amendment repealing the Bill of Attainder ban but they need to remember that if it ever happened and they were arrested for DUI with family members in the vehicle, those family members could be arrested also.

Judging by the reports of the news media who have visited the children's care centers, those children are getting better care there than they ever did before. Perhaps it is time to build similar custody centers for families in the Federal detention centers.
Member # 2515
 - posted June 23, 2018 11:51
I'm neither American nor Canadian, but I don't really follow your logic here.

Firstly, I presume you're referring so AIS9 (given AIS8 is just a list of the powers of Congress), but as far as I can tell AIS9 can be summarised as:
  • Can't ban importation of slaves
  • Can't suspend writ of habeas corpus (unless shit is really hitting the fan) i.e. prisoners can report unlawful detention to the courts
  • No bills of attainder, i.e. can't just declare someone as guilty for being that sort of person, and you can't make something illegal then charge someone for doing it in the past
  • States can't impose taxes (but this was ammended)
  • Can't be a prince or king of the US.

I'm not sure how this can be used as justification for separation of migrant children from their parents? A bill of attainder would be declaring all Mexican's guilty of being immigrants and punishing them automatically.
The Famous Druid
Member # 1769
 - posted June 24, 2018 01:41
As Stibbons pointed out - you've misunderstood what a 'Bill Of Attainder' is.

Another mistake is to assert that

Now since it is ILLEGAL to enter these United States WITHOUT permission, federal law requires these lawbreakers to be arrested

The US has signed (and incorporated into US law) the UN Convention on Refugees.

This means it is legal to enter the US and seek asylum, in fact it specifically forbids governments from bringing criminal charges against refugees for entering their countries by irregular means.
Member # 1232
 - posted June 28, 2018 04:51
romad.... you disappoint... As a Canadian of Mexican decent I do not support whats going on down there. The civil rights and human rights violations are mounting. Also... I do not appreciate my family in California being threatened with deportation on a whim because they are not white.. they are LEGAL BORN ON THE SOIL US CITIZENS. I myself, do not appreciate being grilled extra by US customs at EITHER Northern or Southern borders for being a person of color. also.. what a piss poor intro to the forums...
Member # 29824
 - posted October 26, 2018 01:58
There is a lot of obfuscating in some of these posts. The law is the law. If you don't like it there is a legal way to change it - unfortunately those on the political left hate that way and try everything else they can.


Key point: "In other words, it is the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Clinton administration’s settlement agreement that doesn’t allow juvenile aliens to stay with their parents who have been detained for unlawful entry into the country.

Of course, if those parents would simply agree to return to their home countries, they would be immediately reunited with their children. So those who come here illegally are themselves to blame for their children being assigned to foster care or to another family member or sponsor who may be in the country."

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0

homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam