31
149

[–] 4535884? 31 points 149 points (+180|-31) ago 

The Democratic Party of America.

3
15

[–] shakin_my_head 3 points 15 points (+18|-3) ago 

Lol. Apparently 7 democrats read your comment. To those that downvoted, would you care to expand?

[–] [deleted] 3 points 22 points (+25|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 8 points 21 points (+29|-8) ago 

[Deleted]

3
4

[–] middle_path 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Down-voter here. I dislike blaming anything on a single political party. Both parties are intertwined with private interests and any politician on either side could make this benefit them in some way. Also, simply commenting like stanky_bawls did without a solid explanation is really just as terrible as all of the top comments on Reddit. The only reason it is so heavily upvoted is because the majority of Voat is anti-liberal/democrat. The comment adds nothing to the OP's discussion and does not truly answer the question.

I would also like to point out that I do not affiliate myself with either political party and thus have no ulterior motive. Good enough explanation for you?

0
0

[–] DammitMoonMoon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Now it's 21 read and didn't like the comment. lol.

2
3

[–] Tommstein 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

wut. So they were arrested on the spot when Republicans ran all three branches of government for the majority of Dubya's presidency?

8
-6

11
-9

5
103

[–] ilovepussy 5 points 103 points (+108|-5) ago 

And why the fuck are they allowed to sue anybody. They have no rights here if they are here illegally.

4
48

[–] Donbuster 4 points 48 points (+52|-4) ago 

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They do have rights, under the 14th amendment, since they are within the boundaries of the US.

1
47

[–] KingofKong [S] 1 points 47 points (+48|-1) ago 

But I thought driving falls under the category of privilege rather than inalienable rights.

1
8

[–] OhBlindOne 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I have to disagree. I believe you are taking this amendment to mean that anyone who is inside of the United States borders is protected by these laws. This is not true.

Here is how to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. (Source)

A person can become a naturalized citizen of the United States individually or as part of a group. Generally any person who has come into the United States as an immigrant may become a naturalized citizen. To do so, a person must be over 18 years old and must have lived in the United States for five years, without leaving for more than a total of 30 months (and not more than twelve consecutive months) throughout that five-year period.

People who wish to become U.S. citizens must file a petition for naturalization and take an examination that shows that they can read, speak, and write simple English and have a fair knowledge of American history, government, and the Constitution.

If someone comes into this country illegally, they are not protected under the constitution. Think of how insane that would be. That would mean, anyone coming to the U.S. regardless of their intentions and background, are automatically protected under these laws. That means the following: a spy comes into the U.S. from the country Imagionationia, to steal information from the U.S. government. The moment they crossed the border, they are now protected under the constitution and the laws therein.

One is only a protected citizen of the United States if they are born in the U.S. or have become a naturalized citizen. Not if there come illegally.

0
1

[–] shakin_my_head 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Born or naturalized

4
1

[–] Chiefpacman 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

Within it's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction doesn't mean within US borders. It's an extent of power, and it doesn't really answer the question. They are illegal.

If what you're saying were true, an illegal immigrant could re enter the country simply on the grounds that his miranda rights were not read appropriately.

Personally- I'd say the answer lies with congress ignoring this.

0
3

[–] Scotcheggs 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

US is one of the only countries that gives citizenship if you are born there. It is also the only country thst taxes you if you don't livr there but are a citizen. Its all about money not your rights or anything silly like that.

1
55

[–] SaneGoatiSwear 1 points 55 points (+56|-1) ago 

this is eli5 why are there no fucking answers?

you are all failures today. all of you.

i think it has something to do with local and state police not being responsible for policing federal crimes.

correct me if i'm wrong, someone.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/EnforcementbyStateandLocalPolice-08-07.pdf

here this may help.

0
8

[–] KingofKong [S] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Thank you for the reply. Its interesting that state and local authorities can ignore something illegal on the federal level. I know this is also an issue with pot regulation.

0
4

[–] SaneGoatiSwear 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

it's not so much ignore as it is not prosecute.

i was reading in that link, somewhere in that textwall, that a public employee can note someone's lack of ability to produce id, and possibly even call the ins, but not detain them, and then basically says, well actually it's really up to the individual local and state laws governing that.

0
1

[–] dabork 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's because states rights are supposed to trump federal laws. That's why states are allowed to have their own constitutions. That's also why states are allowed to do things like legalize marijuana.

1
2

[–] Kvahsir 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Welcome to voat

circlejerking and senseless commentary is the norm here.

0
1

[–] voice_of_shakti 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

this is eli5 why are there no fucking answers?>

Because my legal opinions cost $400/hr and I don't feel like explaining the legal ramifications of a "chilling effect". Sorry.

0
1

[–] Subtenko 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You sound like Sargent hartman. Voat needs a Sargent hartman

[–] [deleted] 6 points 23 points (+29|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

3
3

[–] theburntsausage 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

crime

6
-4

4
16

[–] Pawn 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago 

So they can vote in the upcoming election. Every vote counts :D with illegals counting twice.

1
7

[–] Quawonk 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Broken system.

0
6

[–] pepepepepe 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's not the responsibility of the DMV. They hardly give a shit about doing their job, why would they care about the legal status of the applicant? Pass or fail, then go back to filing your nails.

As for giving them licenses in the first place, the line of thinking is that they're going to drive whether or not they can get a license. It is meant to minimize harm. If they get into an accident or a cop tries to pull them over, they will flee because they can't accept responsibility without jeopardizing their residence in the country. Note that this license is ONLY for driving. It is not a valid ID for any other purpose. Despite what some shitty blogs speculate, they cannot use it to vote. Personally I still think it's a stupid idea, but most of the criticism directed towards it is anywhere from speculation to conspiracy.

1
4

[–] cynoclast 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

The establishment wants them here. That much is obvious, or they wouldn't be here. Why?

  • They're here because businesses hire them.

  • They're cheap labor. They make profits go up, and prices go down. It's why the only solution that would actually work to stop illegal immigration is never even mentioned: prosecute their employers. You know it would work because during the great recession more left than entered. They're here for the jobs we give them. There is massive demand for cheap labor, and just like in the total failure that is the drug war, cracking down on the supply is known not to work.

  • They cause unrest among the working class citizens by installing competition for manual labor jobs that undercut our own working class, thus making them angry, but at the wrong people, the ones here to work.

The whole 'build a wall' 'solution' is only bandied about because they know it won't actually work, and will probably line some contractors' pockets in the process. It's to rile up racism, and xenophobia and make you think they care. They don't.

The root of your misunderstanding seems to be that the establishment thinks that they're a problem at all. They managed to send the FBI to New Zealand to catch one guy. If they wanted illegal immigrants gone, they would be.

tl;dr: The establishment cares more about profits than its citizens, and illegals are the cheapest domestic labor there is.

load more comments ▼ (21 remaining)