Deportation delayed for St. Mary's graduate - Page 4

ignore it and move on or deal with it instead of whining. bye

do you lack critical thinking? you see one thing and ignore the rest? being able to sponsor relatives for immigration purposes is again, derived from US immigration policy, not from interpretation of the constitution.

being able to sponsor your relatives is not a constitutional right. learn the definition of rights before you open your trap.

the constitution defines "human rights" that are inherent to all human beings that cannot be denied by the government. this is different from "legal rights" set forth by independent legislations. being able to drive is a "legal right", not a "human right". the fact that you are able to "sponsor" your family members to come to the US is a "legal right" defined by the Nationality Act of 1965, not a "human right" derived from the constitution.



i wasnt just talkin about your family. i was referring to all family members of dreamies by using yours as an example. if they are citizens, fine. if you cant figure out the intention of the statement, go practice on your reading comprehension. lol



whats the point of this argument? the interpretation of "white people" has no relevance to the factual statement i made which is that immigration laws started out with legislations separate from the constitution. again, good job going off on random tangents and trying to start something out of nothing.


i didnt have to list every single reform laws that were passed in the last 200 years to make a point. again, pointless rebuttal other than just to respond to the statement. rofl. good job. also, those "major laws" only changed numerical values of the quota, but nothing significant that changed how basic immigration works. that happened in 1965 when they instituted unlimited family visas. go google more.





based on what you said, i doubt it. everyone can google. rofl. if you're honestly saying that you knew that there were immigration laws passed in 1917, 1924, and 1952, then god bless you. you know your immigration laws history. if you googled them and you are just lying to make youself look half smart, then you are a joke. and only you and god would know that. rofl

i guess you have short term memory. go read whats been said. you are stating that forbidding family sponsorship is "unconstitutional" because you would create citizens who cant "sponsor", and this goes against "equality".

i know this is a hard concept for you to understand, but family sponsorship is governed by US immigration policy, not the constitution. in other words, family sponsorship is a previlege, not a "human right". it is a "legal right", not a "human right". understood?




in either case we both know which act we are talking about and this is just your pathetic attempt to nitpick something completely trivial in order to one-up on me. pathetic. and stay on topic, even though we all know you're getting creamed here.

civil right act of 1964 redefines the "all men" phrase of the bill of rights by including the minorities and later women as well. gives "human rights" to those who were denied before. this law has nothing to do with "privileges" set forth by independent legislations such as the ability to sponsor family members.


lets say im a citizen. if i dont have a license, i am forbidden to drive even though there are other citizens who can. this is not unconstitutional even though not being able to drive prevents me from pursuing my happiness. this is a matter of legality, not constitutionality.

if im forbidden to sponsor my family because i chose to gain my citizenship through DREAM act with this provision in it, this isnt "unconstitutional". this is a matter of legality, not constitutionality.






do you post stuff without even remembering what you wrote hours ago? im the one who said civil rights act has no relevance to immigration laws. and you say that i think the two laws are the same?

so after looking through all those posts that i "babbled" in, you got tired of trying to find what you were looking for, meaning you couldnt find it. you couldnt find anything "radical" in what i said. in fact, all you could find were opinions that just sound too damn "harsh" for your liking.







uh..yeah this forum is about passage of DREAM act, and im focusing on DREAM by differentiating from CIR. whats your point.

yeah, they are in legal sense. again, whats your point?

the fact that my parents are now legal doesnt take away from the fact that they broke the law knowingly. whats your point?


hmm, which is another point that i have constantly mentioned that you have failed to read. i said we did not break the law willingly, and the fact that we stayed here in this country after the age of 18 is because all we know is here, we are totally and utterly assimilated to this country, to this culture because of the fact taht we've been living here since we were so young. yes, by technicality we are law breakers too. what differentiates us from "them" is that we did not choose to break the law in the first place and had to be subsequetly forced to make a near impossible choice between staying here or going somewhere you have completely no idea about.

this makes our case more compelling, compared to simply giving amnesty to lawbreakers.

when did i say DREAM ACT should have this clause? rofl. i offered it as a suggestion to getting more votes and acnowledged that its something that would be unlikely to pass, and you took it by heart, got annoyed, and started making stuff up in your head.




sorry my opinions are not "belittling and disparaging". you interpret them that way. thats on you, not me. the fact that i think DREAM has more compelling case then CIR because of issue of knowingly commiting the crime does not mean im belittling our parents and uncles. all i said is that they broke the law knowingly, and we didnt so DREAM act needs to be separate from CIR. you interpreted that as me saying im on high pedestal compare to all other illegal immigrants. again, thats on you, not me.

learn to be tolerant of others





the fact that im saying they broke the law knowingly and willingly is not belittling them. thats stating a fact. hey we broke the law as well by staying here after we turned 18. ok. so what? im just differentiating the cause effect relationship between us and "them". what part of that dont you understand? LOL.





there are no right and wrong when it comes to opinions. even our enemies' opinions (not talking about extremist groups who spew racial hatred...talking about "civilized" anti-immigration advocates). they are not "right" to us only because we are on the other fence of the issue. thats why they are called opinions. this just goes to show how you are as bigoted and biased as those hard core anti-immigration groups. their opinions are their opinions and we see them as "wrong". they think the same about your opinions.

my opinions are just opinions. learn to read opinions from an unbiased point of view. dont let others crawl under your skin. ignore it if you have a problem with it. dont let me get to your head. have some self control.

Nice triple post lol.


Giving rights to one group of citizens while not giving them to others is not constitutional based on the fourteenth amendment's " Equal protection under law" clause.


Now tell me which part of that do you not understand? That is NOT an argument. That is a FACT.

The right to sponger your family member is part of a LAW. And " Equal Protection under law" Clause does not allow for second class citizens.

P.S. Almost every single statement you made is eaither inaccurate or is missing. Correcting all of your mess is going to take me probably an hour and i am not going to waste of my precious time your posts any more. You obviously have no idea of the constitution and how does the law system works. For starters, all laws have to go through court review for constitutionality check before they are laws ( That INCLUDES immigration laws). I just hope people do not really take your posts seriously. Because everything you have said so far is either inaccurate, missing bits or just could as well be something you got from a fortune cookie. Don't bother replying to my posts any more, because i am not going to waste my time to reply back. A best way to avoid a troll is to simply just ignore his posts.

Aunts/Uncles would be petitioned as a sibling to your parents once they-your parents-become a citizen through your petition for them.

LOL. go over equal protection clause again. i know all this legal stuff is bit confusing for you, but you are misinterpreting what the law is actually about.

also, forbidding family sponsorship is not based on discrimination, it is a legal restriction. still confused? go consult your lawyer. LOL

another random baseless comment to cover up your cluelessness. you are either really thick headed, or refuses to read something and process the information because you know you're wrong. meh

i guess you are having hard time comprehending this whole thing. let me dumb this down to the point where even you can understand it: forbidding family sponsorship is not unconstitutional, it is constitutional. plain simple

list one incidence where i initiated a conversationw ith you or replied to your post from the very beginning. stop replying to my posts. you are the one who pops up like a roach everytime i post a response to original topic and attempts to debate me. LOL. it was fun owning you. late.

Bruinman, one last attempt to try to show you the facts,


Could you please this answer question of mine? Answer it only by using either the word " Constitutional" Or " Unconstitutional". Also try to not dodge the question as you always do.


Here it goes,

A congressman tries to pass a law that states:

" Only White USA citizens are allowed to sponsor their family members for immigration purposes. All other ethnic/minority citizens are from now on not allowed to sponsor their family members for immigration purposes".


Constitutional or unconstitutional?

So i guess you are going to waste more time, despite what you said mere hours ago.

rofl, you are trying to bring up the race card into this? LOL. typical. except that DREAM ACT with this provision is not forbidding family sponsorship based on race. forbidding family sponsorship based on the fact that you received citizenship through DREAM ACT is not unconstitutional because first, the provision itself is within the range of constitutionality and, just to address your concern, its not a discrimination against any race, ethnicity, gender, etc etc. it is merely a restrictive clause tha tapplies to everyone who chooses to gain citizenship through DA. in case you dont know, DREAM ACT beneficiaries include white people as well.

so dont turn this debate into white people vs minorities because you are going off on tangents again. running out of things to say? LOL

Or, The fact that your counter argument was just asking me to reiterate what i already stated but in a different context, could also make you out to be a troll with artificial facts as well. I'm not going to plead with you like Dr.Phil, although his insulting is pretty cool.

you claimed my opinions are "radical" but cant find any posts that support your claim. im not asking you to reiterate what you said, im asking you to link a post where i was being "radical". you cant find anything, despite your effort and getting "tired" of reading through so many of my posts.

its a simple request, amongst many others that i have asked, you are having hard time answering. rofl, seems like you got owned.