- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What’s stopping China from invading us if we have to give notice and due process to…
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There's nothing logical or substantive to refute.
I can't "refute" a chimp throwing shite, either, but that doesn't mean that's a sound argument, either.
This is true. You are not very capable of refuting much of anything.
1
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:50 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This is true. It is correct even if I do not say it.
Except I have shown you how it's not correct, even with a recent 9-0 ruling
And your response is to melt and listen to charlatans to cope instead of understanding reality.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:51 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
You are not very capable of refuting much of anything.
Dunning Kruger Effect on display
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:51 pm to loogaroo
China and India have already invaded.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Except I have shown you how it's not correct, even with a recent 9-0 ruling
And your response is to melt and listen to charlatans to cope instead of understanding reality.
Yes, I'm aware SCOTUS is wrong.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:55 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes, I'm aware SCOTUS is wrong.
Everyone is wrong (including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia), and has been wrong for several decades....except you, .
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yes, everyone who believes illegal aliens have constitutional rights is wrong. Full stop. There is no textual support for this interpretation.
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 7:57 pm
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:57 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes, everyone who believes illegal aliens have constitutional rights is wrong. Full stop. There is no textual support for this interpretation.
Double wrong
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. It's a reach. A retarded one.
Keeping these people around ensures Americans like you will get raped and killed. Thats not a reach, it’s a reality you seem okay with.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Both still related to military and/or state action
Doesn't matter if they are criminals. IE murderers and rapists.
quote:
§22. Time allowed to settle affairs and depart
When an alien who becomes liable as an enemy, in the manner prescribed in section 21 of this title, is not chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, he shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of his goods and effects, and for his departure, the full time which is or shall be stipulated by any treaty then in force between the United States and the hostile nation or government of which he is a native citizen, denizen, or subject; and where no such treaty exists, or is in force, the President may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.
(R.S. §4068.)
I know this is going to start a whole other shitstorm argument, but you have to admit the spirit of the act is for national security.
Try arguing that for a change.
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:21 pm to loogaroo
It's not necessary, as you're arguing practicality over everything else (legality, Constitutionality, propriety, and/or national security).
As I have pointed out a few times, the AEA (without mandated due process) doesn't solve the practicality concerns of your pivoted hypo.
As I have pointed out a few times, the AEA (without mandated due process) doesn't solve the practicality concerns of your pivoted hypo.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:23 pm to loogaroo
The OP is correct, it is now up to the courts to declare who our enemies are. The executive and commander in chief can no longer tell us who our enemies are.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not necessary, as you're arguing practicality over everything else (legality, Constitutionality, propriety, and/or national security).
As I have pointed out a few times, the AEA (without mandated due process) doesn't solve the practicality concerns of your pivoted hypo.
Practicality was the WHOLE reason I started the thread. I didn't pivot.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:45 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes, everyone who believes illegal aliens have constitutional rights is wrong. Full stop. There is no textual support for this interpretation.
The United States hating is strong with this one.
Just move somewhere who's laws align with your world view.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:48 pm to loogaroo
quote:the Pacific Ocean?
What’s stopping China from invading us
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
The Constitution doesn’t say that we have to have immigration courts and process beady eyed third worlders
It actually doesn't specify anything about their eyes.
Wild, right?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:57 pm to loogaroo
For one, China has basically zero incentive for an actual war with us. They will exercise soft power and try to influence America, but never an actual direct hostile action.
Secondly, most Chinese citizens like America.
Secondly, most Chinese citizens like America.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 11:14 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
The United States hating is strong with this one.
This is a very retarded response considering the point he made.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 12:40 am to djsdawg
To no one in particular.
“Predatory incursion” was a common phrase used for Indian attacks of colonial settlements.
It would be stretching the language to say that these were “military incursions into the United States.” And the original usage of “predatory incursion” certainly doesn’t support that.
You can easily find the history of the Juniata valley in online archives wherein the phrase is used multiple times, never in conjunction with a “military action,” but far closer to what we would say were the driveby shootings of the late 1700s.
The citation by the lawyers for the TdA gang bangers didn’t really pick a great usage of “predatory incursion” (Pickering’s letter to Hamilton) and the government’s lawyers could have had some fun with that one if they paid attention to language and history.
It’s also interesting that the AEA was passed when we weren’t officially at war with the French.
“Predatory incursion” was a common phrase used for Indian attacks of colonial settlements.
It would be stretching the language to say that these were “military incursions into the United States.” And the original usage of “predatory incursion” certainly doesn’t support that.
You can easily find the history of the Juniata valley in online archives wherein the phrase is used multiple times, never in conjunction with a “military action,” but far closer to what we would say were the driveby shootings of the late 1700s.
The citation by the lawyers for the TdA gang bangers didn’t really pick a great usage of “predatory incursion” (Pickering’s letter to Hamilton) and the government’s lawyers could have had some fun with that one if they paid attention to language and history.
It’s also interesting that the AEA was passed when we weren’t officially at war with the French.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:10 am to the808bass
quote:
“Predatory incursion” was a common phrase used for Indian attacks of colonial settlements.
So foreigners attacking Americans in a coordinated, nation-based (using state would probably be flimsy) attack/operation?
quote:
It would be stretching the language to say that these were “military incursions into the United States.”
Only if you're arguing that Indians, due to the unique nature of our conflict with them during early expansion/takeover of their land, prohibited the formation of a state, and you further argue that a state is necessary to form a "military".
They were members of a foreign nation often living outside of American borders with at least quasi-government functions in their diaspora after the loss of their homelands, who engaged in coordinated attacks against that are effectively military operations but-for how you define their governmental structure.
The colonists clearly did not think of Indians as Americans, so they were foreign.
The colonists understood there were different nations of Indians, some with fully functioning states. I mean, hell, they even use the term "war party" for these groups attacking them. The understanding that this was the military branch of the various Indian nations is pretty clear.
In what way would the colonists and early Americans not see this as the equivalent of a foreign military operation? What specific aspects of the operation are you relying on to distinguish the nature of the attacks?
Now, I fully expect you to avoid answering these questions, like usual, and just plant a flag of victory and claim I can't read, but the honest brokers are now given the opportunity to do so.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News