ACLU Sues SD over Concealed Carry

[Purplehood]

"Wet foot" is the right policy, not just for Cubans but Mexicans and central/south americans too. If you're on American soil you get American protections. period.

I disagree. If an illegal alien makes it across the border, they shouldn't be allowed to stay just because the law didn't catch him in the act of crossing the border. Think about this. If a drunk driver kills a 9 year old girl and flees the scene, he shouldn't be immune to prosecution and civil liability just because the law didn't catch him in the act of killing her.

The Wet-Foot Dry-Foot Policy is bad policy, and so is the nightmare DREAM ACT.

What? That doesn't make sense in context. If you catch someone in the act or just build a case on evidence you can prosecute just the same.

Remember all those times we get reminded the Constitution doesn't grant any rights? We have those rights, the Constitution just says the government won't infringe those specific right. I don't care where your'e born, ever human being has the right to be armed for self defense. Chicago has the same rights as Dallas. Same for China or London. Some goverments infringe that right, like our own does sometimes. You still have the right tho. Just like you have the right to shout down the Chinese goverment in front of a bunch of tanks, but good luck wiht that.You have the right but exercising it is on you.

Technically, the illegal immigrant on US soil has the same basic rights that the rest of us do. I don't like it, but as far as I am concerned they still have them.

[chartreuse]

My "agenda" is: A US citizen is a US citizen. A person is a person. A US citizen is a person, but not all people are US citizens.

What's your agenda?

That may have come off a bit more confrontational than I intended. Apologies, if so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that one important effect of the 14th is that it, in practice, limits governments' ability to strip folks of their God-given rights. And when any person, citizen or not, is stripped of a God-given right, that harms us all (both citizens and non-citizens).

[Tamie]

Technically, the illegal immigrant on US soil has the same basic rights that the rest of us do. I don't like it, but as far as I am concerned they still have them.

Right to freedom of religion? Yes.

Right to stay in United States? No.

[Purplehood]

Technically, the illegal immigrant on US soil has the same basic rights that the rest of us do. I don't like it, but as far as I am concerned they still have them.

Right to freedom of religion? Yes.

Right to stay in United States? No.

I agree. I would never claim that.

[chartreuse]

Legal residence in the USA is only a right for American citizens - it's a privilege for anyone else, me included. That's my 2c

Absolutely. I always thought that went without saying...

[Tamie]

Technically, the illegal immigrant on US soil has the same basic rights that the rest of us do. I don't like it, but as far as I am concerned they still have them.

Right to freedom of religion? Yes.

Right to stay in United States? No.

I agree. I would never claim that.

Not you but Bullwhip did when he said

"Wet foot" is the right policy, not just for Cubans but Mexicans and central/south americans too.

For example, see the last papragraph of this story. http://www.justnews.com/news/26428913/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pyrat]

My understanding of Wet Foot is that intercepting individuals trying to illegally enter the US in the act, but not on US soil negates the issue of applicability of US law. Once the illegal entry is accomplished and the person is on US soil the law applies and the rights/privileges associated with it like the ability to fight extradition.

I also understand the so called Wet Foot/Dry Foot policy refers to the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. Prior to this Cubans picked up at sea were allowed to pursue residency just as if they had reached US soil. The 1995 revision, negotiated by the Clinton administration with Cuba stopped this practice and there after Cubans intercepted at sea were returned to Cuba. So technically the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy" only relates to Cubans.

On a slightly lighter note, the government even has problems dealing with this issue. Back in 2006, a group of Cuban illegal immigrants made it to the old 7 Mile Bridge down in the Keys. Since the old section of the bridge is disconnected from the island on each end, the government held they were not on US soil. This lead the people in Key West (AKA The Conch Republic) to plant the Conch Republic flag on the bridge and claim this "unclaimed" territory as Conch Republic territory. Shortly there after the government revised it's opinion and the Cubans were determined to have been "dry foot".

[Tamie]

So technically the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy" only relates to Cubans.

Right. The policy says after a Cuban crosses the water and makes it to US soil, he can stay in the USA. Bullwhip seemed to say the policy should be expanded, so if a Mexican crosses the water (Rio Grande) and makes it to US soil, he should also be allowed to stay. I think the policy should be eliminated, so we are fair and once illegal is always illegal.

It would be wrong to let Madoff (or his family members) keep the money he stole, and it's wrong to let illegal aliens (or their family members) profit from their crime also.