• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov’t program would fly in Central American children to join parents in US

I am a communist, I'm used to the hate thrown against me by now.
Hate? I doubt that.

After reading your circumstances I'm more sympathetic to your position. Good luck in whatever you decide to do with your life.
 
Which is why I added the part that you apparently missed....after saving for a few months.

And by the by, I don't live with my parents. I have responsibility of 2 children and a wife. All without the benefits of Mom and Dad helping me out. And as a parent I can tell you straight up that I for one would NEVER have left my children behind in a 3rd world country. I would have stayed with them no matter what until I could figure out a way to get us all back together. Or I would die trying.

Oh, I saw that part, which is why I catered the response to it. You might not have seen it, sorry :/
All without the benefits of Mom and Dad helping me out
Thanks for that, not like I'm mainly helping them out and my younger siblings or anything. I wouldn't leave my children behind either, but you're making generalizations of these people's circumstances and lives.
 
Last edited:
Hate? I doubt that.

After reading your circumstances I'm more sympathetic to your position. Good luck in whatever you decide to do with your life.

Really? You weren't displaying hate and trying to infer I was inbred? Don't talk to me anymore. :neutral:
 
Then many things go against the scope of the federal power defined in the constitution. I have read it. Anything not in the section? Again, go back to my first sentence. A piss poor job of it? Thanks for insulting my teachers. I fundamentally disagree, we do not need to strictly follow the constitution, but I guess we're separate on that.

I hope you do tell them about this whole thing, show them everything that you posted. And if they take your side and are insulted then I'm glad. Maybe it will encourage them to start teaching your properly.

And of course you "fundamentally disagree". You're an admitted communist who doesn't want exactly what the Constitution establishes. A State.
 
I hope you do tell them about this whole thing, show them everything that you posted. And if they take your side and are insulted then I'm glad. Maybe it will encourage them to start teaching your properly.

And of course you "fundamentally disagree". You're an admitted communist who doesn't want exactly what the Constitution establishes. A State.

I disagree because times change, and strictly following a old document that can't predict the future is counter-productive. I don't want a state, no, thanks for the news. I will agree that the constitution is a good framework for this society, but I don't think the founders meant for it to be strictly followed without any flexibility.
 
Oh, I saw that part, which is why I catered the response to it. You might not have seen it, sorry :/ Thanks for that, not like I'm mainly helping them out and my younger siblings or anything. I wouldn't leave my children behind either, but you're making generalizations of these people's circumstances and lives.

I'm making accurate generalizations. Based on past history.
 
I disagree because times change, and strictly following a old document that can't predict the future is counter-productive. I don't want a state, no, thanks for the news. I will agree that the constitution is a good framework for this society, but I don't think the founders meant for it to be strictly followed without any flexibility.

There is a process in the Constitution to amend it in order to keep it up to date. At any time it can be adjusted to fit with the times. IE: The Constitution is quite flexible. Anything that isn't changed stays and is to be strictly followed both in the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. We don't not follow the law just because we happen to not like it or think its out dated.
 
There is a process in the Constitution to amend it in order to keep it up to date. At any time it can be adjusted to fit with the times. IE: The Constitution is quite flexible. Anything that isn't changed stays and is to be strictly followed both in the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. We don't not follow the law just because we happen to not like it or think its out dated.

I know this already.
 
Then why say that the Constitution is inflexible?

I'm referring to strictly following it, do we need a change to the constitution for anything the government does that is not strictly defined in the constitution?
 
Which past history are you looking at? I'd like to see it. :shock:

Do you know statistically who is more likely to leave their children behind in a third world country and come to the US? It isn't those that attempt to come here legally I can tell you that much.

Also the reasoning that the government is giving for this program is to stem the tide of children coming to the US illegally like they did last year. In case you didn't know, that whole thing revolved completely around illegal immigration. Every one of those children that came here illegally to try and be with their parents who were here illegally also.
 
I'm referring to strictly following it, do we need a change to the constitution for anything the government does that is not strictly defined in the constitution?

If it doesn't fall with in the current powers granted to the government.....YES. Otherwise you will get a government that is tyrannical in nature.
 
Do you know statistically who is more likely to leave their children behind in a third world country and come to the US? It isn't those that attempt to come here legally I can tell you that much.

Also the reasoning that the government is giving for this program is to stem the tide of children coming to the US illegally like they did last year. In case you didn't know, that whole thing revolved completely around illegal immigration. Every one of those children that came here illegally to try and be with their parents who were here illegally also.

I know it revolves around illegal immigration in a majority of cases, but that is not looking at specific reasons for all of these individuals.
 
If it doesn't fall with in the current powers granted to the government.....YES. Otherwise you will get a government that is tyrannical in nature.

So, absolutely anything not in the constitution needs an amendment? We will need thousands then. Tyrannical in nature? That's clearly happening :roll:
 
I know it revolves around illegal immigration in a majority of cases, but that is not looking at specific reasons for all of these individuals.

I don't care about their specific reasons. What makes their reasons any more important than those people that are here and here legally? Nothing. They are not more important than the thousands of hungry children in this country. They are also not more important than the thousands of children being abused by crappy parents. They are not more important than ANYONE in this country.

We have our own problems that need to be resolved before we start helping anyone else in this world. As my folks once told me, "if you help those that are in need before you yourself are stable and able to help yourself then all that you are going to accomplish is dragging yourself down to their level of need instead of helping them to your level of not needing. Then instead of only one person needing help, two need help."
 
I don't care about their specific reasons. What makes their reasons any more important than those people that are here and here legally? Nothing. They are not more important than the thousands of hungry children in this country. They are also not more important than the thousands of children being abused by crappy parents. They are not more important than ANYONE in this country.

We have our own problems that need to be resolved before we start helping anyone else in this world. As my folks once told me, "if you help those that are in need before you yourself are stable and able to help yourself then all that you are going to accomplish is dragging yourself down to their level of need instead of helping them to your level of not needing. Then instead of only one person needing help, two need help."

I agree, everyone deserves food, healthcare, shelter, but people hate that idea for some reason. I also agree they aren't more important, but this country can do multiple things, you know what is inspiring this poverty in this country and around the world, for the most part? I don't need to give you a hint ;) Good words, but I have to disagree, I will help those in need whenever I can, no matter my condition or wealth/etc..
 
So, absolutely anything not in the constitution needs an amendment? We will need thousands then.

Yes. And yep. That is the way it was designed. To make sure that the change that is being wanted is actually needed.

Tyrannical in nature? That's clearly happening :roll:

Yes, it is. The very fact that people are now required by law to buy from private companies or get fined shows that JUST by itself.
 
Yes. And yep. That is the way it was designed. To make sure that the change that is being wanted is actually needed.



Yes, it is. The very fact that people are now required by law to buy from private companies or get fined shows that JUST by itself.

I disagree with that sort of enforcement, but that is far from tyranny.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. - I can see how well progress would be made this way :lamo
 
I agree, everyone deserves food, healthcare, shelter, but people hate that idea for some reason. I also agree they aren't more important, but this country can do multiple things, you know what is inspiring this poverty in this country and around the world, for the most part? I don't need to give you a hint ;) Good words, but I have to disagree, I will help those in need whenever I can, no matter my condition or wealth/etc..

:shrug: then you will also be dragged down to their level of need. Then were will you be? And do you have any right to bring other people down with you? Because by advocating for the government to do this you are doing exactly that. Yeah, in the short term these people might be helped. But in the long term they will be in just as much in need as they currently are. If not worse off.

Lets put it this way. What happens to a company that puts itself out beyond what it can handle? It fails. It goes bankrupt. It gets closed down. And everyone that worked for that company is now drawing welfare instead of donating to their preferred charity.
 
I disagree with that sort of enforcement, but that is far from tyranny.

Do you think tyranny happens overnight with a roar? Or do you think that it comes in quietly in order to gain enough power to actually enforce its tyranny?

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. - I can see how well progress would be made this way :lamo

We've had lots of amendments added to the Constitution. Obviously it can be done. People just have to be willing to work together and where necessary compromise.
 
When did I say it wasn't an important document that had nothing to do with the government?
There is a lot that isn't in the constitution, it's not meant to be strictly followed.
I don't think the constitution addresses this issue at all.

What do you mean "it's not meant to be strictly followed"? Is it meant to be just kind of followed?
 
What do you mean "it's not meant to be strictly followed"? Is it meant to be just kind of followed?

It's meant as a framework, not a strict guideline. But that's how I view it.
 
It's meant as a framework, not a strict guideline. But that's how I view it.

I think it means what it says, to be followed as written. Just like laws are written. Certainly is not just a guide, or it would be worthless.
 
I think it means what it says, to be followed as written. Just like laws are written. Certainly is not just a guide, or it would be worthless.

It is followed, but it's not meant as a document restricting everything not written within it, again, we fundamentally disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom