Amnesty: "U.S. Mistreats Immigrant Children"

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rokenn: In line with current US criminal procedure I will assume they are illeagal till they can prove otherwise [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nice potshot, Rokenn. Unfortunately, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this case.

If they enter the country without going through the proper channels, then by definition, they have entered illegally.

[Chewbacca]

Cuban illegals have every right to be here if they touch soil according to current policy. So being illegal may not be so illegal afetr all.


What about human rights? Why divide people as legal and illegal immigrants when comes to treating them decently, particulary if they are under the age of 18.


I was angry last night and I apolgize if I offended any one or went to far. If anyone here has ever worked with abused children, they may know why it boils my blood.

[Lord of Alcohol]

I worked with abused Wookies, and unfortunatly there was this hot little 17 year old Wookie chick who caught my eye and..........well there went that job. I had to retrain- "Hi Welcome to McDonalds, may I take your order?" also had to register as a Wookie sex offender So I'm not aloowed in the play area, just drive through for me

[Harkoliar]

i like your comment Cerek regarding your opinion about the article.. i didnt see it "your" way. i guess media really has a profound effect of twisted reality and logic.

[Animal]

Although I don't live in the US, illlegal immigrants should be shipped back to their point of origin ASAP. In what condition they arrive...not my problem.

See, the problems start when they start taking your jobs and they WILL take your jobs, make no mistake about it. A group of illegals show up in your town and decide to build houses. Let's see...they pay no taxes...there's about 600 living in a 1 bedroom apartment so no rent so they can afford to work for half of what everyone else can. Instead of $18/hr they work for $5/hr.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens next. They underbid every legit business going putting every other contractor out of business. Every US labourer is now sitting on social assistance draining the economy further, their disposable income is now gone affecting every other business in town. The money the illegal immigrants make....straight back home to allow their families to move illegaly into the country.

You want to watch your country head down the toilet real fast? Keep up allowing illegal immigrants in.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: In line with current US criminal procedure I will assume they are illeagal till they can prove otherwise [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nice potshot, Rokenn. Unfortunately, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this case.

If they enter the country without going through the proper channels, then by definition, they have entered illegally. [/QUOTE]So we can assume a persons legal status without proof? Innocent until proven guilty should apply, lest we deport a whole lot of "innocent" people.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: I agree very much with Cerek, once again he is much more eloquent than I am, I would like to touch on It's too bad your immigrate forbearers where not treated this why. Then we would not have to read your hateful ideas. I agree with Chewbacca you two should be ashamed of yourselves. The problem with this statement is that you are assuming his ancestors were ilegal immigrants, the overwhelming majority of imigrants to this country are legal, which it seems LoA and Crimson Blade have no problem with (or perhaps they want the borders closed), the problem with the article is it tries to force upon you the idea that illegal immigrants have a right to be here, simply put they don't.

We had strict immigration laws in the USA before the 20th century? I'm no expert but I dont think so.

[John D Harris]

The article is extremly one sided, and IMHO can be assumed only to insite an emotional response and further the writers own means. What steps did the writers take to verify the reports of abuse? Or did they just take the word of the one's claiming to being abused? Did the writers of the article go to the powers in charge and report these abuses? What were the results of their reporting these incidents of abuse? If there was disciplinary action taken against the "Abusers" why was that not reported? If there was no disciplinary action taken why was that not reported? If they writers of the artical didn't go to sombody that had the power to make changes as quickly as possible, could not the writers be considered to be accesseries? This is the U.S.A. there are hundereds if not thousands of reporters that would just love to blow the lid off something like this. Not to metion the Thousands of lawyers that would publicly wet their pants to get a case like these mentioned. If they didn't try and stop what they consider to be abuse in a timely manner. How much stake should be put in the opinion of somebody that sits idealy by and doesn't try to stop something they believe to be wrong? Make no mistake about it if the writers DIDN'T immeditly go to somebody before leaving the building where the alleged abuse was taking place they waited too long! We are not talking about some third world country with a 2 bit dictator that kills its own citizens in the streets, and the writers have to fear being killed or thrown in some dark prison.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: In line with current US criminal procedure I will assume they are illeagal till they can prove otherwise [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nice potshot, Rokenn. Unfortunately, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this case.

If they enter the country without going through the proper channels, then by definition, they have entered illegally. [/QUOTE]So we can assume a persons legal status without proof? Innocent until proven guilty should apply, lest we deport a whole lot of "innocent" people. [/QUOTE]You answered this question yourself in your very next post, Chewbacca. We have "strict immigration laws" in this country now. Many immigrants come to this country and go through the proper and necessary channels as dictated by these immigration laws.

Others sneak across the border or arrive in boats and do NOT go through the proper immigration method. By definition, they have then broken the law - hence they are called illegal aliens.

If somebody decides to hop onto the bumper of a bus in downtown Boston rather than getting inside and paying for the ride...there is NO ASSUMPTION to be made about their innocence. They acted illegally. Likewise, there is no assumption to be made regarding those immigrants who pile into boats, or the back of trucks, or just try to bolt across the border. Their actions are done outside of the law.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: In line with current US criminal procedure I will assume they are illeagal till they can prove otherwise [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nice potshot, Rokenn. Unfortunately, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this case.

If they enter the country without going through the proper channels, then by definition, they have entered illegally. [/QUOTE]So we can assume a persons legal status without proof? Innocent until proven guilty should apply, lest we deport a whole lot of "innocent" people. [/QUOTE]Innocent until proven guilty ONLY applies to trial, it does not apply to being arrested, or confined in jail and held until trial. If it did then any person holding that postion MUST demand the immedite release of Eric Scott Rudoff(sp?) and allow him to roam free until his trial. Or the release of all arrested persons until their trial comes up. Arrested and convicted are not the same thing. Breaking the law of the land is breaking the law of the land no if ands or buts.