Racists and Fools?

There is a very humanitarian reason for sending legal aliens back to their countries. If there is one more general attack in this country by a Muslim, no amount of "let's all get along" pap will be sufficient to stop mass attacks on these people. They should be sent home until this situation is resolved and then come back if they so desire.

While I support your right to say this and to some extent it is true, there is NO politically correct answer to this problem. How about all of the non citizens on expired visas? I learned along time ago that to state a problem without having an answer just counterproductive. Calling people racist is an easy thing to do, but hard to prove. While some members of the PC generation find it fashionable to scream racism, a powerful tool that keeps people at arms length, usually no solution is ever sought. People bend over backwards to avoid being labeled racist. Look at the power that word has given Jessie Jackson. He is winning cash settlements from major corporations just by using the race card. But who is helped? He is a multimilionare, but poor folks are still poor. Sir, some unusual measures must be taken during this time of war to protect the majority. NO...internment camps were and are wrong, however the I.N.S. must take steps to return to the country of origin anyone here on an expired visa. Really doesn't matter where they are from. WHY...because it is the law. Now if that makes me a racist so be it, but above all else we are a nation of laws.

I see why you call yourself Non-Sequitur.

The Constitution is a charter outlining the laws, that define a nation (the USA). A nation's laws would logically apply to the citizens of that nation. The Constitution then goes on to state specifically what is necessary to be a citizen. Therefore the Constitution defines the nation, defines its citizens and defines what rights and laws apply to its citizens. What you are saying is that the constitution was written to apply to citizens of other countries. This negates the whole concept of legal jurisdiction which dates back beyond the Magna Carta of the 13th century.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.

So don't try to equate lawful deportation with a ban on gun ownership which IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So how do you figure deporting people because of their religion regardless of guilt is lawful or constitutional? What law or amendment do you use to support that?

You might try to read the Constitution some time. Nowhere in it does it define what is a citizen, what is necessary to be a citizen, or that it's rights and laws apply only to citizens. The Constitution is the law of the land, applying to citizen and non-citizen alike. Muslims, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, have the same rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and due process of law as you and I do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.