Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You don't know my shoe size.First, if those are cliff notes, I'd hate to see the prose.First, the 14th talks about citizens-not humans. Liberty for ALL American CITIZENS-not invaders. I don't know how you almost got killed, but that sounds overly dramatic. The last pet I had i had to put down-won't get another. Your last sentence is tough-if they stay and pay, will they be recognized as citizens or just their offspring?RESPONSE: Now you're retired. Earlier, you were 12. You need to go really slow and explain what it is you think you're accomplishing.
We live in a free nation. We cannot just go around picking up people without probable cause. That is why ICE turned you down. Of course, I ended up with the government trying to prosecute me on some of the legislation you lobbied for because you cannot understand the 14th Amendment. Then, because people like you disagreed with the concept of Liberty for all, a couple of wall worshipers tried to con the government into killing me. It almost worked.
You need to to the bank and get $50 then go to the dog pound and buy yourself a dog. You need to name that dog Life. That way you can say you have one.
At the end of the day, if I accept your argument at face value, if the United States Supreme Court declares that all undocumented foreigners can stay in the United States after paying a fine, any back taxes and registering as guest workers, you would be fine with their presence. Correct?
RESPONSE:
1) The 14th Amendment talks about PERSONS. Every PERSON born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States and is entitled to government granted "privileges and immunities." ALL PERSONS (as differentiated from citizens) are granted Life, Liberty and Property" subject to Due Process of the law.
Citizen - granted unspecified immunities and privileges along with Life, Liberty, Property subject to Due Process
Person - granted Life, Liberty, Property subject to Due Process.
2) What happened to me was not overly dramatic. Cliff notes just for you:
A) I win an election to an office
B) Opponent didn't like the results; goes to work for a government agency as a Confidential Informant accusing me of a felony
C) Using the so - called "Patriot Act," a government agency hatched a plan to raid my home, kill me and claim I resisted arrest
D) News reporter gets wind of the plot and knows the allegations against me are total B.S. and blows the whistle on the government
E) The LEO that started the actions against me is dealt with in court
3) Without the 14th Amendment, non-whites will not be citizens in any generation - born here or not. Dred Scott v Sanford was a ruling that said, basically, the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that entity called government. We, the people, were restricted to the white race.
So, with the 14th Amendment, what you want will NEVER happen. Nullify the 14th and non-whites are not citizens, but mere guests. HOWEVER, the states will retain the jurisdiction over foreigners as per the original intent of the Constitution.
Due process to me says we honor the law about illegal aliens.
Too bad about your ordeal-can't help you there
You keep saying "what i want"-you don't KNOW. And you keep saying non-white and I keep saying illegal. Russians without papers are illegal aliens too and they ARE white.
What I want is work visas to deserving workers and deportation for illegal aliens. Period.
RESPONSE: You got three years of litigation and headlines in less than ten sentences and you still bitch. Your IQ is lower than your shoe size.
The Constitution does not cover what you want done.
At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.[/QUOTE]Why do Democrat candidates keep saying they want to reduce illegal entry from a crime to a misdemeanor?Invader- 1. One who invades; an assailant; an encroacher; an intruder. Tomato Tomoto.Calm down-I am not even trying to bug you, but I do disagree with some of your views. I do not consider an illegal alien a "person". I consider them a foreign invader-just like the Japs in WWII. I have to go read the 14th amendment to reply to the rest of your post.
Disagreeing with my viewpoints is perfectly acceptable in a civil discourse. Now let us talk FACTS. According to the legal terminology, the term invasion means:
"INVASION. The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.
2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8, gives power to
congress "to provide for calling the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Taking advantage of the free market economy is not waging war. So your opinion is not fact. It is in error. IF this were a war, Trump would be required to seek a Declaration of War.
IF you don't believe that undocumented foreigners are "persons," then you will be happy to know that even my point of view favors your opinion at times. In Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, non-whites are considered only three fifths of a person. Without the 14th Amendment, undocumented foreigners - as well as Blacks - would not be a "person." Right now, however, they are. The mishmash of laws on the books and contradictory statutes make your position untenable at the moment. Maybe you should study the 14th Amendment... particularly that part where it was illegally ratified.
Taking advantage-well put-but not acceptable.
Did read it, I feel justified in my views. Especially since the law calls illegals illegal.
And FYI, my rambling style is used to answer all your questions, tho not always in order-some find it hard to get used to.
The law says no such thing. It don't even refer to it as a crime. People come here and IF they're caught, it is improper entry. The United States Supreme Court ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
Legal definitions are not subject to a layman's dictionary. I cited from a legal dictionary. Guess which one a judge would rely on.
RESPONSE: That makes no sense and Democrats could never say that. Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Improper Entry is a federal civil misdemeanor - the federal equivalent of an Improper U Turn. If they reduced the offense to anything lower, it wouldn't be an offense. You can't get any lower than it is without transferring interactions with foreigners back to the states where it belongs.
You don't know my IQ score-bet its higher than yours![/QUOTE]You don't know my shoe size.First, if those are cliff notes, I'd hate to see the prose.First, the 14th talks about citizens-not humans. Liberty for ALL American CITIZENS-not invaders. I don't know how you almost got killed, but that sounds overly dramatic. The last pet I had i had to put down-won't get another. Your last sentence is tough-if they stay and pay, will they be recognized as citizens or just their offspring?
RESPONSE:
1) The 14th Amendment talks about PERSONS. Every PERSON born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States and is entitled to government granted "privileges and immunities." ALL PERSONS (as differentiated from citizens) are granted Life, Liberty and Property" subject to Due Process of the law.
Citizen - granted unspecified immunities and privileges along with Life, Liberty, Property subject to Due Process
Person - granted Life, Liberty, Property subject to Due Process.
2) What happened to me was not overly dramatic. Cliff notes just for you:
A) I win an election to an office
B) Opponent didn't like the results; goes to work for a government agency as a Confidential Informant accusing me of a felony
C) Using the so - called "Patriot Act," a government agency hatched a plan to raid my home, kill me and claim I resisted arrest
D) News reporter gets wind of the plot and knows the allegations against me are total B.S. and blows the whistle on the government
E) The LEO that started the actions against me is dealt with in court
3) Without the 14th Amendment, non-whites will not be citizens in any generation - born here or not. Dred Scott v Sanford was a ruling that said, basically, the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that entity called government. We, the people, were restricted to the white race.
So, with the 14th Amendment, what you want will NEVER happen. Nullify the 14th and non-whites are not citizens, but mere guests. HOWEVER, the states will retain the jurisdiction over foreigners as per the original intent of the Constitution.
Due process to me says we honor the law about illegal aliens.
Too bad about your ordeal-can't help you there
You keep saying "what i want"-you don't KNOW. And you keep saying non-white and I keep saying illegal. Russians without papers are illegal aliens too and they ARE white.
What I want is work visas to deserving workers and deportation for illegal aliens. Period.
RESPONSE: You got three years of litigation and headlines in less than ten sentences and you still bitch. Your IQ is lower than your shoe size.
The Constitution does not cover what you want done.
It wouldn't matter. It's quite low when compared to an IQ score.
At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.Why do Democrat candidates keep saying they want to reduce illegal entry from a crime to a misdemeanor?Invader- 1. One who invades; an assailant; an encroacher; an intruder. Tomato Tomoto.Disagreeing with my viewpoints is perfectly acceptable in a civil discourse. Now let us talk FACTS. According to the legal terminology, the term invasion means:
"INVASION. The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.
2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8, gives power to
congress "to provide for calling the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Taking advantage of the free market economy is not waging war. So your opinion is not fact. It is in error. IF this were a war, Trump would be required to seek a Declaration of War.
IF you don't believe that undocumented foreigners are "persons," then you will be happy to know that even my point of view favors your opinion at times. In Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, non-whites are considered only three fifths of a person. Without the 14th Amendment, undocumented foreigners - as well as Blacks - would not be a "person." Right now, however, they are. The mishmash of laws on the books and contradictory statutes make your position untenable at the moment. Maybe you should study the 14th Amendment... particularly that part where it was illegally ratified.
Taking advantage-well put-but not acceptable.
Did read it, I feel justified in my views. Especially since the law calls illegals illegal.
And FYI, my rambling style is used to answer all your questions, tho not always in order-some find it hard to get used to.
The law says no such thing. It don't even refer to it as a crime. People come here and IF they're caught, it is improper entry. The United States Supreme Court ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
Legal definitions are not subject to a layman's dictionary. I cited from a legal dictionary. Guess which one a judge would rely on.
RESPONSE: That makes no sense and Democrats could never say that. Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Improper Entry is a federal civil misdemeanor - the federal equivalent of an Improper U Turn. If they reduced the offense to anything lower, it wouldn't be an offense. You can't get any lower than it is without transferring interactions with foreigners back to the states where it belongs.
You don't know my IQ score-bet its higher than yours!You don't know my shoe size.First, if those are cliff notes, I'd hate to see the prose.RESPONSE:
1) The 14th Amendment talks about PERSONS. Every PERSON born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States and is entitled to government granted "privileges and immunities." ALL PERSONS (as differentiated from citizens) are granted Life, Liberty and Property" subject to Due Process of the law.
Citizen - granted unspecified immunities and privileges along with Life, Liberty, Property subject to Due Process
Person - granted Life, Liberty, Property subject to Due Process.
2) What happened to me was not overly dramatic. Cliff notes just for you:
A) I win an election to an office
B) Opponent didn't like the results; goes to work for a government agency as a Confidential Informant accusing me of a felony
C) Using the so - called "Patriot Act," a government agency hatched a plan to raid my home, kill me and claim I resisted arrest
D) News reporter gets wind of the plot and knows the allegations against me are total B.S. and blows the whistle on the government
E) The LEO that started the actions against me is dealt with in court
3) Without the 14th Amendment, non-whites will not be citizens in any generation - born here or not. Dred Scott v Sanford was a ruling that said, basically, the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that entity called government. We, the people, were restricted to the white race.
So, with the 14th Amendment, what you want will NEVER happen. Nullify the 14th and non-whites are not citizens, but mere guests. HOWEVER, the states will retain the jurisdiction over foreigners as per the original intent of the Constitution.
Due process to me says we honor the law about illegal aliens.
Too bad about your ordeal-can't help you there
You keep saying "what i want"-you don't KNOW. And you keep saying non-white and I keep saying illegal. Russians without papers are illegal aliens too and they ARE white.
What I want is work visas to deserving workers and deportation for illegal aliens. Period.
RESPONSE: You got three years of litigation and headlines in less than ten sentences and you still bitch. Your IQ is lower than your shoe size.
The Constitution does not cover what you want done.
It wouldn't matter. It's quite low when compared to an IQ score.
I don't know, between the definition of illegal entry as a crime and the dems saying it, it seems compelling. To me, breaking and entering is a crime, unless your're in California.[/QUOTE]At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.Why do Democrat candidates keep saying they want to reduce illegal entry from a crime to a misdemeanor?Invader- 1. One who invades; an assailant; an encroacher; an intruder. Tomato Tomoto.
Taking advantage-well put-but not acceptable.
Did read it, I feel justified in my views. Especially since the law calls illegals illegal.
And FYI, my rambling style is used to answer all your questions, tho not always in order-some find it hard to get used to.
The law says no such thing. It don't even refer to it as a crime. People come here and IF they're caught, it is improper entry. The United States Supreme Court ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
Legal definitions are not subject to a layman's dictionary. I cited from a legal dictionary. Guess which one a judge would rely on.
RESPONSE: That makes no sense and Democrats could never say that. Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Improper Entry is a federal civil misdemeanor - the federal equivalent of an Improper U Turn. If they reduced the offense to anything lower, it wouldn't be an offense. You can't get any lower than it is without transferring interactions with foreigners back to the states where it belongs.
Then Democrats are plain dumb. But, the Republicans are playing you too. Crimes come in two flavors: misdemeanors and felonies. Then you have civil law. Civil law covers a lot of things, but it also covers offenses that do not rise to the level of a crime.
An example would be an improper U Turn. An improper U Turn is an offense. You could pay a fine - even have to go to jail. But, an Improper U Turn is a civil offense. It is tried in traffic court and it does not go on your criminal record UNLESS you have repeated violations. It works the same way for Improper Entry which is found in a CIVIL CODE in the U.S. Code (the official laws of the United States.) IF the immigration officials catch you coming in, they can charge you with a host of immigration related crimes like eluding police, lying to LEOs, fake ID, etc. However, if an immigrant gets in the U.S. undetected, the United States Supreme Court has ruled it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. It is a deportable offense (it's still against the law), but it just is not a crime.
This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.
$8-9 thousand a second.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock
Coin of the realm-one dollar[/QUOTE]You don't know my IQ score-bet its higher than yours!You don't know my shoe size.First, if those are cliff notes, I'd hate to see the prose.
Due process to me says we honor the law about illegal aliens.
Too bad about your ordeal-can't help you there
You keep saying "what i want"-you don't KNOW. And you keep saying non-white and I keep saying illegal. Russians without papers are illegal aliens too and they ARE white.
What I want is work visas to deserving workers and deportation for illegal aliens. Period.
RESPONSE: You got three years of litigation and headlines in less than ten sentences and you still bitch. Your IQ is lower than your shoe size.
The Constitution does not cover what you want done.
It wouldn't matter. It's quite low when compared to an IQ score.
RESPONSE: You have a bet and at any amount you can name.
I don't know, between the definition of illegal entry as a crime and the dems saying it, it seems compelling. To me, breaking and entering is a crime, unless your're in California.At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.Why do Democrat candidates keep saying they want to reduce illegal entry from a crime to a misdemeanor?The law says no such thing. It don't even refer to it as a crime. People come here and IF they're caught, it is improper entry. The United States Supreme Court ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
Legal definitions are not subject to a layman's dictionary. I cited from a legal dictionary. Guess which one a judge would rely on.
RESPONSE: That makes no sense and Democrats could never say that. Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Improper Entry is a federal civil misdemeanor - the federal equivalent of an Improper U Turn. If they reduced the offense to anything lower, it wouldn't be an offense. You can't get any lower than it is without transferring interactions with foreigners back to the states where it belongs.
Then Democrats are plain dumb. But, the Republicans are playing you too. Crimes come in two flavors: misdemeanors and felonies. Then you have civil law. Civil law covers a lot of things, but it also covers offenses that do not rise to the level of a crime.
An example would be an improper U Turn. An improper U Turn is an offense. You could pay a fine - even have to go to jail. But, an Improper U Turn is a civil offense. It is tried in traffic court and it does not go on your criminal record UNLESS you have repeated violations. It works the same way for Improper Entry which is found in a CIVIL CODE in the U.S. Code (the official laws of the United States.) IF the immigration officials catch you coming in, they can charge you with a host of immigration related crimes like eluding police, lying to LEOs, fake ID, etc. However, if an immigrant gets in the U.S. undetected, the United States Supreme Court has ruled it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. It is a deportable offense (it's still against the law), but it just is not a crime.
This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.
$8-9 thousand a second.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock
A Florida university professor was hired by a Democratic Party pol to find out how much immigration has cost the state of Florida over the years, and he found that the state suffered a net loss of around $2,400 per immigrant. He didn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, for obvious reasons and who was paying for the 'study', but it gives some idea of the costs overall, some states spending a lot more than Florida on them.
The Professor's name was Michael Denslow and the study is available online somewhere, unless somebody thought to hide it behind a paywall somewhere, like they have with the faggot studies and other facts they don't want the public to know, even though the public pays for these studies.
So, assuming Florida's net loss of $2,400 or so and a conservative estimate of 20,000,000 criminals running around, we can arrive at $48 billion a year net loss, not including the loss in wages to legal citizens due to these scum and their crooked employers. Wouldn't take much to double that estimate, of course, and it doesn't include legal immigrants, either, nor the medical costs of the epidemics and diseases they bring in with them.
First, I don't have a side, so I don't care. I just want the question answered accurately. You keep saying it is not a crime and that Democrats are dumb for saying it, but i am looking for these words-It is not a crime to illegally enter the United States- from some Federal legal document. "As a general rule" is too vague and only refers to remaining-not entering.[/QUOTE]I don't know, between the definition of illegal entry as a crime and the dems saying it, it seems compelling. To me, breaking and entering is a crime, unless your're in California.At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.Why do Democrat candidates keep saying they want to reduce illegal entry from a crime to a misdemeanor?
RESPONSE: That makes no sense and Democrats could never say that. Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Improper Entry is a federal civil misdemeanor - the federal equivalent of an Improper U Turn. If they reduced the offense to anything lower, it wouldn't be an offense. You can't get any lower than it is without transferring interactions with foreigners back to the states where it belongs.
Then Democrats are plain dumb. But, the Republicans are playing you too. Crimes come in two flavors: misdemeanors and felonies. Then you have civil law. Civil law covers a lot of things, but it also covers offenses that do not rise to the level of a crime.
An example would be an improper U Turn. An improper U Turn is an offense. You could pay a fine - even have to go to jail. But, an Improper U Turn is a civil offense. It is tried in traffic court and it does not go on your criminal record UNLESS you have repeated violations. It works the same way for Improper Entry which is found in a CIVIL CODE in the U.S. Code (the official laws of the United States.) IF the immigration officials catch you coming in, they can charge you with a host of immigration related crimes like eluding police, lying to LEOs, fake ID, etc. However, if an immigrant gets in the U.S. undetected, the United States Supreme Court has ruled it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. It is a deportable offense (it's still against the law), but it just is not a crime.
RESPONSE: You sound like something between a parrot and a National Socialist. Keep repeating the same thing over and over - it still won't come true. The is NO statute in the United States Code referring to improper entry as a crime.
The dumbasses you hang with have been preaching that shit since 2003. They've lost more cases and the United States Supreme Court given them the beat down so many times that you'd think you would be embarrassed. Yet you aren't... and you're too stupid to realize when you're outmatched. You are a trip. What happened when your side argued the claptrap you just posted? Let me quote the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT word for word:
"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012). The form does not authorize an arrest. Instead, it gives the alien information about the proceedings, including the time and date of the removal hearing. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a)(1). If an alien fails to appear, an in absentia order may direct removal. §1229a(5)(A)." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
When the United States Supreme Court rules, even Jesus has been reluctant to challenge their rulings - Congress NEVER has. If you don't like this, you should simply acknowledge that the high Court never had jurisdiction beyond naturalization and allow their unconstitutional system to collapse.
First, I don't have a side, so I don't care. I just want the question answered accurately. You keep saying it is not a crime and that Democrats are dumb for saying it, but i am looking for these words-It is not a crime to illegally enter the United States- from some Federal legal document. "As a general rule" is too vague and only refers to remaining-not entering.I don't know, between the definition of illegal entry as a crime and the dems saying it, it seems compelling. To me, breaking and entering is a crime, unless your're in California.At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.RESPONSE: That makes no sense and Democrats could never say that. Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Improper Entry is a federal civil misdemeanor - the federal equivalent of an Improper U Turn. If they reduced the offense to anything lower, it wouldn't be an offense. You can't get any lower than it is without transferring interactions with foreigners back to the states where it belongs.
Then Democrats are plain dumb. But, the Republicans are playing you too. Crimes come in two flavors: misdemeanors and felonies. Then you have civil law. Civil law covers a lot of things, but it also covers offenses that do not rise to the level of a crime.
An example would be an improper U Turn. An improper U Turn is an offense. You could pay a fine - even have to go to jail. But, an Improper U Turn is a civil offense. It is tried in traffic court and it does not go on your criminal record UNLESS you have repeated violations. It works the same way for Improper Entry which is found in a CIVIL CODE in the U.S. Code (the official laws of the United States.) IF the immigration officials catch you coming in, they can charge you with a host of immigration related crimes like eluding police, lying to LEOs, fake ID, etc. However, if an immigrant gets in the U.S. undetected, the United States Supreme Court has ruled it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. It is a deportable offense (it's still against the law), but it just is not a crime.
RESPONSE: You sound like something between a parrot and a National Socialist. Keep repeating the same thing over and over - it still won't come true. The is NO statute in the United States Code referring to improper entry as a crime.
The dumbasses you hang with have been preaching that shit since 2003. They've lost more cases and the United States Supreme Court given them the beat down so many times that you'd think you would be embarrassed. Yet you aren't... and you're too stupid to realize when you're outmatched. You are a trip. What happened when your side argued the claptrap you just posted? Let me quote the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT word for word:
"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012). The form does not authorize an arrest. Instead, it gives the alien information about the proceedings, including the time and date of the removal hearing. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a)(1). If an alien fails to appear, an in absentia order may direct removal. §1229a(5)(A)." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
When the United States Supreme Court rules, even Jesus has been reluctant to challenge their rulings - Congress NEVER has. If you don't like this, you should simply acknowledge that the high Court never had jurisdiction beyond naturalization and allow their unconstitutional system to collapse.
This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.
$8-9 thousand a second.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock
A Florida university professor was hired by a Democratic Party pol to find out how much immigration has cost the state of Florida over the years, and he found that the state suffered a net loss of around $2,400 per immigrant. He didn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, for obvious reasons and who was paying for the 'study', but it gives some idea of the costs overall, some states spending a lot more than Florida on them.
The Professor's name was Michael Denslow and the study is available online somewhere, unless somebody thought to hide it behind a paywall somewhere, like they have with the faggot studies and other facts they don't want the public to know, even though the public pays for these studies.
So, assuming Florida's net loss of $2,400 or so and a conservative estimate of 20,000,000 criminals running around, we can arrive at $48 billion a year net loss, not including the loss in wages to legal citizens due to these scum and their crooked employers. Wouldn't take much to double that estimate, of course, and it doesn't include legal immigrants, either, nor the medical costs of the epidemics and diseases they bring in with them.
RESPONSE: If you read some of this thread, I have pointed out that there are two sides of the accounting ledger. You are focusing on the "costs." That is intellectual dishonesty. You have to factor in the contributions. When that was done, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office did such a study in 2007 and concluded that immigrants paid as much into the system as they took in benefits:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
Many times people such as yourself are being propagandized by think tanks like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Numbersusa. ALL of those organizations were founded and financed by John Tanton, a eugenics activist with strong support from neo Nazi organizations that pioneered the talking points you see bandied about by their parrot on this thread.
You are right about one thing-this subject is beat to death. The most interesting thing going on now is the presidential election. I see Steve Bullock of Montana running for the Dems and Trump for the Reps. What are your predictions?[/QUOTE]First, I don't have a side, so I don't care. I just want the question answered accurately. You keep saying it is not a crime and that Democrats are dumb for saying it, but i am looking for these words-It is not a crime to illegally enter the United States- from some Federal legal document. "As a general rule" is too vague and only refers to remaining-not entering.I don't know, between the definition of illegal entry as a crime and the dems saying it, it seems compelling. To me, breaking and entering is a crime, unless your're in California.At the debates a number of Democrats did say that-I remember Beto and Booker saying it.
Then Democrats are plain dumb. But, the Republicans are playing you too. Crimes come in two flavors: misdemeanors and felonies. Then you have civil law. Civil law covers a lot of things, but it also covers offenses that do not rise to the level of a crime.
An example would be an improper U Turn. An improper U Turn is an offense. You could pay a fine - even have to go to jail. But, an Improper U Turn is a civil offense. It is tried in traffic court and it does not go on your criminal record UNLESS you have repeated violations. It works the same way for Improper Entry which is found in a CIVIL CODE in the U.S. Code (the official laws of the United States.) IF the immigration officials catch you coming in, they can charge you with a host of immigration related crimes like eluding police, lying to LEOs, fake ID, etc. However, if an immigrant gets in the U.S. undetected, the United States Supreme Court has ruled it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. It is a deportable offense (it's still against the law), but it just is not a crime.
RESPONSE: You sound like something between a parrot and a National Socialist. Keep repeating the same thing over and over - it still won't come true. The is NO statute in the United States Code referring to improper entry as a crime.
The dumbasses you hang with have been preaching that shit since 2003. They've lost more cases and the United States Supreme Court given them the beat down so many times that you'd think you would be embarrassed. Yet you aren't... and you're too stupid to realize when you're outmatched. You are a trip. What happened when your side argued the claptrap you just posted? Let me quote the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT word for word:
"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012). The form does not authorize an arrest. Instead, it gives the alien information about the proceedings, including the time and date of the removal hearing. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a)(1). If an alien fails to appear, an in absentia order may direct removal. §1229a(5)(A)." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
When the United States Supreme Court rules, even Jesus has been reluctant to challenge their rulings - Congress NEVER has. If you don't like this, you should simply acknowledge that the high Court never had jurisdiction beyond naturalization and allow their unconstitutional system to collapse.
RESPONSE: The courts interpret the law. The procedure for removal was laid out for you. It is not a criminal process; the statute is NOT in the Criminal Code (Title 18) Believe whatever in the Hell you like. But, you are parroting the party line of National Socialists who have lost this battle every time they have taken it to court.
Feel free to waste your time. If you have anything related to the OP, I will discuss it. This back and forth is only stroking your ego, so I'm out. I laid out the facts. My position has always been that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and we should leave it up to the states who they do and do not allow in. That is the way it was originally and the bigger you make the federal government, the more problems you have.
This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.
$8-9 thousand a second.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock
A Florida university professor was hired by a Democratic Party pol to find out how much immigration has cost the state of Florida over the years, and he found that the state suffered a net loss of around $2,400 per immigrant. He didn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, for obvious reasons and who was paying for the 'study', but it gives some idea of the costs overall, some states spending a lot more than Florida on them.
The Professor's name was Michael Denslow and the study is available online somewhere, unless somebody thought to hide it behind a paywall somewhere, like they have with the faggot studies and other facts they don't want the public to know, even though the public pays for these studies.
So, assuming Florida's net loss of $2,400 or so and a conservative estimate of 20,000,000 criminals running around, we can arrive at $48 billion a year net loss, not including the loss in wages to legal citizens due to these scum and their crooked employers. Wouldn't take much to double that estimate, of course, and it doesn't include legal immigrants, either, nor the medical costs of the epidemics and diseases they bring in with them.
RESPONSE: If you read some of this thread, I have pointed out that there are two sides of the accounting ledger. You are focusing on the "costs." That is intellectual dishonesty. You have to factor in the contributions. When that was done, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office did such a study in 2007 and concluded that immigrants paid as much into the system as they took in benefits:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
Many times people such as yourself are being propagandized by think tanks like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Numbersusa. ALL of those organizations were founded and financed by John Tanton, a eugenics activist with strong support from neo Nazi organizations that pioneered the talking points you see bandied about by their parrot on this thread.
Actually as I said my source was from a study contracted for by Florida Democrats, so your typically stupid attempts at annoying the adults fails yet again. If you think the CBO is 'non-partisan' you're an idiot.
If Trump gets impeached over this nothing B.S.
as a quick comment , I can see TRUMP turning on his supporters if he wins re-election . My concern is simply because of his use of the words and concept of HUMANITARIAN Crisis on the Southern Border , ------------- just a comment .
And to think all americans ever had to do was alter their shopping habits and pay a bit more at the cash register to encourage capital to pay a bit more to hire americans.This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.
$8-9 thousand a second.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock
Don will simply be remembered as a Nero-like symptom of our empire in decline.If Trump gets impeached over this nothing B.S.
IF this shit show actually is held in public all but the acolytes will see the corruption for what it is- it will turn into a he did it first and worse back and forth - those on the fence will make up their minds based on pre-determined answers to pre-determined questions of pre-determined witnesses- the Empire is failing/falling and the walls will come tumbling down. It's gone too far to say if, it's only when- Historians will assign the Time Line and the straw that broke the camels back. I only hope they aren't biased in their assessment and render their conclusions from an objective point of view.
