Court says illegal immigrants can't have guns

[Liability]

BTW, Thomas jefferson and Madison's opinion was confirmed by SCOTUS:


"... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in [143 U.S. 135, 160] which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so..."



U.S. Supreme Court

BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)

Font size and color notwithstanding, is it REALLY your claim that a STATE can admit an alien and grant it the right to stay here when the Federal Government has elected NOT to grant that alien entry or permission to stay?
Because, if that's your contention, then plainly you are flatly wrong.

The power, granted to congress by the constitution, 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in congress. Chirac v. Chirac (1817) 2 Wheat. 259.

-- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

That is my contention precisely as was the Founding Fathers and the SCOTUS.

Of course, the states have been reduced to mere provinces and are no longer allowed to confer their citizenship upon whomever they want to.

The "states" of Arizona and Alabama are well within their authority to detain and deport aliens . But those states can not prevent California or any of the other 48 states fromk admitting aliens and conferring STATE citizenship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

And so you remain flatly wrong.

The Supreme Court has also found implied federal constitutional powers to regulate immigration as an incident of Sovereignty — see, e.g., The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 711 (1893)

-- http://www.fosterquan.com/content/documents/policy_papers/FactsAboutFederalPreemption.pdf

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that your legal and anecdotal citations are current or meaningful.

By the way, the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the United States has preempted the field on the issue of immigration and naturalization does NOT mean that there is ANYTHING wrong with the Arizona law.

The problem here is that you do not understand what is preempted, what isn't preempted or what preemption even means.

And no. The STATE of Arizona absolutely cannot "deport" an illegal alien. No STATE can. The United States can.

Back to the question of whether a STATE can regulate citizenship:

See DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354–55 (1976) ("Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.") * * * *

id.

 

[Liability]

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275, 280 (1876)

 

[Contumacious]

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that your legal and anecdotal citations are current or meaningful.

By the way, the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the United States has preempted the field on the issue of immigration and naturalization does NOT mean that there is ANYTHING wrong with the Arizona law.

The problem here is that you do not understand what is preempted, what isn't preempted or what preemption even means.

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that federal scumbags can LAWFULLY - CONSTITUTIONALLY - "preempt" the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers adopted Article V of the Constitution which spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

Nowhere in there does it say that SCOTUS may amend the Constitution when it is convenient.

Congress adopted the first immigration act in 1798 - after James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the usurpation the law was allowed to expire in 1800.

In October 1, 1888 Congress adopted the The Chinese Exclusion Act. For 88 years the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO IMMIGRATION LAW. Of course , in 1888 the Founding Fathers were dead and gone.

Now , here are the factual reasons for BOLDLY USURPING THE POWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION:

"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.


U.S. Supreme Court

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

Accordingly , the scumbags in the Supreme Court AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION in order to exclude Chinese because their skin was yellow, they worked very hard and could affect "our"people.

It is interesting that the pretext that they came here to partake of the benefits provided by of the welfare state was not used !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it it unbelievable that you acquiesce to such a blatant act of racism and criminal usurpation and treason to the Constitution.

For shame.

.

 

[Liability]

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that your legal and anecdotal citations are current or meaningful.

By the way, the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the United States has preempted the field on the issue of immigration and naturalization does NOT mean that there is ANYTHING wrong with the Arizona law.

The problem here is that you do not understand what is preempted, what isn't preempted or what preemption even means.

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that federal scumbags can LAWFULLY - CONSTITUTIONALLY - "preempt" the Constitution. * * * *

Stop. You're a fucking douche.

It's not preempting the Constitution to RELY ON the Constitution, you dip shit.

You are truly too stupid to breathe.

 

[High_Gravity]

This is not the thread to debate whether it is illegal to enter or be in the United States without papers, but it most assuredly is not illegal.

See the thread about Mexicans versus Americans. I am going to follow up there and prove, unequivocally, that it is NOT a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers.

So basically that means anyone from any country has the right to just enter the United States?

 

[Liability]

This is not the thread to debate whether it is illegal to enter or be in the United States without papers, but it most assuredly is not illegal.

See the thread about Mexicans versus Americans. I am going to follow up there and prove, unequivocally, that it is NOT a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers.

This thread is a FINE Thread to discuss the FACT that entering the U.S. outside the provisions of the law IS a CRIME. Literally a crime. And your claim is a lie.

It is not true that it is most assuredly not illegal. It is absolutely illegal. YOu aren't just wrong, you are deliberately dishonest. That's a bad thing, you imbecile.

You can't "prove" otherwise, idiot, since it IS a crime as I have already shown -- as have others.

And so of course they can't have guns. Since they shouldn't BE here at all (entering without permission being a crime and all), they CERTAINLY shouldn't be "permitted" to have guns.

How incredibly stupid of you, you dishonest moron.

 

[Liability]

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that your legal and anecdotal citations are current or meaningful.

By the way, the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the United States has preempted the field on the issue of immigration and naturalization does NOT mean that there is ANYTHING wrong with the Arizona law.

The problem here is that you do not understand what is preempted, what isn't preempted or what preemption even means.

In order to further educate yourself you need to stop imagining that federal scumbags can LAWFULLY - CONSTITUTIONALLY - "preempt" the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers adopted Article V of the Constitution which spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

Nowhere in there does it say that SCOTUS may amend the Constitution when it is convenient.

Congress adopted the first immigration act in 1798 - after James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the usurpation the law was allowed to expire in 1800.

In October 1, 1888 Congress adopted the The Chinese Exclusion Act. For 88 years the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO IMMIGRATION LAW. Of course , in 1888 the Founding Fathers were dead and gone.

Now , here are the factual reasons for BOLDLY USURPING THE POWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION:

"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.


U.S. Supreme Court

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

Accordingly , the scumbags in the Supreme Court AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION in order to exclude Chinese because their skin was yellow, they worked very hard and could affect "our"people.

It is interesting that the pretext that they came here to partake of the benefits provided by of the welfare state was not used !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it it unbelievable that you acquiesce to such a blatant act of racism and criminal usurpation and treason to the Constitution.

For shame.

.

Since the Constitution itself gives immigration and naturalization authority to the Federal Government, you dishonest asshole, your idiotic and dishonest "argument" couldn't be more completely fucking wrong.

,



;


,

,

 

[High_Gravity]

Only in America would we be sitting here and debating a foreigners "right" to be able to buy a gun when hes not even supposed to fucking be here in the first place, wow.

 

[BuddyColt]

This is not the thread to debate whether it is illegal to enter or be in the United States without papers, but it most assuredly is not illegal.

See the thread about Mexicans versus Americans. I am going to follow up there and prove, unequivocally, that it is NOT a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers.

So basically that means anyone from any country has the right to just enter the United States?

Do you know the words on the Welcome Mat of America?

 

[BuddyColt]

Only in America would we be sitting here and debating a foreigners "right" to be able to buy a gun when hes not even supposed to fucking be here in the first place, wow.

The immigrants are perfectly welcome in the U.S. Just because YOU don't want them here is of no consequence. We are a Republic. In a constitutional Republic, the minority is protected from the majority.

Every human being is entitled Liberty. Others can invite whomever they want into the United States. It's not just YOUR decision. Others can invite the foreigner.

The federal government could choose to regulate the Guest Workers, but they passed on that. The de jure (legitimate, lawful) government in America cannot tell employers who they can and cannot hire; who you and I can associate with. It legally cannot be done.

So, the government created this situation. They told foreigners to come in "properly." but failed to institute a "proper" method of entry that applies. So, in reality, no criminal laws are being broken.

 

[High_Gravity]

Only in America would we be sitting here and debating a foreigners "right" to be able to buy a gun when hes not even supposed to fucking be here in the first place, wow.

The immigrants are perfectly welcome in the U.S. Just because YOU don't want them here is of no consequence. We are a Republic. In a constitutional Republic, the minority is protected from the majority.

Every human being is entitled Liberty. Others can invite whomever they want into the United States. It's not just YOUR decision. Others can invite the foreigner.

The federal government could choose to regulate the Guest Workers, but they passed on that. The de jure (legitimate, lawful) government in America cannot tell employers who they can and cannot hire; who you and I can associate with. It legally cannot be done.

So, the government created this situation. They told foreigners to come in "properly." but failed to institute a "proper" method of entry that applies. So, in reality, no criminal laws are being broken.

You honestly can't see that just letting anyone from any country just come to the US with no reprucussions is dangerous? would you really feel the same way if everyone in Somalia moved to Georgia for example?

 

[BuddyColt]

Only in America would we be sitting here and debating a foreigners "right" to be able to buy a gun when hes not even supposed to fucking be here in the first place, wow.

The immigrants are perfectly welcome in the U.S. Just because YOU don't want them here is of no consequence. We are a Republic. In a constitutional Republic, the minority is protected from the majority.

Every human being is entitled Liberty. Others can invite whomever they want into the United States. It's not just YOUR decision. Others can invite the foreigner.

The federal government could choose to regulate the Guest Workers, but they passed on that. The de jure (legitimate, lawful) government in America cannot tell employers who they can and cannot hire; who you and I can associate with. It legally cannot be done.

So, the government created this situation. They told foreigners to come in "properly." but failed to institute a "proper" method of entry that applies. So, in reality, no criminal laws are being broken.

You honestly can't see that just letting anyone from any country just come to the US with no reprucussions is dangerous? would you really feel the same way if everyone in Somalia moved to Georgia for example?

Do you bother to read what I'm writing? I'm advocating Guest Worker status with no automatic path to citizenship. What you are suggesting reeks or racism and will be rejected by a majority of the American people. It don't make a fuck what I want or what you want. It's the fact that all men are entitled to Liberty. So, we can regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.

You could advocate what was popular before the 14th Amendment got passed - that the Constitution only applied to whites. That would be more honest and accurate than to argue this nonsensical "illegal" alien line.

 

[High_Gravity]

The immigrants are perfectly welcome in the U.S. Just because YOU don't want them here is of no consequence. We are a Republic. In a constitutional Republic, the minority is protected from the majority.

Every human being is entitled Liberty. Others can invite whomever they want into the United States. It's not just YOUR decision. Others can invite the foreigner.

The federal government could choose to regulate the Guest Workers, but they passed on that. The de jure (legitimate, lawful) government in America cannot tell employers who they can and cannot hire; who you and I can associate with. It legally cannot be done.

So, the government created this situation. They told foreigners to come in "properly." but failed to institute a "proper" method of entry that applies. So, in reality, no criminal laws are being broken.

You honestly can't see that just letting anyone from any country just come to the US with no reprucussions is dangerous? would you really feel the same way if everyone in Somalia moved to Georgia for example?

Do you bother to read what I'm writing? I'm advocating Guest Worker status with no automatic path to citizenship. What you are suggesting reeks or racism and will be rejected by a majority of the American people. It don't make a fuck what I want or what you want. It's the fact that all men are entitled to Liberty. So, we can regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.

You could advocate what was popular before the 14th Amendment got passed - that the Constitution only applied to whites. That would be more honest and accurate than to argue this nonsensical "illegal" alien line.

This guest worker status thing you are suggesting does not exist, so as of now these people that come here illegally are breaking the law whether you like it or not. I think you are just feeling sympathy for these people because you are Hispanic and you want them to stay here, if the illegals were mostly Black Africans or Arabs from Iraq and Syria you would not want them.

 

[BuddyColt]

You honestly can't see that just letting anyone from any country just come to the US with no reprucussions is dangerous? would you really feel the same way if everyone in Somalia moved to Georgia for example?

Do you bother to read what I'm writing? I'm advocating Guest Worker status with no automatic path to citizenship. What you are suggesting reeks or racism and will be rejected by a majority of the American people. It don't make a fuck what I want or what you want. It's the fact that all men are entitled to Liberty. So, we can regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.

You could advocate what was popular before the 14th Amendment got passed - that the Constitution only applied to whites. That would be more honest and accurate than to argue this nonsensical "illegal" alien line.

This guest worker status thing you are suggesting does not exist, so as of now these people that come here illegally are breaking the law whether you like it or not. I think you are just feeling sympathy for these people because you are Hispanic and you want them to stay here, if the illegals were mostly Black Africans or Arabs from Iraq and Syria you would not want them.

No, they are not breaking the law. Read the first four posts of Is it Really Illegal. You are arguing a well settled point of law. The HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and the Attorney General are the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES. BOTH of those people stated in unequivocal language that crossing the border and being here without papers is not a crime.

Can't you read? You aren't arguing with me. I can only tell you what the law says. I worked in it for six years. Tell you what: Here's an offer. I can pay you $200 an hour and give you a couple of cases. Prove your point in an immigration hearing and I'll double that amount and give you a full time job as a professional legal research liaison. You fail, you get nothing and will return to this board and tell the posters I am telling you the truth.,

If you're so damn right, put your energy where your convictions are.

I don't have shit to gain. I'm just tired of the failed strategies of political propaganda prostitutes like yourself being used as a precedent to send a lot of people (mostly those on YOUR side of the political spectrum) to prisons and graves trying to argue points of law they don't have a clue about and creating bad laws and bad precedents that apply to all of us. Your B.S. KILLS people!

 

[High_Gravity]

Do you bother to read what I'm writing? I'm advocating Guest Worker status with no automatic path to citizenship. What you are suggesting reeks or racism and will be rejected by a majority of the American people. It don't make a fuck what I want or what you want. It's the fact that all men are entitled to Liberty. So, we can regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.

You could advocate what was popular before the 14th Amendment got passed - that the Constitution only applied to whites. That would be more honest and accurate than to argue this nonsensical "illegal" alien line.

This guest worker status thing you are suggesting does not exist, so as of now these people that come here illegally are breaking the law whether you like it or not. I think you are just feeling sympathy for these people because you are Hispanic and you want them to stay here, if the illegals were mostly Black Africans or Arabs from Iraq and Syria you would not want them.

No, they are not breaking the law. Read the first four posts of Is it Really Illegal. You are arguing a well settled point of law. The HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and the Attorney General are the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES. BOTH of those people stated in unequivocal language that crossing the border and being here without papers is not a crime.

Can't you read? You aren't arguing with me. I can only tell you what the law says. I worked in it for six years. Tell you what: Here's an offer. I can pay you $200 an hour and give you a couple of cases. Prove your point in an immigration hearing and I'll double that amount and give you a full time job as a professional legal research liaison. You fail, you get nothing and will return to this board and tell the posters I am telling you the truth.,

If you're so damn right, put your energy where your convictions are.

I don't have shit to gain. I'm just tired of the failed strategies of political propaganda prostitutes like yourself being used as a precedent to send a lot of people (mostly those on YOUR side of the political spectrum) to prisons and graves trying to argue points of law they don't have a clue about and creating bad laws and bad precedents that apply to all of us. Your B.S. KILLS people!

From the anger and cussing in your posts I can tell you have a horse in this race, you either have family or somebody close to you who is here illegally and you want them to stay so badly you want to open the US up to anyone who can get here, if you can't see thats physchotic I don't know what to tell you.

 

[BuddyColt]

This guest worker status thing you are suggesting does not exist, so as of now these people that come here illegally are breaking the law whether you like it or not. I think you are just feeling sympathy for these people because you are Hispanic and you want them to stay here, if the illegals were mostly Black Africans or Arabs from Iraq and Syria you would not want them.

No, they are not breaking the law. Read the first four posts of Is it Really Illegal. You are arguing a well settled point of law. The HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and the Attorney General are the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES. BOTH of those people stated in unequivocal language that crossing the border and being here without papers is not a crime.

Can't you read? You aren't arguing with me. I can only tell you what the law says. I worked in it for six years. Tell you what: Here's an offer. I can pay you $200 an hour and give you a couple of cases. Prove your point in an immigration hearing and I'll double that amount and give you a full time job as a professional legal research liaison. You fail, you get nothing and will return to this board and tell the posters I am telling you the truth.,

If you're so damn right, put your energy where your convictions are.

I don't have shit to gain. I'm just tired of the failed strategies of political propaganda prostitutes like yourself being used as a precedent to send a lot of people (mostly those on YOUR side of the political spectrum) to prisons and graves trying to argue points of law they don't have a clue about and creating bad laws and bad precedents that apply to all of us. Your B.S. KILLS people!

From the anger and cussing in your posts I can tell you have a horse in this race, you either have family or somebody close to you who is here illegally and you want them to stay so badly you want to open the US up to anyone who can get here, if you can't see thats physchotic I don't know what to tell you.

There are no people here "illegally." I'll tell you my story once. You should, but will not, tell us why you hate people so much thereafter. Pay attention. This is said once and then I will not answer you further. It is my "horse" in the race. It's irrelevant, but if this clears it up for you, I'm satisfied.

Once upon a time, a man wanted my extracurricular job so he went to the LEO community and claimed that I was teaching people how to build silencers and urging them to shoot cops at roadblocks. The story was not true, but it generated a "Confidential Intelligence Report" and plans to kill me and claim I resisted arrest.

That report was given to my employers and places I did business with and that in turn got me blacklisted. I could not get government contracts. So, I'm almost bankrupted and there are threats on my life. The matter ended up in court.

The defense the LEOs relied on was the so - called "Patriot Act" which was passed as a supposed bill to control immigration and secure the border. There was an anti - immigrant bill being used against me, an American, to justify denying me DUE PROCESS. Our good 'ol anti - immigrant lawyer / Congressman, James Sensenbrenner was the one that introduced that bill.

Again, you cannot pass a law that targets one segment of society. Like it or not, whether American or foreign terrorist, if DUE PROCESS is denied to ONE person, ALL must be treated equally.

When I warned the patriot community about these interpretations regarding DUE PROCESS, they treated me the same way you did. But, when Darren Huff, an anti immigrant on your side of the fence was pursued as a criminal, absent DUE PROCESS, here were his words: "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

You people are setting bad precedents by accusing EVERYONE of being criminals absent DUE PROCESS and passing laws like the so - called "Patriot Act." BTW, NOTHING HERE IS NEW. IT WAS ALL IN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS OF THE IS IT REALLY ILLEGAL THREAD.

It's only the tip of the iceberg. The National ID / REAL ID Act (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) forced people to use a Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" as ID. It now means that patriots cannot fight the income tax since we are now "required" to have an SSN for ID whereas, before, the PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 prohibited the government from denying to any individual any benefit, right or privilege for failure to supply an SSN. The war against the income tax was lost due to the anti - immigrants and socialist National ID. I worked on an income tax case that was won at the U.S. Supreme Court level regarding the income tax. REAL ID was the brainchild of Rep. James Sensenbrenner as an anti- immigrant bill.

If ending the presumption of innocence and upholding the communist income tax are not enough to oppose the anti - immigrant Socialists for is not sufficient, then this is going to be a LONG thread. But, the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread contain all the links you need to learn what your efforts are costing. The links show the anti - immigrant ties to many bad precedents. They are precedents you damn sure would not want to be judged by... but, many people on your side have been victims of it. All of it is in the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread.

 

[High_Gravity]

No, they are not breaking the law. Read the first four posts of Is it Really Illegal. You are arguing a well settled point of law. The HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and the Attorney General are the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES. BOTH of those people stated in unequivocal language that crossing the border and being here without papers is not a crime.

Can't you read? You aren't arguing with me. I can only tell you what the law says. I worked in it for six years. Tell you what: Here's an offer. I can pay you $200 an hour and give you a couple of cases. Prove your point in an immigration hearing and I'll double that amount and give you a full time job as a professional legal research liaison. You fail, you get nothing and will return to this board and tell the posters I am telling you the truth.,

If you're so damn right, put your energy where your convictions are.

I don't have shit to gain. I'm just tired of the failed strategies of political propaganda prostitutes like yourself being used as a precedent to send a lot of people (mostly those on YOUR side of the political spectrum) to prisons and graves trying to argue points of law they don't have a clue about and creating bad laws and bad precedents that apply to all of us. Your B.S. KILLS people!

From the anger and cussing in your posts I can tell you have a horse in this race, you either have family or somebody close to you who is here illegally and you want them to stay so badly you want to open the US up to anyone who can get here, if you can't see thats physchotic I don't know what to tell you.

There are no people here "illegally." I'll tell you my story once. You should, but will not, tell us why you hate people so much thereafter. Pay attention. This is said once and then I will not answer you further. It is my "horse" in the race. It's irrelevant, but if this clears it up for you, I'm satisfied.

Once upon a time, a man wanted my extracurricular job so he went to the LEO community and claimed that I was teaching people how to build silencers and urging them to shoot cops at roadblocks. The story was not true, but it generated a "Confidential Intelligence Report" and plans to kill me and claim I resisted arrest.

That report was given to my employers and places I did business with and that in turn got me blacklisted. I could not get government contracts. So, I'm almost bankrupted and there are threats on my life. The matter ended up in court.

The defense the LEOs relied on was the so - called "Patriot Act" which was passed as a supposed bill to control immigration and secure the border. There was an anti - immigrant bill being used against me, an American, to justify denying me DUE PROCESS. Our good 'ol anti - immigrant lawyer / Congressman, James Sensenbrenner was the one that introduced that bill.

Again, you cannot pass a law that targets one segment of society. Like it or not, whether American or foreign terrorist, if DUE PROCESS is denied to ONE person, ALL must be treated equally.

When I warned the patriot community about these interpretations regarding DUE PROCESS, they treated me the same way you did. But, when Darren Huff, an anti immigrant on your side of the fence was pursued as a criminal, absent DUE PROCESS, here were his words: "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

You people are setting bad precedents by accusing EVERYONE of being criminals absent DUE PROCESS and passing laws like the so - called "Patriot Act." BTW, NOTHING HERE IS NEW. IT WAS ALL IN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS OF THE IS IT REALLY ILLEGAL THREAD.

It's only the tip of the iceberg. The National ID / REAL ID Act (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) forced people to use a Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" as ID. It now means that patriots cannot fight the income tax since we are now "required" to have an SSN for ID whereas, before, the PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 prohibited the government from denying to any individual any benefit, right or privilege for failure to supply an SSN. The war against the income tax was lost due to the anti - immigrants and socialist National ID. I worked on an income tax case that was won at the U.S. Supreme Court level regarding the income tax. REAL ID was the brainchild of Rep. James Sensenbrenner as an anti- immigrant bill.

If ending the presumption of innocence and upholding the communist income tax are not enough to oppose the anti - immigrant Socialists for is not sufficient, then this is going to be a LONG thread. But, the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread contain all the links you need to learn what your efforts are costing. The links show the anti - immigrant ties to many bad precedents. They are precedents you damn sure would not want to be judged by... but, many people on your side have been victims of it. All of it is in the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread.

So you honestly believe the US should just open up its borders and let anyone who wants to come here just move in? are you high?

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are no people here "illegally."

Yes there are and it's been pointed out to you numerous times.

If do not enter the U.S. through legal and proper channels you are in the U.S. illegally, improperly. Period.

You continually claim that Title 18 (criminal) doesn't pertain to improper entry. The entire Section 8 is entitled 'Improper entry by alien'. You dumb shit, everything that falls under Section 8 pertains to 'improper entry by aliens', including Title 18 (criminal).

You've asked repeatedly why the bill trying to change 'improper' to 'unlawful' failed. Because there are enough assholes in charge of things who want to keep it worded exactly the way it is so that people like you and Napalitano and Holder, et al can massage it however they desire.

"Oh hey you person who crossed the border in no legal way whatsoever, that's ok! you are welcome, you can stay. Here, have a candy bar, a driver's license and a voter i.d. card. We're the government and we're here to help."

Buttercup you are delusional.

 

[Liability]

No, they are not breaking the law. Read the first four posts of Is it Really Illegal. You are arguing a well settled point of law. The HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and the Attorney General are the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES. BOTH of those people stated in unequivocal language that crossing the border and being here without papers is not a crime.

Can't you read? You aren't arguing with me. I can only tell you what the law says. I worked in it for six years. Tell you what: Here's an offer. I can pay you $200 an hour and give you a couple of cases. Prove your point in an immigration hearing and I'll double that amount and give you a full time job as a professional legal research liaison. You fail, you get nothing and will return to this board and tell the posters I am telling you the truth.,

If you're so damn right, put your energy where your convictions are.

I don't have shit to gain. I'm just tired of the failed strategies of political propaganda prostitutes like yourself being used as a precedent to send a lot of people (mostly those on YOUR side of the political spectrum) to prisons and graves trying to argue points of law they don't have a clue about and creating bad laws and bad precedents that apply to all of us. Your B.S. KILLS people!

From the anger and cussing in your posts I can tell you have a horse in this race, you either have family or somebody close to you who is here illegally and you want them to stay so badly you want to open the US up to anyone who can get here, if you can't see thats physchotic I don't know what to tell you.

There are no people here "illegally." I'll tell you my story once. You should, but will not, tell us why you hate people so much thereafter. Pay attention. This is said once and then I will not answer you further. It is my "horse" in the race. It's irrelevant, but if this clears it up for you, I'm satisfied.

Once upon a time, a man wanted my extracurricular job so he went to the LEO community and claimed that I was teaching people how to build silencers and urging them to shoot cops at roadblocks. The story was not true, but it generated a "Confidential Intelligence Report" and plans to kill me and claim I resisted arrest.

That report was given to my employers and places I did business with and that in turn got me blacklisted. I could not get government contracts. So, I'm almost bankrupted and there are threats on my life. The matter ended up in court.

The defense the LEOs relied on was the so - called "Patriot Act" which was passed as a supposed bill to control immigration and secure the border. There was an anti - immigrant bill being used against me, an American, to justify denying me DUE PROCESS. Our good 'ol anti - immigrant lawyer / Congressman, James Sensenbrenner was the one that introduced that bill.

Again, you cannot pass a law that targets one segment of society. Like it or not, whether American or foreign terrorist, if DUE PROCESS is denied to ONE person, ALL must be treated equally.

When I warned the patriot community about these interpretations regarding DUE PROCESS, they treated me the same way you did. But, when Darren Huff, an anti immigrant on your side of the fence was pursued as a criminal, absent DUE PROCESS, here were his words: "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

You people are setting bad precedents by accusing EVERYONE of being criminals absent DUE PROCESS and passing laws like the so - called "Patriot Act." BTW, NOTHING HERE IS NEW. IT WAS ALL IN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS OF THE IS IT REALLY ILLEGAL THREAD.

It's only the tip of the iceberg. The National ID / REAL ID Act (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) forced people to use a Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" as ID. It now means that patriots cannot fight the income tax since we are now "required" to have an SSN for ID whereas, before, the PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 prohibited the government from denying to any individual any benefit, right or privilege for failure to supply an SSN. The war against the income tax was lost due to the anti - immigrants and socialist National ID. I worked on an income tax case that was won at the U.S. Supreme Court level regarding the income tax. REAL ID was the brainchild of Rep. James Sensenbrenner as an anti- immigrant bill.

If ending the presumption of innocence and upholding the communist income tax are not enough to oppose the anti - immigrant Socialists for is not sufficient, then this is going to be a LONG thread. But, the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread contain all the links you need to learn what your efforts are costing. The links show the anti - immigrant ties to many bad precedents. They are precedents you damn sure would not want to be judged by... but, many people on your side have been victims of it. All of it is in the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread.

All who entered here outside the bounds of the rules of 8 U.S.C §1325 are here illegally.

The mere passage of time does not make it "all better."

There IS law to the effect that, inasmuch as it IS a criminal statute, the crime of illegal entry may not be able to be prosecuted after five years because of the criminal statute of limitations. But again, that does not convert their initial illegality into asylum, you sub-cretin. Even so, there is also case law that says that the crime of remaining here illegally after an illegal RE-entry IS a continuing crime and thus the statute of limitations will not assist such a person.

Too complicated for you?

That's only because you are unintelligent.

 

[BuddyColt]

From the anger and cussing in your posts I can tell you have a horse in this race, you either have family or somebody close to you who is here illegally and you want them to stay so badly you want to open the US up to anyone who can get here, if you can't see thats physchotic I don't know what to tell you.

There are no people here "illegally." I'll tell you my story once. You should, but will not, tell us why you hate people so much thereafter. Pay attention. This is said once and then I will not answer you further. It is my "horse" in the race. It's irrelevant, but if this clears it up for you, I'm satisfied.

Once upon a time, a man wanted my extracurricular job so he went to the LEO community and claimed that I was teaching people how to build silencers and urging them to shoot cops at roadblocks. The story was not true, but it generated a "Confidential Intelligence Report" and plans to kill me and claim I resisted arrest.

That report was given to my employers and places I did business with and that in turn got me blacklisted. I could not get government contracts. So, I'm almost bankrupted and there are threats on my life. The matter ended up in court.

The defense the LEOs relied on was the so - called "Patriot Act" which was passed as a supposed bill to control immigration and secure the border. There was an anti - immigrant bill being used against me, an American, to justify denying me DUE PROCESS. Our good 'ol anti - immigrant lawyer / Congressman, James Sensenbrenner was the one that introduced that bill.

Again, you cannot pass a law that targets one segment of society. Like it or not, whether American or foreign terrorist, if DUE PROCESS is denied to ONE person, ALL must be treated equally.

When I warned the patriot community about these interpretations regarding DUE PROCESS, they treated me the same way you did. But, when Darren Huff, an anti immigrant on your side of the fence was pursued as a criminal, absent DUE PROCESS, here were his words: "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

You people are setting bad precedents by accusing EVERYONE of being criminals absent DUE PROCESS and passing laws like the so - called "Patriot Act." BTW, NOTHING HERE IS NEW. IT WAS ALL IN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS OF THE IS IT REALLY ILLEGAL THREAD.

It's only the tip of the iceberg. The National ID / REAL ID Act (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) forced people to use a Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" as ID. It now means that patriots cannot fight the income tax since we are now "required" to have an SSN for ID whereas, before, the PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 prohibited the government from denying to any individual any benefit, right or privilege for failure to supply an SSN. The war against the income tax was lost due to the anti - immigrants and socialist National ID. I worked on an income tax case that was won at the U.S. Supreme Court level regarding the income tax. REAL ID was the brainchild of Rep. James Sensenbrenner as an anti- immigrant bill.

If ending the presumption of innocence and upholding the communist income tax are not enough to oppose the anti - immigrant Socialists for is not sufficient, then this is going to be a LONG thread. But, the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread contain all the links you need to learn what your efforts are costing. The links show the anti - immigrant ties to many bad precedents. They are precedents you damn sure would not want to be judged by... but, many people on your side have been victims of it. All of it is in the first four posts of the Is it Really Illegal thread.

All who entered here outside the bounds of the rules of 8 U.S.C §1325 are here illegally.

The mere passage of time does not make it "all better."

There IS law to the effect that, inasmuch as it IS a criminal statute, the crime of illegal entry may not be able to be prosecuted after five years because of the criminal statute of limitations. But again, that does not convert their initial illegality into asylum, you sub-cretin. Even so, there is also case law that says that the crime of remaining here illegally after an illegal RE-entry IS a continuing crime and thus the statute of limitations will not assist such a person.

Too complicated for you?

That's only because you are unintelligent.

You're still stuck because you cannot find the word illegal in Title 8 USC 1325 as it applies to entry. I don't know what the "time" argument has to do with it. I guess you make it up as you go.

You've been PROVEN to be exactly 100 percent WRONG. How many more times do you wish to be spanked. Are you into that? Somebody loan me a leather whip and we'll do this right.