Is it really "illegal?"

[BuddyColt]

Wow. I guess I'd always thought that if you were sent to prison for something then it implied you had been found guilty of committing a crime.

Nobody is being sent to prison. Did you not read the court ruling by Mukasey?

A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction is a civil violation of the law. Mukasey cites many other rulings to show that these are civil infractions, NOT crimes. THAT is why he denied the taxpayer funded attorney to the defendant in the case.

Are you reading the posts OR just posting B.S., hoping to find really ignorant people to side with you? Do you care what happens when you keep having people believe this claptrap that a civil violation equals a crime?

Darren Huff used to agree with you. Read my opening three posts. Do you STILL think Huff would agree with you? OR would he say, I should have listened...?????

No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is. I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.

Of course you did not read the entire thread. Neither did any critic on this board. Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.

You have to read the entire statute. Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime. Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE. Read Title 8 (EIGHT.) It does not impose criminal penalties. Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18 (Eighteen is the criminal code.) Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.

 

[tigerbob]

Nobody is being sent to prison. Did you not read the court ruling by Mukasey?

A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction is a civil violation of the law. Mukasey cites many other rulings to show that these are civil infractions, NOT crimes. THAT is why he denied the taxpayer funded attorney to the defendant in the case.

Are you reading the posts OR just posting B.S., hoping to find really ignorant people to side with you? Do you care what happens when you keep having people believe this claptrap that a civil violation equals a crime?

Darren Huff used to agree with you. Read my opening three posts. Do you STILL think Huff would agree with you? OR would he say, I should have listened...?????

No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is. I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.

Of course you did not read the entire thread. Neither did any critic on this board. Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.

You have to read the entire statute. Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime. Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE. Read Title 8 (EIGHT.) It does not impose criminal penalties. Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18 (Eighteen is the criminal code.) Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.

Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it. That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW. It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.

What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.

 

[BuddyColt]

How is your case proven?

You really don't read this stuff, do you? Let me copy and paste my exact words:

"They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I’ve challenged them to a public debate – one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us"

A lot of people are directing anger toward me for saying a judge ruled, an official said, the LEOs interpret the law as meaning... Dude, the cartoons, the turning of a serious discussion into a damn joke to avoid reality isn't helping your case.

Your anti - immigrant / National Socialist leadership cannot have a cartoon free, big type / colorful free thread that focuses in on the FACTS. The facts are, the anti - immigrant side has been losing. They trade Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they become victims of their own bad strategies (i.e. totalitarian precedents and socialist legislation / rulings.) It's a movement run by killers, liars and people that are so insecure that they attack those who disagree with them as opposed to discussing constructive ways to understand each other.

The dumb asses that look at my posts and then claim this is all my opinion aren't smart enough to even be allowed to vote. I came from the side they are on. I wrote a lot of the talking points they use... and I did it TWENTY YEARS AGO! A lot of it was based upon the same one sided information they have. I had no idea of the long term ramifications of what was happening. I wasn't an economist. Neither are the critics here. And I have had a few decades of working on ALL sides of the issue (including six years work in immigration law) so that I could fully understand what is really happening.

In the process, I've had many former friends, acquaintances, and people I knew in the movement that have paid for stupidity with their lives and their Liberties. And, for telling them the truth, I'm the enemy?

You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy". That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.

I've also bolded a section of your reply. Was the bolded sentence directed at me? You think I'm anti-immigrant?

I said your anti - immigrant leadership. If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant. I took the law apart save of one small detail:

When the law speaks of a "subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both" THAT is covered in Title 18.

Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony. Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor. Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.

The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime. As Rudy Giuliani said, "it is not a crime nor should it be." I agree. If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next. I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this. One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.

 

[tigerbob]

You really don't read this stuff, do you? Let me copy and paste my exact words:

"They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I’ve challenged them to a public debate – one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us"

A lot of people are directing anger toward me for saying a judge ruled, an official said, the LEOs interpret the law as meaning... Dude, the cartoons, the turning of a serious discussion into a damn joke to avoid reality isn't helping your case.

Your anti - immigrant / National Socialist leadership cannot have a cartoon free, big type / colorful free thread that focuses in on the FACTS. The facts are, the anti - immigrant side has been losing. They trade Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they become victims of their own bad strategies (i.e. totalitarian precedents and socialist legislation / rulings.) It's a movement run by killers, liars and people that are so insecure that they attack those who disagree with them as opposed to discussing constructive ways to understand each other.

The dumb asses that look at my posts and then claim this is all my opinion aren't smart enough to even be allowed to vote. I came from the side they are on. I wrote a lot of the talking points they use... and I did it TWENTY YEARS AGO! A lot of it was based upon the same one sided information they have. I had no idea of the long term ramifications of what was happening. I wasn't an economist. Neither are the critics here. And I have had a few decades of working on ALL sides of the issue (including six years work in immigration law) so that I could fully understand what is really happening.

In the process, I've had many former friends, acquaintances, and people I knew in the movement that have paid for stupidity with their lives and their Liberties. And, for telling them the truth, I'm the enemy?

You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy". That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.

I've also bolded a section of your reply. Was the bolded sentence directed at me? You think I'm anti-immigrant?

I said your anti - immigrant leadership. If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant. I took the law apart save of one small detail:

When the law speaks of a "subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both" THAT is covered in Title 18.

Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony. Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor. Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.

The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime. As Rudy Giuliani said, "it is not a crime nor should it be." I agree. If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next. I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this. One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.

Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then. If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.

And I don't have a "leadership". I have an opinion. Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.

 

[BuddyColt]

No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is. I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.

Of course you did not read the entire thread. Neither did any critic on this board. Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.

You have to read the entire statute. Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime. Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE. Read Title 8 (EIGHT.) It does not impose criminal penalties. Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18 (Eighteen is the criminal code.) Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.

Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it. That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW. It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.

What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.

Again, I have been at this for a long time. I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S. So forgive me if I'm defensive. The National Socialists did not address your concern. Let me repeat it:

In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437. In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 from its wording of improper entry to unlawful entry. THAT BILL FAILED. I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a "crime," WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr4437/text

In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.

Should we pass laws restricting Liberty? NO. So, how do we address this issue of immigration? Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists. Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it. Forgive me for being defensive (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)

 

[tigerbob]

Of course you did not read the entire thread. Neither did any critic on this board. Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.

You have to read the entire statute. Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime. Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE. Read Title 8 (EIGHT.) It does not impose criminal penalties. Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18 (Eighteen is the criminal code.) Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.

Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it. That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW. It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.

What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.

Again, I have been at this for a long time. I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S. So forgive me if I'm defensive. The National Socialists did not address your concern. Let me repeat it:

In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437. In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 from its wording of improper entry to unlawful entry. THAT BILL FAILED. I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a "crime," WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?

Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us

In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.

Should we pass laws restricting Liberty? NO. So, how do we address this issue of immigration? Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists. Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it. Forgive me for being defensive (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)

I think we must agree to disagree, but I'm glad that you now feel that my questioning is not malicious. It isn't and was never meant to be.

One other thing. You keep referring to National Socialists. Can you clarify who you include in this group?

 

[BuddyColt]

You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy". That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.

I've also bolded a section of your reply. Was the bolded sentence directed at me? You think I'm anti-immigrant?

I said your anti - immigrant leadership. If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant. I took the law apart save of one small detail:

When the law speaks of a "subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both" THAT is covered in Title 18.

Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony. Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor. Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.

The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime. As Rudy Giuliani said, "it is not a crime nor should it be." I agree. If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next. I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this. One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.

Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then. If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.

And I don't have a "leadership". I have an opinion. Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.

Notice the "SHOULD BE" according to what you said. Right now it is not. Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:


"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine


That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.

 

[California Girl]

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

You're the idiot around here. If you can't tell a fact from an opinion, you aren't smart enough to be allowed to vote much less offer any opinion on an adult topic. I only wished the hell you had let me finish before starting that chickenshit.

Oh cool, you hate democracy.

I'm not a mind reader.... how the fuck was I supposed to realize that your bullshit OP was a 'to be continued' with yet more bullshit?

Moron.

 

[California Girl]

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

 

[tigerbob]

I said your anti - immigrant leadership. If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant. I took the law apart save of one small detail:

When the law speaks of a "subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both" THAT is covered in Title 18.

Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony. Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor. Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.

The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime. As Rudy Giuliani said, "it is not a crime nor should it be." I agree. If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next. I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this. One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.

Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then. If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.

And I don't have a "leadership". I have an opinion. Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.

Notice the "SHOULD BE" according to what you said. Right now it is not. Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:


"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine


That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.

I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).

 

[California Girl]

I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.

Stupid people struggle with very basic concepts. Unfortunately, it appears that the OP is one such individual.

 

[BuddyColt]

Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it. That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW. It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.

What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.

Again, I have been at this for a long time. I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S. So forgive me if I'm defensive. The National Socialists did not address your concern. Let me repeat it:

In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437. In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 from its wording of improper entry to unlawful entry. THAT BILL FAILED. I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a "crime," WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?

Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us

In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.

Should we pass laws restricting Liberty? NO. So, how do we address this issue of immigration? Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists. Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it. Forgive me for being defensive (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)

I think we must agree to disagree, but I'm glad that you now feel that my questioning is not malicious. It isn't and was never meant to be.

One other thing. You keep referring to National Socialists. Can you clarify who you include in this group?

1) National Socialists make this bogus claim that people they call "illegal aliens" are stealing (sic) American jobs. Jobs belong to the employer that creates them. The ONLY way one can "steal" a job in the manner described is if jobs are owned by the government. That is a text book definition of socialism. Control of production and labor by the government is socialism

2) National Socialists want to impose the same immigration laws found in socialist and communist regimes

3) National Socialists prey upon your fears with bogus claims that undocumented workers don't pay income taxes. The claim is false, but the real issue is, National Socialists engage in class warfare in order to uphold the unconstitutional income tax (which is based upon the Communist Manifesto.)

4) As mentioned above, the darling Congressman of the National Socialists behind the anti - immigrant "movement" is Rep. James Sensenbrenner. Sensenbrenner introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National Socialist National ID / REAL ID Act.

Shall I continue or is that enough?

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Typical neonazi conservative.

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.

 

[BuddyColt]

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.

 

[tigerbob]

Again, I have been at this for a long time. I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S. So forgive me if I'm defensive. The National Socialists did not address your concern. Let me repeat it:

In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437. In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 from its wording of improper entry to unlawful entry. THAT BILL FAILED. I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a "crime," WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?

Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us

In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.

Should we pass laws restricting Liberty? NO. So, how do we address this issue of immigration? Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists. Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it. Forgive me for being defensive (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)

I think we must agree to disagree, but I'm glad that you now feel that my questioning is not malicious. It isn't and was never meant to be.

One other thing. You keep referring to National Socialists. Can you clarify who you include in this group?

1) National Socialists make this bogus claim that people they call "illegal aliens" are stealing (sic) American jobs. Jobs belong to the employer that creates them. The ONLY way one can "steal" a job in the manner described is if jobs are owned by the government. That is a text book definition of socialism. Control of production and labor by the government is socialism

2) National Socialists want to impose the same immigration laws found in socialist and communist regimes

3) National Socialists prey upon your fears with bogus claims that undocumented workers don't pay income taxes. The claim is false, but the real issue is, National Socialists engage in class warfare in order to uphold the unconstitutional income tax (which is based upon the Communist Manifesto.)

4) As mentioned above, the darling Congressman of the National Socialists behind the anti - immigrant "movement" is Rep. James Sensenbrenner. Sensenbrenner introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National Socialist National ID / REAL ID Act.

Shall I continue or is that enough?

No, we could debate some of that for several days but you've made your position and your use of the term fairly clear. Thank you.

 

[California Girl]

No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Typical neonazi conservative.

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.

Damn, you really are too stupid.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

A complete idiot. See, those who support illegal immigration and think that the US shouldn't even have borders assume that ALL illegals are hard working people from mexico. They would understand it better if the illegals were white people from Eastern Europe, or millions of those nice communists from China.

 

[tigerbob]

No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Typical neonazi conservative.

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.

You've chosen to graft skin color onto her position. Is that based on something she has posted previously, or on something you suspect?

 

[California Girl]

No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:

enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or

eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or

attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

Hope that helps.

 

[Contumacious]

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Typical neonazi conservative.

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.

Damn, you really are too stupid.

Damn, you really are too racist.

Are you also a KKK imperial wizard

.