Is it really "illegal?"

[Contumacious]

You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. .

Wrong again.

We are supposed to be a COMPACT OF SOVEREIGN STATES - it was NEVER their intent to form a nation. The powers conferred to the central government were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED . The authority to confer citizenship was NEVER GRANTED TO WASHINGTON DC. The Constitution (1787) has NEVER been amended.

So don't give me this bullshit about being a "nation of laws" but then try to convince us that a statute trumps the Constitution, the supremacy clause nothwithstanding.

"In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."


James Madison
Federalist #39



.

 

[California Girl]

You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. .

Wrong again.

We are supposed to be a COMPACT OF SOVEREIGN STATES - it was NEVER their intent to form a nation. The powers conferred to the central government were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED . The authority to confer citizenship was NEVER GRANTED TO WASHINGTON DC. The Constitution (1787) has NEVER been amended.

So don't give me this bullshit about being a "nation of laws" but then try to convince us that a statute trumps the Constitution, the supremacy clause nothwithstanding.

.

You're welcome to carry on trying to discuss the topic with me, but the only response you're gonna get is....

Fuck you, dog breath.

 

[BuddyColt]

Contumacious,

I never thought about it in the terms you expressed. Even if we are a nation of laws the United States Supreme Court was unequivocal in their opinion that if any law conflicts with the Constitution is void.

The numbers of people willing to hire the undocumented foreigner at risk of being tried on felony charges has made the law of no effect. The government could not enforce the laws against employers equally without shutting America down completely.

For people like California Girl, she doesn't give two hoots in hell about any nation of laws. She just wants the country rid of little brown people.

 

[Liability]

You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.

You've bitched and wailed about "illegal immigration" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case. You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.

You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil. Why B.S. each other? Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact. In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.

You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute. What you are NOT is a legitimate American.

You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal.

And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb fuck about me. Twit.

California Girl,

You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself. Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy" Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic? Do you smoke dope?

IF you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.

I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal. The word improper does not mean illegal. THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about. You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper is not illegal.

It's that simple.

Here's a free lesson for you. We live in a Republic. As such, all men are created equal. We have an unalienable Right to Liberty. If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law. That's exactly what the American people are doing relative to immigration. Those that invite the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do. The government chooses not to regulate immigration. You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws. It's not illegal. It's improper. Your side LOST. HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law. If you're lost, read the thread. It's only been covered a half a dozen times.

In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny. The United States Supreme Court opined:

" The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)


As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them. They could regulate immigration, but not prohibit it. That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.

BuddyPopgun:

You lie.

I quoted the law to you, you dishonest maggot.

That law DOES provide that illegal entry IS a crime, specifically, it's a misdemeanor the first time. And for a second offense it is a felony, even.

Accordingly, since you can't post without relying on your dishonesty, your credibility on the topic is officially zero.

 

[Liability]

The very premise of the thread is absolutely true

The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And -- secondly -- they are not Aryans.

The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.

.

You know, I would have to guess that you try to hold yourself out to be an authority on the law when you don't know anything, but the moderators should shut your name calling down. There is a response directed to people just like you... in this case directed at you:\

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us

All your bullshit is answered withing the first four posts of this thread. The rest is answered in the above link.


You are wrong and you are blathering stupidly.

They are aliens because they are not U.S. citizens. They come from other lands.

They are here illegally because our LAW says what legal entry is, and when they come in by OTHER means they are breaking our law.

That YOU (being the pathetic fucking moron you are) do not CARE for the law or ascribe racist motivation to some or all of it is not illuminating -- except to underscore that you have silly opinions. Because, whether YOU like a law or not has nothing to do with whether or not it IS the law. And the law in question DOES impose CRIMINAL penalties for the violation thereof. That makes it a "CRIMINAL" Law.

,



,


;



,

You know, I would have to guess that you try to hold yourself out to be an authority on the law when you don't know anything, but the moderators should shut your name calling down. There is a response directed to people just like you... in this case directed at you:\

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us

All your bullshit is answered withing the first four posts of this thread. The rest is answered in the above link.

Whining like you do when your imbecility has been documented only makes you come across as even more of a pussy, you fucking cock bite.

Helpful tip!

 

[BuddyColt]

Liability,

You have only shown that you have the ability to lie. Other than that, you don't have a good comprehension of our laws nor any consideration for Liberty.

You are the one whining about a "legal" alien versus an illegal (sic) one. The statutory term is improper entry. Improper is not a synonym for illegal or unlawful neither in legal terminology or in simple English.

You can scream and do all the name calling you like. You're trying to compensate for some shortcoming. Perhaps you realize that you are part of a mob that wants to force their opinion on the world, but realizing with each passing year, you're failing and you're losing.

Maybe you do all that expletive deleted type language because you are worried about your lack of intelligence, or as the psychologists might surmise, you are trying to compensate for a small dick. In any event, none of it impresses me.

You will either have a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship OR one day, the Hispanics will have enough political clout to make this a moot argument. That's your choices and next year, without the Guest Worker program, the fastest growing demographic in our society will be another step closer to rendering this argument inconsequential.

 

[High_Gravity]

I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.

 

[High_Gravity]

You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. .

Wrong again.

We are supposed to be a COMPACT OF SOVEREIGN STATES - it was NEVER their intent to form a nation. The powers conferred to the central government were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED . The authority to confer citizenship was NEVER GRANTED TO WASHINGTON DC. The Constitution (1787) has NEVER been amended.

So don't give me this bullshit about being a "nation of laws" but then try to convince us that a statute trumps the Constitution, the supremacy clause nothwithstanding.

.

You're welcome to carry on trying to discuss the topic with me, but the only response you're gonna get is....

Fuck you, dog breath.

 

[BuddyColt]

I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.

My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.

 

[High_Gravity]

I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.

My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.

Ok than, I will notify Mali and Somalia all their citizens can just come here and live.

 

[BuddyColt]

I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.

My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.

Ok than, I will notify Mali and Somalia all their citizens can just come here and live.

If they find willing employers that want to hire them, a willing landlord willing to rent to them and stores willing to sell to them, on what basis do you want to exclude them?

Let's presuppose that you have an argument. Make it.

How do you propose to limit the Liberties of another person?

How deep do you want the government in YOUR private life?

OR, are you making that argument that the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that is only inclusive of the white race?

Are you not aware of the equal protection clause of Constitution? You know, it's applied to ALL PERSONS as differentiated from just the citizens. Any infringement on the Liberties of ANY PERSON can and must used against you as well.

So, at what limits are you advocating?

 

[High_Gravity]

My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.

Ok than, I will notify Mali and Somalia all their citizens can just come here and live.

If they find willing employers that want to hire them, a willing landlord willing to rent to them and stores willing to sell to them, on what basis do you want to exclude them?

Let's presuppose that you have an argument. Make it.

How do you propose to limit the Liberties of another person?

How deep do you want the government in YOUR private life?

OR, are you making that argument that the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that is only inclusive of the white race?

Are you not aware of the equal protection clause of Constitution? You know, it's applied to ALL PERSONS as differentiated from just the citizens. Any infringement on the Liberties of ANY PERSON can and must used against you as well.

So, at what limits are you advocating?

So you are saying according to the Constitution, America is open to anyone everywhere in the world? most illegals who come here don't have a job until they arrive, so why should the Somalis be any different? they should just be able to come right?

 

[BuddyColt]

You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal.

And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb fuck about me. Twit.

California Girl,

You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself. Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy" Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic? Do you smoke dope?

IF you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.

I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal. The word improper does not mean illegal. THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about. You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper is not illegal.

It's that simple.

Here's a free lesson for you. We live in a Republic. As such, all men are created equal. We have an unalienable Right to Liberty. If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law. That's exactly what the American people are doing relative to immigration. Those that invite the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do. The government chooses not to regulate immigration. You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws. It's not illegal. It's improper. Your side LOST. HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law. If you're lost, read the thread. It's only been covered a half a dozen times.

In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny. The United States Supreme Court opined:

" The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)


As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them. They could regulate immigration, but not prohibit it. That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.

BuddyPopgun:

You lie.

I quoted the law to you, you dishonest maggot.

That law DOES provide that illegal entry IS a crime, specifically, it's a misdemeanor the first time. And for a second offense it is a felony, even.

Accordingly, since you can't post without relying on your dishonesty, your credibility on the topic is officially zero.

If you quoted the law, show it to me. Where? What statute says it is a crime to enter or be in the United States? Did you tell the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security? Did you tell any of the many U.S. Attorneys? Have you told the LEO community? Have you told the Attorney General that rules on immigration laws?

I've been to all of them, sir. They disagree with you. The only statute anybody has provided has been Title 8 USC 1325. It's a civil law and not a criminal one. Title 8 USC 1325 references Title 18 of the United States Code to impose criminal penalties. Improper Entry is not a Title 18 crime. The criminal penalties are for things like lying to authorities, eluding authorities, etc. They are Title 18 crimes. If you cannot show me Improper Entry in Title 18, then it ain't no crime. End of story. The proof is when your own poster boy and attorney proposed a law to change the Title 8 USC 1325 and make it Unlawful Entry instead of Improper Entry. That bill failed, sir.

What law are you relying on? Where is the statute that says it is a crime to enter the United States or be here without papers? You have not made a reference to any law that contradicts what those in the business of immigration are aware of.

Quit trying to provoke a fight that you aren't willing to get in and answer the damn questions. Show us this elusive law. The LEOs can't find; judges can't find it, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security can't find it. They all disagree with you.

So, enlighten us or STFU. Let me clue you in you stupid, mother fucking idiot: The law is not about "Illegal" Entry. Illegal and Improper are not synonyms in the English language you non English speaking, living abortion.

 

[Liability]

California Girl,

You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself. Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy" Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic? Do you smoke dope?

IF you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.

I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal. The word improper does not mean illegal. THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about. You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper is not illegal.

It's that simple.

Here's a free lesson for you. We live in a Republic. As such, all men are created equal. We have an unalienable Right to Liberty. If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law. That's exactly what the American people are doing relative to immigration. Those that invite the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do. The government chooses not to regulate immigration. You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws. It's not illegal. It's improper. Your side LOST. HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law. If you're lost, read the thread. It's only been covered a half a dozen times.

In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny. The United States Supreme Court opined:

" The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)


As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them. They could regulate immigration, but not prohibit it. That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.

BuddyPopgun:

You lie.

I quoted the law to you, you dishonest maggot.

That law DOES provide that illegal entry IS a crime, specifically, it's a misdemeanor the first time. And for a second offense it is a felony, even.

Accordingly, since you can't post without relying on your dishonesty, your credibility on the topic is officially zero.

If you quoted the law, show it to me. Where? What statute says it is a crime to enter or be in the United States? Did you tell the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security? Did you tell any of the many U.S. Attorneys? Have you told the LEO community? Have you told the Attorney General that rules on immigration laws?

I've been to all of them, sir. They disagree with you. The only statute anybody has provided has been Title 8 USC 1325. It's a civil law and not a criminal one. Title 8 USC 1325 references Title 18 of the United States Code to impose criminal penalties. Improper Entry is not a Title 18 crime. The criminal penalties are for things like lying to authorities, eluding authorities, etc. They are Title 18 crimes. If you cannot show me Improper Entry in Title 18, then it ain't no crime. End of story. The proof is when your own poster boy and attorney proposed a law to change the Title 8 USC 1325 and make it Unlawful Entry instead of Improper Entry. That bill failed, sir.

What law are you relying on? Where is the statute that says it is a crime to enter the United States or be here without papers? You have not made a reference to any law that contradicts what those in the business of immigration are aware of.

Quit trying to provoke a fight that you aren't willing to get in and answer the damn questions. Show us this elusive law. The LEOs can't find; judges can't find it, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security can't find it. They all disagree with you.

So, enlighten us or STFU. Let me clue you in you stupid, mother fucking idiot: The law is not about "Illegal" Entry. Illegal and Improper are not synonyms in the English language you non English speaking, living abortion.

Go back and re-read, you fully dishonest, dishonorable and lazy piece of crap.

Any law that provides for incarceration for a violation is a criminal law.

What I posted concerned Title 8 of the U.S. Code, you moron:

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) 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, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

I took the liberty of highlighting the portion that provides for the criminal penalties, you dishonest hack shit head. AS I told you already, no statute that provides for criminal penalties is anything other than a criminal law. A violator of that law commits a CRIME. Words have meaning, you fuckwit.

I also highlighted a snippet at the end of the quoted extract. I realize that it will sail over your pin head, but what that final portion means is that there are ALSO civil penalties, not civil penalties alone. That re-establishes that entering outside the provisions of that law constitutes a CRIME.

And nobody disagrees with that, you sub-moron lying sack of shit.

 

[Liability]

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc. Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.

 

[BuddyColt]

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc. Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.

Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with eluding authorities, NOT improper entry. This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.

Eluding authorities is a crime, punishable according to the standards of Title 18 that defines crimes. The man was not charged with improper entry... which is NOT a crime in Title 18.

 

[Liability]

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc. Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.

Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with eluding authorities, NOT improper entry. This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

I don't have the time to teach you how to read and comprehend those "word" things, you blithering dishonest hack piece of crap.

8 U.S.C § 1325 is a CRIME.

Besides which, I cited TWO different cases and a legal reference book and your idiotic "reply" refers to "the" guy.

I also don't have the time or inclination to dig up for your ignorant benefit a multitude of criminal cases involving the violation and prosecution for the violation of that law. But skim the excerpt of the reference work and see how many cases are prosecuted in the border areas for the criminal violation of the immigration laws.

In
fiscal year 2008, 28.2% of all federal criminal prosecutions were for immigration
offenses.3 Immigration offenses make up a disproportionately high percent of
prosecutions in the border districts
of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern and
Western Texas: 70.2% of all federal criminal prosecutions in New
Mexico in 2008; 72.7% in the Southern District of Texas; 47.2% in the
Western District of Texas; 61.9% in the Southern District of
California; and 58.1% in the District of Arizona.

Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

 

[Contumacious]

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc. Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.

Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with eluding authorities, NOT improper entry. This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.

Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

*NO FAMILY

Go fig.

.

 

[Liability]

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc. Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.

Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with eluding authorities, NOT improper entry. This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.

Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

*NO FAMILY

Go fig.

.

First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.

Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law. Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.

You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.

You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.

Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest pissant.

,


;


-

,

 

[High_Gravity]

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc. Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.

Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with eluding authorities, NOT improper entry. This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.

Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

*NO FAMILY

Go fig.

.

Insulting family is against the rules here you stupid ass cock sucker.