Know Your Anti-Immigrant

[Porter Rockwell]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

 

[pismoe]

its still a nice BUS , i like both the Bus and the idea . Now hang him for theft eh Porter !!

 

[Correll]

Supporting a policy is not a religion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Supporting a policy is not a religion.

It is when it consumes you to the point that you cannot divorce that issue from the big picture, Correll.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

its still a nice BUS , i like both the Bus and the idea . Now hang him for theft eh Porter !!

You can always tell a wallist by the stupid remarks they make. Ultimately, they all want laws enforced, but the average wallist is, themselves, a criminal.

I want you to take a look at these two links and ask yourself how did the right end up on the left of this issue?





What happened? What changed? BOTH sides said there was an issue, but what happened that made the right champion the left's solutions? And it became a religion when the right would not allow there to be any other options on the table. The wallist solutions are the only ones... otherwise you are "against" the wallists.

 

[pismoe]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

 

[Indeependent]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

Immigrants are not trespassers.
We have laws for both.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

Immigrants are not trespassers.
We have laws for both.

Your avatar fits you.

In 2003 when the wallist religion was being developed, some Salvadorans tried to effect an improper entry by trespassing over private land. The Salvadorans were intercepted by a border patrol group called Ranch Rescue. In the altercation the Salvadorans lost, but in court the Salvadorans won. The border patrol guys went to prison; the landowner lost his ranch.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

I would rate your criticism half right. For if we say that those foreigners were not trespassers, they were legally right in being able to sue the property owner and having the court uphold the foreigners "civil rights."

You're right on that count, except had the members of Ranch Rescue listened to me, I would have appealed that decision and argued heavily in favor of a property owner to be able to defend their property against trespassers. I do concede to your point.

The flip side to Indeependent's argument is that the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States. Put into the correct analogy, if you make an improper U Turn and the cops don't see you do it, then you're not an "illegal driver." Don't blame me. I didn't write the freaking laws. Neither do I agree with the stances you take once we look at where its logical conclusion goes.

 

[pismoe]

'ike' and my parents did Operation Wetback in the 50s , mid 50s i think and cleaned up the USA for my generation Porter .

 

[pismoe]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

-------------------------- reagan and bush , both repubs did amnesty in 1986 and are the cause of todays border problems Porter .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

'ike' and my parents did Operation Wetback in the 50s , mid 50s i think and cleaned up the USA for my generation Porter .

That effort was all for naught.

https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation

 

[pismoe]

and i mentioned 'bush' because i caught sight of his traitorous azz in one of your vids that you posted in your post number 5 YOU assumed by me to be a 'konservative rino republican' Porter .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

-------------------------- reagan and bush , both repubs did amnesty in 1986 and are the cause of todays border problems Porter .

Horseshit.

Between 1986 and 2001 the United States offered SEVEN "amnesty" periods. That is code for forced citizenship. When you are arguing to "enforce existing laws" that is exactly the path that the so - called "amnesties" take.

Whether Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal, the belief that the only proper "in" to come to America is via citizenship is a primary cause of your problem. You can't have a million new citizens being naturalized a year and avoid a flood-tide of foreigners.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

and i mentioned 'bush' because i caught sight of his traitorous azz in one of your vids that you posted in your post number number 5 YOU assumed by me to be a 'konservative rino republican' Porter .

I assume nothing, pen pal buddy.

 

[pismoe]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

-------------------------- reagan and bush , both repubs did amnesty in 1986 and are the cause of todays border problems Porter .

Horseshit.

Between 1986 and 2001 the United States offered SEVEN "amnesty" periods. That is code for forced citizenship. When you are arguing to "enforce existing laws" that is exactly the path that the so - called "amnesties" take.

Whether Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal, the belief that the only proper "in" to come to America is via citizenship is a primary cause of your problem. You can't have a million new citizens being naturalized a year and avoid a flood-tide of foreigners.

---------------------------------- i want no new importation of foreigners Porter . I want ALL immigration STOPPED and i think that USA Military should be used to forcefully stop all illegal and legal importation of invaders Porter .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'd like to cut this short so that pismoe and I don't end up taking the same road Correll and I are taking in another thread. Here is a copy / paste of the bottom line on the subject of immigration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By the time we get to the Constitution, our ancestors had this to say:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

There are two interpretations between these two. In the Declaration of Independence, Liberty is a gift from the Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) It is unalienable which means it is above the reach of government. Government has NO JURISDICTION over unalienable Rights.

In the Constitution, we created the equivalent of a contract between we, the people, and that entity called government. That contract applied only to the posterity of the white race and that entity called government. (See the United States Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sanford)

The 14th Amendment nullified the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The 14th Amendment guarantees to ALL PERSONS (not citizens) the now privilege (NOT RIGHT) of Liberty.

It's obvious to me that you have not studied law or history so you don't know which of those positions you are taking. But, so far what you articulate is the third position. Government grants you your rights? Is that your position? So, you have NO Rights... no Right to own a firearm, no Right to choose your own religion (or no religion), no Right to Freedom of Speech or Privacy; no Right to Due Process, etc. You're going to put government in charge of that? Really? So, what you're arguing is that government is in the Rights granting business? I want you think about where you stand on this and get back to me. {END OF QUOTE}

Liberty is either granted by a Creator at birth and no one is beholden to the government in the exercise of this Right. You either believe in it or you don't. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege. Current laws seek to force foreigners to become citizens in exchange for their being able to partake of the free market. Under the current law, since there is no Liberty for the citizenry, there is none for the foreigner. Those promoting the wallist theology are opposed to the Constitution.

 

[pismoe]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

-------------------------- reagan and bush , both repubs did amnesty in 1986 and are the cause of todays border problems Porter .

Horseshit.

Between 1986 and 2001 the United States offered SEVEN "amnesty" periods. That is code for forced citizenship. When you are arguing to "enforce existing laws" that is exactly the path that the so - called "amnesties" take.

Whether Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal, the belief that the only proper "in" to come to America is via citizenship is a primary cause of your problem. You can't have a million new citizens being naturalized a year and avoid a flood-tide of foreigners.

------------------------ and at 70 years of age , really don't care . As a kid and adult i have had the best that the USA offered . As i have said many times , my parent had things a bit better as far as Freedom and lack of rules , regs and laws go but USA is getting fecked up nowadays due to diversity and the [flood] or numbers of the Diverse in the USA . As example , see 'ilham omar' , talib and their supporters and electors in 'minnesota Porter .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

-------------------------- reagan and bush , both repubs did amnesty in 1986 and are the cause of todays border problems Porter .

Horseshit.

Between 1986 and 2001 the United States offered SEVEN "amnesty" periods. That is code for forced citizenship. When you are arguing to "enforce existing laws" that is exactly the path that the so - called "amnesties" take.

Whether Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal, the belief that the only proper "in" to come to America is via citizenship is a primary cause of your problem. You can't have a million new citizens being naturalized a year and avoid a flood-tide of foreigners.

---------------------------------- i want no new importation of foreigners Porter . I want ALL immigration STOPPED and i think that USA Military should be used to forcefully stop all illegal and legal importation of invaders Porter .

Once again, the wallists are generally uneducated and ill informed people, most lacking even a high school diploma. Thank you for proving my point.

Under our Constitution, we are prohibited from using the military to solve domestic policies. The moment you advocated using the military to solve a legal issue, you advocated a National Socialist solution. So, either you are a National Socialist OR you are ignorant and need to research this issue before engaging in this discussion.

 

[Indeependent]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

Immigrants are not trespassers.
We have laws for both.

Your avatar fits you.

In 2003 when the wallist religion was being developed, some Salvadorans tried to effect an improper entry by trespassing over private land. The Salvadorans were intercepted by a border patrol group called Ranch Rescue. In the altercation the Salvadorans lost, but in court the Salvadorans won. The border patrol guys went to prison; the landowner lost his ranch.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

I would rate your criticism half right. For if we say that those foreigners were not trespassers, they were legally right in being able to sue the property owner and having the court uphold the foreigners "civil rights."

You're right on that count, except had the members of Ranch Rescue listened to me, I would have appealed that decision and argued heavily in favor of a property owner to be able to defend their property against trespassers. I do concede to your point.

The flip side to Indeependent's argument is that the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States. Put into the correct analogy, if you make an improper U Turn and the cops don't see you do it, then you're not an "illegal driver." Don't blame me. I didn't write the freaking laws. Neither do I agree with the stances you take once we look at where its logical conclusion goes.

Maybe you’re right.
Every immigration attorney should simply go into another profession.
After all, not one of them has your knowledge base.