Know Your Anti-Immigrant

[pismoe]

from what i understand we had military bases on the USA Southern Border . --- --- of course the USA has the RIGHT to protect its borders using military force 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.

------------------------ 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 .

At 70 years of age, you should be smarter than to lead people astray by implementing the socialist ideology and democrats philosophies in any kind of solution to the problem.

We are in this predicament because what was once the greatest nation in the annals of history is being run by hacks, third worlders, and people with socialist / communist leanings.

Meanwhile, the youth think that a posting consisting of ten paragraphs is a wall of text - which ought to tell you they never read a book in their lives. The people who ought to be on our side are uneducated, most in prison, jail or living with a criminal record they cannot over-come. They smoke cigarettes, weed, and think a pill will take care of most every obstacle they will face in life. You have guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond that still live with mommy and are dependent on the government for their daily bread.

I debate these uneducated people daily here. These guys have ZERO experience in politics, law, history and know virtually nothing about immigration. Now, I get them, but you're 70 and pushing socialist philosophies and not telling these guys with upwards of 100,000 posts on a discussion board that living with mommy, popping pills and smoking dope while avoiding work are not conducive to a growing economy. SOMEBODY has to drive the economy.

These younger guys thinking that they have to compete with uneducated third worlders for a job at MickeyDs is a sick joke. Entry level jobs are not a career. Living with mommy instead of getting a job, a house of your own, and raising a family is not driving the economy. THAT is why foreigners come here. And the left likes to hear you moan. That way the American people will vote themselves into slavery on the pretext that government can save the citizen from the citizen's own bad choices. You know better. So start acting your age.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

from what i understand we had military bases on the USA Southern Border . --- --- of course the USA has the RIGHT to protect its borders using military force Porter .

Now you're being a dumb ass. Protecting the border and enforcing laws are not the same thing. You're about to get on my ignore list. So are you senile or stupid? You know damn well that we don't use the military to enforce the law unless America became a socialist nation.

 

[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.

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

I can say this:

Many of them contact me in order to get a feel for what will and will not float in immigration cases.

 

[pismoe]

ignore away COWARD Porter Rockwell .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

ignore away COWARD Porter Rockwell .

You scream coward while you stick your head up the National Socialist's ass. At least you're proving one thing: my posts are worth your time. Do you feel threatened by the truth?

I have to prepare a case, but I'll come back and humor you. You want people to see how absolutely idiotic your religion is, then your wish is my command.

 

[pismoe]

as 'macgregor ' in the video says , first duty of military is to protect the USA . Course , i don't expect you to agree . i assume you to be an open borders 'konservative' in the same mold as the 'bush'es' and others Porter .

 

[pismoe]

the only ones i ever see threatening to IGNORE are COWARDS Porter . 'feck' ya , go ahead and ignore , actually . i like it .

from what i understand we had military bases on the USA Southern Border . --- --- of course the USA has the RIGHT to protect its borders using military force Porter .

------------------------------ and see my post number 23 and 'macgregors' video [think it is post number 23 ] . Now go and prepare yer CASE , are you going to chill your CASE eh . Is it American or 'mexican' beer Porter ?? [chuckle]

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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?

interesting POV on that

The Unraveling Right
Posted on June 3, 2019

The defining feature of American Conservatism since the rise of Buckley and National Review is that it managed to conserve nothing. In fact, the movement was largely born out of the Civil Rights Movement, in which the New Right, as they were called then, conceded the right of free association to the Left. From that point forward, conservatism in America was mostly just a modification of Progressivism, often following it around like a shadow from one new radical idea to the next.

The Unraveling Right | The Z Blog



i guess i'm a wallist whatever the fuck that is
build the wall
fine employers 10 grand a day for hiring illegals and actually enforce it
cut off all welfare benefits to all "asylum" seekers and anchor babies

problem solved

 

[Porter Rockwell]

as 'macgregor ' in the video says , first duty of military is to protect the USA . Course , i don't expect you to agree . i assume you to be an open borders 'konservative' in the same mold as the 'bush'es' and others Porter .

I don't care what you ASSume pismoe. You haven't been smart enough to answer the questions asked in posts # 5 and # 17 and here we are on this back and forth pissing match because you want a pen pal.

So, make your best case pismoe. Let's not stretch this out. If you have a point, make it. But quite frankly, I don't give two hoots in Hell what the majority say. It is unconstitutional to use the military to enforce domestic policies - whether you like it or not or agree or not. Here's the facts. I'll be happy to let others decide. Do YOU have that much confidence?

What the National Guard Can and Cannot Do on Mexico Border

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

 

[pismoe]

from what i understand we had military bases on the USA Southern Border . --- --- of course the USA has the RIGHT to protect its borders using military force Porter .

Now you're being a dumb ass. Protecting the border and enforcing laws are not the same thing. You're about to get on my ignore list. So are you senile or stupid? You know damn well that we don't use the military to enforce the law unless America became a socialist nation.

------------------------------------ no , i don't know , USA military on the border enforcing LAW on the border INVADERS is far different than enforcing law in INTERIOR USA on American protesters Porter . Military is Acceptable in repelling invaders on the border but not acceptable in interior USA Porter .

 

[pismoe]

active military is not National Guard is it ?? And Posse Comittatus applies to military not being allowed to enforce law on American civilians on American soil .

 

[pismoe]

as 'macgregor ' in the video says , first duty of military is to protect the USA . Course , i don't expect you to agree . i assume you to be an open borders 'konservative' in the same mold as the 'bush'es' and others Porter .

I don't care what you ASSume pismoe. You haven't been smart enough to answer the questions asked in posts # 5 and # 17 and here we are on this back and forth pissing match because you want a pen pal.

So, make your best case pismoe. Let's not stretch this out. If you have a point, make it. But quite frankly, I don't give two hoots in Hell what the majority say. It is unconstitutional to use the military to enforce domestic policies - whether you like it or not or agree or not. Here's the facts. I'll be happy to let others decide. Do YOU have that much confidence?

What the National Guard Can and Cannot Do on Mexico Border

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

------------------------- hey , everyone is deciding as we type and respond . For this conversation i simply rely on the Video of 'mcgregor' as what he says sounds true and common sense to me 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.

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.

I can say this:

Many of them contact me in order to get a feel for what will and will not float in immigration cases.

My friends quote you all the time.

 

[pismoe]

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.

I can say this:

Many of them contact me in order to get a feel for what will and will not float in immigration cases.

My friends quote you all the time.

-------------------------------- yep , mine also [aw haw , chuckle] !!

 

[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?

interesting POV on that

The Unraveling Right
Posted on June 3, 2019

The defining feature of American Conservatism since the rise of Buckley and National Review is that it managed to conserve nothing. In fact, the movement was largely born out of the Civil Rights Movement, in which the New Right, as they were called then, conceded the right of free association to the Left. From that point forward, conservatism in America was mostly just a modification of Progressivism, often following it around like a shadow from one new radical idea to the next.

The Unraveling Right | The Z Blog



i guess i'm a wallist whatever the fuck that is
build the wall
fine employers 10 grand a day for hiring illegals and actually enforce it
cut off all welfare benefits to all "asylum" seekers and anchor babies

problem solved

You do sound like a wallist, but here are some distinguishing characteristics:

1) They worship the idea of a wall around America to the exclusion of any other solution

2) If you fail to chant the mantra that America needs a wall, they get their tighty whiteys in a bunch and start accusing you of being for "open borders"

3) Due to the their extremism, you cannot tell them that it is illegal - even unconstitutional to use the military to enforce domestic policies. Furthermore, they lose it when you show them that precedent was solidified in recent years when sheriffs began saying they would not enforce the Brady Bill nor any other scheme to force local and state police to enforce federal laws ESPECIALLY when they were aimed at negating constitutional Rights

4) Wallists defend every aspect of National Socialism while trying to use plausible deniability from association with those who develop the talking points for the wallist religion

5) NOBODY can be concerned with the issue without bowing down to the wall idea. If another path is offered, it is dismissed before it is explained. Wallists only want the wall and nothing else

6) Wallists put the wall above the Constitution, Liberty, God given unalienable Rights, and even common sense

7) Wallists will violate the Constitution, even to their own detriment if it gets a wall put up

8) Wallists are oblivious to the inherent consequences of their actions

9) Wallists have an intense hatred for their Constitution... ESPECIALLY the Right to private property, the Right to Liberty and the Right to civil disobedience toward unconstitutional acts

10) Wallists tend to be uneducated, unwilling to engage in civil discourse, prone to make idiotic allegations and stupid assumptions without having enough common sense to ask questions. Or, as a wise man once said, Better to put brain in motion before putting mouth in action.

That's an overview of a wallist.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

from what i understand we had military bases on the USA Southern Border . --- --- of course the USA has the RIGHT to protect its borders using military force Porter .

Now you're being a dumb ass. Protecting the border and enforcing laws are not the same thing. You're about to get on my ignore list. So are you senile or stupid? You know damn well that we don't use the military to enforce the law unless America became a socialist nation.

------------------------------------ no , i don't know , USA military on the border enforcing LAW on the border INVADERS is far different than enforcing law in INTERIOR USA on American protesters Porter . Military is Acceptable in repelling invaders on the border but not acceptable in interior USA Porter .

Is there a reason you did not answer my questions in posts # 5 and #17?

Are you still stuck on stupid? Could you not access nor read the provided links proving you wrong?

Nobody is invading this freaking country. The American people are willingly cooperating with the foreigners.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So, we have one poster that wants me to be his pen pal or otherwise I'm a coward. To him, my response is simple:

I've been working at this for 42 years in one aspect or another. That includes manning the border, getting into fist fights, stand offs, court-room battles, working in think tanks, lobbying congresscritters (Hell, I was once an elected official.) Here is what I see, starting in my own back yard from guys who get taken in by wallist theology:


Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed

Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot

You guys like the guy with the bus? He is pretty typical of the kind of people you attract. It makes all of us look bad. Here we are 38 posts into this thread and two wallists responding, but unable to cobble together a couple of sentences to respond to posts #5 and # 17. Life must be Hell for them. That is why they want to put as much distance between what this OP is about and their efforts to cram a religion down everybody's throats that ultimately ends with their own people going to jail, Hell, prison, or forced to become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.

 

[pismoe]

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.

I can say this:

Many of them contact me in order to get a feel for what will and will not float in immigration cases.

My friends quote you all the time.

-------------------------------- yep , mine also [aw haw , chuckle] !!

--------------------------- [chuckle] . hey Porter .

 

[pismoe]

build that WALL , SQUEEZE those 'mex' , GO Trump eh Porter !!