Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[danielpalos]

Indeed. We need to shut immigration down completely until we get a hold on things

-Geaux

the problem with that, is that there is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution. Why right wing bigotry for a non-existent power?

 

[LilOlLady]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

What is your point?

The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.

we have a refugee problem.

The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) program is a new federal fund that offers up to 8 months of cash assistance to refugees who come to the United States with assets totaling under $1,000, and who fail to qualify for TANF or SSI. Refugees do not jump the fence and ask for asylum. There is a process to get into the country. And it is not catch and release until your claim is processed. That is the dum-rats way. We have a new sheriff in town.

 

[LilOlLady]

Beto O'Rouke say El Paso is safe. Dum-Ass do not understand that it is safer because of the fence (wall) and agents and military.
Cruz says the goal is to "stop the human traffickers, stop the drug traffickers and build the wall."
Cruz also says Texans welcome legal immigrants, but that they need to "stand in line" and "follow the rules." The crowd roared in agreement.
If it stops human traffickers that kill people and stop drug traffickers whose drugs kill then a wall do save lives. Not to mention those that cross and die in the desert because the border is not stopping them.

 

[danielpalos]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

What is your point?

The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.

we have a refugee problem.

The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) program is a new federal fund that offers up to 8 months of cash assistance to refugees who come to the United States with assets totaling under $1,000, and who fail to qualify for TANF or SSI. Refugees do not jump the fence and ask for asylum. There is a process to get into the country. And it is not catch and release until your claim is processed. That is the dum-rats way. We have a new sheriff in town.

We don't have an immigration clause. Right wing devices only cause problems for the right wing.

We have a naturalization clause and should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure. Normal tourism should "dwarf" any refugee issue and could help cover those costs.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Beto O'Rouke say El Paso is safe. Dum-Ass do not understand that it is safer because of the fence (wall) and agents and military.
Cruz says the goal is to "stop the human traffickers, stop the drug traffickers and build the wall."
Cruz also says Texans welcome legal immigrants, but that they need to "stand in line" and "follow the rules." The crowd roared in agreement.
If it stops human traffickers that kill people and stop drug traffickers whose drugs kill then a wall do save lives. Not to mention those that cross and die in the desert because the border is not stopping them.

Do you bother to READ the thread or just spew nonsense on a whim? The state officials in three states dispute the build the wall worshipers rhetoric and say they don't need a wall nor the military.

 

[regent]

A question? If the wall is not built exactly on the surveyed border and some American territory is left on the Mexican side, can a pregnant Mexican mother come to that American parcel, have her baby and declare it an American citizen?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

 

[danielpalos]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links. Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

You like to argue and even when the facts are laid on the table, you will still be lying to anyone who reads the facts. Sharpen your pencil asshole.

According to the New York Times:

"Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts."

Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors

Another article had this to say:

"Immigration courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants enjoy a constitutional right to effective counsel, immigration lawyers said. Criminal defendants whose lawyers fail to represent defendants at a basic level of competence may seek a new trial. Mukasey wrote that the US constitution affords a right to counsel, and hence a right to effective counsel, only in criminal matters. Immigration proceedings are civil matters, he wrote, and therefore that right does not apply"

Immigrants facing deportation have no right to an effective lawyer, attorney general declares

This is in reference to Mukasey's ruling as follows:

"In Matter of Compean, Attorney General Mukasey reexamined Lozada in light of the circuit split. See Compean, 24 I&N Dec. at 714-27. He first examined whether respondents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. In evaluating whether such a right exists under the Sixth Amendment, the Attorney General found that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has no application to removal proceedings. Id. at 716-17."

25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/07/24/vol3no3.pdf

Allow me to decipher this for you:

IF a foreigner makes it past the immigration authorities and IF that foreigner does not commit a Title 18 Crime, then they are NOT criminals. Obama's Attorney General overturned Mukasey in part with the basic objection that the foreigners LIBERTY was at stake - and that is a 14th Amendment guarantee to ALL PERSONS.

That puts YOU on the left with your endless chatter like a monkey with a music box. The United States Supreme Court confirmed what I've told you over and over and over again:

"it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States,"

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Now, where did you see Wikipedia mentioned??? Now, remember we're talking about the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Why stop there? Let's go back to what I told you earlier in this posting and let some personal experience speak to you. Let's hear what the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland ((N) Security said:

“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.

Read Newsmax: DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime | Newsmax.com

Are you seeing Wikipedia or are you fantasizing about how great you are?

Let's go to Trump's own attorney. What did HE say... this is Trump's own attorney:



No Wikipedia there sport.

Let's ask ANOTHER Trump confidant and supporter. Let us ask Chris Christie. This is what he says:

"U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.


"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."

Chris Christie On Illegal Immigration

I still aint seeing no Wikipedia

Now, I'm showing you how you're being played. Watch Chris Christie backpedal on this to win your support AND shoot you a line of shit, letting the left know that he's still with them on this:

"he (Christie) was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail."

Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation

Did you see how Christie played you? The liberals caught what he was doing and you can't see it, so allow me. TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IS NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Title 8 is a civil section of the law dealing with Aliens and Nationality. Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) is the Criminal Code. Christie was a former United States Attorney, not a freaking first year law student. Go back to the Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling... this is civil law so the "solutions" you seek as if regression is a solution) won't fly in the long run.

U.S. Code: Table Of Contents

If you look at the history of the people whose bullshit you're buying isn't crystal clear to you by now, you should not engage in this conversation. You'd only embarrass yourself. Those political propaganda prostitutes are selling you a pig in a poke in order to introduce you to a NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. The wall itself is about to cost you your gun Rights right off the bat.

STILL NO WIKIPEDIA HERE, SON. Just sharing with you some early experiences that I didn't need links to.

 

[danielpalos]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

lol. There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

Part 2 of my last response to ShacklesofBigGov

Shackles wanted to accuse me of "3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia" so we spent some time shooting down that theory.

Now, let's point out a few things wherein he's misled the posters:

Over and over again, until recent years, what I am posting here was standard "conservative" fare. politicians, like Ronald Reagan George HW Bush, wanted to increase immigration, provide an "amnesty" to those here and even have regular intervals to grant citizenship to undocumented foreigners:

Ronald Reagan was right on amnesty for immigrants. Here’s why.

The solutions I've brought to the table are the same ones "conservatives" advocated a little over a quarter of a century ago:



What conservatives DID NOT advocate was making citizens out of Guest Workers. ShacklesofBigGov clearly, unequivocally and irrefutably has taken the same position that the DEMOCRATS took when George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan BOTH distanced themselves from any support for a wall. See my earlier link.

ShacklesofBigGov has endorsed the talking points, rhetoric, and political agenda that was made famous by Democrats. There was a former federal immigration prosecutor that was good at telling the sheeple what they wanted to hear, but carried out the same policies Shackles is obsessed with when this guy became president. His name was Jimmy Carter:

Trump dialed it up to 10, but his predecessors often treated migrants with disdain

IIRC, it was Carter as president, who banned Iranians from coming into the United States. That one is from memory so don't expect me to look it up just so Shackles can dispute it. I can tell you what I knew as a young man. Anyway, back to the roots of a wall (and now it's symbolic for fence, virtual wall, concrete wall... the symbology and semantics are the same) - it was Jimmy Carter, a liberal Democrat that floated a "fence" as a barrier that was OPPOSED by the Republicans (Bush and Reagan alluding to it in an earlier link in this posting) as being any kind of "solution:"

How Not to Build a “Great, Great Wall”: A Timeline of Border Fortification

So far ShacklesofBigGov has taken the position of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Eric Holder (who overturned Michael Mukasey's ruling that undocumented foreigners were not due legal counsel in deportation matters since it was civil law... but, even Holder (Obama's Attorney General) did not challenge the part that it was civil law, only that not providing attorneys jeopardized the foreigner's liberty. Shackles argues very stringently in favor of the 14th Amendment (which I say was illegally ratified) which guarantees even undocumented foreigners that liberty (sic.) Shackles is like a rodent on a treadmill.

History shows that I have remained consistent with what was the conservative position while the Tea Party Republicans and those suffering from TDS are buying into yet another Democrat's socialist solutions.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links. Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.

If you are (as you simply put it) the original citing source, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion. An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written. In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States. NEVER will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining original intent towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself. I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.

Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court. The rest is .. put simply ... commentary fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.

Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written. An “original source opinion”, in comparison to law or Constitution’s “original intent” are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view. That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion. Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.

There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion. I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times). That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference

You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

You like to argue and even when the facts are laid on the table, you will still be lying to anyone who reads the facts. Sharpen your pencil asshole.

According to the New York Times:

"Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts."

Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors

Another article had this to say:

"Immigration courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants enjoy a constitutional right to effective counsel, immigration lawyers said. Criminal defendants whose lawyers fail to represent defendants at a basic level of competence may seek a new trial. Mukasey wrote that the US constitution affords a right to counsel, and hence a right to effective counsel, only in criminal matters. Immigration proceedings are civil matters, he wrote, and therefore that right does not apply"

Immigrants facing deportation have no right to an effective lawyer, attorney general declares

This is in reference to Mukasey's ruling as follows:

"In Matter of Compean, Attorney General Mukasey reexamined Lozada in light of the circuit split. See Compean, 24 I&N Dec. at 714-27. He first examined whether respondents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. In evaluating whether such a right exists under the Sixth Amendment, the Attorney General found that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has no application to removal proceedings. Id. at 716-17."

25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/07/24/vol3no3.pdf

Allow me to decipher this for you:

IF a foreigner makes it past the immigration authorities and IF that foreigner does not commit a Title 18 Crime, then they are NOT criminals. Obama's Attorney General overturned Mukasey in part with the basic objection that the foreigners LIBERTY was at stake - and that is a 14th Amendment guarantee to ALL PERSONS.

That puts YOU on the left with your endless chatter like a monkey with a music box. The United States Supreme Court confirmed what I've told you over and over and over again:

"it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States,"

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Now, where did you see Wikipedia mentioned??? Now, remember we're talking about the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Why stop there? Let's go back to what I told you earlier in this posting and let some personal experience speak to you. Let's hear what the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland ((N) Security said:

“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.

Read Newsmax: DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime | Newsmax.com

Are you seeing Wikipedia or are you fantasizing about how great you are?

Let's go to Trump's own attorney. What did HE say... this is Trump's own attorney:



No Wikipedia there sport.

Let's ask ANOTHER Trump confidant and supporter. Let us ask Chris Christie. This is what he says:

"U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.


"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."

Chris Christie On Illegal Immigration

I still aint seeing no Wikipedia

Now, I'm showing you how you're being played. Watch Chris Christie backpedal on this to win your support AND shoot you a line of shit, letting the left know that he's still with them on this:

"he (Christie) was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail."

Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation

Did you see how Christie played you? The liberals caught what he was doing and you can't see it, so allow me. TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IS NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Title 8 is a civil section of the law dealing with Aliens and Nationality. Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) is the Criminal Code. Christie was a former United States Attorney, not a freaking first year law student. Go back to the Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling... this is civil law so the "solutions" you seek as if regression is a solution) won't fly in the long run.

U.S. Code: Table Of Contents

If you look at the history of the people whose bullshit you're buying isn't crystal clear to you by now, you should not engage in this conversation. You'd only embarrass yourself. Those political propaganda prostitutes are selling you a pig in a poke in order to introduce you to a NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. The wall itself is about to cost you your gun Rights right off the bat.

STILL NO WIKIPEDIA HERE, SON. Just sharing with you some early experiences that I didn't need links to.

So while I can site an earlier United States Supreme Court ruling you somehow claim (without evidence) Supreme Court overreach, .. yet you’re clinging to a New York Times Article, Chris Christie opinion, and New World Order conspiracies as more relevant to the original intent.

You can NOT be serious, posting this kind of response with a straight face. SMH

Again ... there is a VAST difference between original intent, and quoting links of someone’s 20th century view or opinion. You don’t know the difference.

 

[danielpalos]

the whole and entire right wing is Worse at following instructions than I am.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links. Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.

If you are (as you simply put it) the original citing source, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion. An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written. In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States. NEVER will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining original intent towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself. I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.

Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court. The rest is .. put simply ... commentary fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.

Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written. An “original source opinion”, in comparison to law or Constitution’s “original intent” are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view. That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion. Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.

There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion. I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times). That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference

You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..

You talk absolute horseshit. When I say I am a "citing source," I'm talking about what I personally heard, saw, was a part of and / or knew someone who was. As for the balance, you are getting your ass kicked with that phony lie about Wikipedia.

You don't have anything; you got your ass handed to you, but got to say one thing, you are the dumbest son of a bitch on this board. I thought another guy was until you reverted back to your standard canard. My last couple of posts gave the readers at least twenty links to follow just to show you are a blowhard trying to wing his way through the thread with disproven theories. If you removed the lies you tell and face the facts, you'll find that you are a left wing, pabulum puking, liberal proselyte that is two-fold more the child of Hell than the Devil himself (my apologies to Jesus for borrowing his sentiments on this one.)

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

You like to argue and even when the facts are laid on the table, you will still be lying to anyone who reads the facts. Sharpen your pencil asshole.

According to the New York Times:

"Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts."

Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors

Another article had this to say:

"Immigration courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants enjoy a constitutional right to effective counsel, immigration lawyers said. Criminal defendants whose lawyers fail to represent defendants at a basic level of competence may seek a new trial. Mukasey wrote that the US constitution affords a right to counsel, and hence a right to effective counsel, only in criminal matters. Immigration proceedings are civil matters, he wrote, and therefore that right does not apply"

Immigrants facing deportation have no right to an effective lawyer, attorney general declares

This is in reference to Mukasey's ruling as follows:

"In Matter of Compean, Attorney General Mukasey reexamined Lozada in light of the circuit split. See Compean, 24 I&N Dec. at 714-27. He first examined whether respondents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. In evaluating whether such a right exists under the Sixth Amendment, the Attorney General found that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has no application to removal proceedings. Id. at 716-17."

25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/07/24/vol3no3.pdf

Allow me to decipher this for you:

IF a foreigner makes it past the immigration authorities and IF that foreigner does not commit a Title 18 Crime, then they are NOT criminals. Obama's Attorney General overturned Mukasey in part with the basic objection that the foreigners LIBERTY was at stake - and that is a 14th Amendment guarantee to ALL PERSONS.

That puts YOU on the left with your endless chatter like a monkey with a music box. The United States Supreme Court confirmed what I've told you over and over and over again:

"it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States,"

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Now, where did you see Wikipedia mentioned??? Now, remember we're talking about the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Why stop there? Let's go back to what I told you earlier in this posting and let some personal experience speak to you. Let's hear what the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland ((N) Security said:

“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.

Read Newsmax: DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime | Newsmax.com

Are you seeing Wikipedia or are you fantasizing about how great you are?

Let's go to Trump's own attorney. What did HE say... this is Trump's own attorney:



No Wikipedia there sport.

Let's ask ANOTHER Trump confidant and supporter. Let us ask Chris Christie. This is what he says:

"U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.


"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."

Chris Christie On Illegal Immigration

I still aint seeing no Wikipedia

Now, I'm showing you how you're being played. Watch Chris Christie backpedal on this to win your support AND shoot you a line of shit, letting the left know that he's still with them on this:

"he (Christie) was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail."

Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation

Did you see how Christie played you? The liberals caught what he was doing and you can't see it, so allow me. TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IS NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Title 8 is a civil section of the law dealing with Aliens and Nationality. Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) is the Criminal Code. Christie was a former United States Attorney, not a freaking first year law student. Go back to the Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling... this is civil law so the "solutions" you seek as if regression is a solution) won't fly in the long run.

U.S. Code: Table Of Contents

If you look at the history of the people whose bullshit you're buying isn't crystal clear to you by now, you should not engage in this conversation. You'd only embarrass yourself. Those political propaganda prostitutes are selling you a pig in a poke in order to introduce you to a NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. The wall itself is about to cost you your gun Rights right off the bat.

STILL NO WIKIPEDIA HERE, SON. Just sharing with you some early experiences that I didn't need links to.

So while I can site an earlier United States Supreme Court ruling you somehow claim (without evidence) Supreme Court overreach, .. yet you’re clinging to a New York Times Article, Chris Christie opinion, and New World Order conspiracies as more relevant to the original intent.

You can NOT be serious, posting this kind of response with a straight face. SMH

Again ... there is a VAST difference between original intent, and quoting links of someone’s 20th century view or opinion. You don’t know the difference.

Your little ruling was examined and nothing's new IT GOT REFUTED DUMB ASS. Would you like to repeat it and we'll do it yet again???

Immigration law and the decisions made by the most recent people in that field take precedence over a case that you don't understand and don't even know how to shepardize. BTW, I just cited that law for you - not an opinion, but A RULING FROM THE HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES - I hope he knew more about the law than you. Otherwise you are an Attorney General. Are you?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law? Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda. Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links. Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.

If you are (as you simply put it) the original citing source, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion. An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written. In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States. NEVER will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining original intent towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself. I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.

Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court. The rest is .. put simply ... commentary fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.

Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written. An “original source opinion”, in comparison to law or Constitution’s “original intent” are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view. That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion. Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.

There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion. I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times). That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference

You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..

You talk absolute horseshit. When I say I am a "citing source," I'm talking about what I personally heard, saw, was a part of and / or knew someone who was. As for the balance, you are getting your ass kicked with that phony lie about Wikipedia.

You don't have anything; you got your ass handed to you, but got to say one thing, you are the dumbest son of a bitch on this board. I thought another guy was until you reverted back to your standard canard. My last couple of posts gave the readers at least twenty links to follow just to show you are a blowhard trying to wing his way through the thread with disproven theories. If you removed the lies you tell and face the facts, you'll find that you are a left wing, pabulum puking, liberal proselyte that is two-fold more the child of Hell than the Devil himself (my apologies to Jesus for borrowing his sentiments on this one.)

I simply presented that there is a clear difference between sharing an “opinion” with how one looks at the approach to seeking out a law’s “original intent”. This is typically how cases are presented and facts based when rendering a Supreme Court decision - original intent of the law during the time it was written is what justices use in rendering their decision. People will generally find that “original intent tactic” used behind the Justices written response in interpreting the United States Constitution. To which your response is, yet again your usual repetitive reply .... of nothing more than just referring to share an opposing view to your point as “idiots”. You don’t like your sources background or legal significance to the discussion questioned. Then you move on to stating someone is a liar as your only real means of defense to your argument, without any supportive evidence .. from those you don’t agree with. You have gone from presenting a Wikipedia of Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875), where I first really entered this thread discussion with ACTUAL dictation from the majority opinion of a Supreme Court judge in that case (who’s credentials holds a LOT more legal experience than you, I might add), using a government Supreme Court site.. which suddenly became just — “oh that’s just Constitutional judicial overreach”. Really? Based on what exactly? Your mere opinion over their legal experience and background? (Mistake Number one)
To then hearing you initially bring up the unConstitutionality of certain Amendments (?) unrelated to the thread topic above, to a recent New York Times Article, to New World Order conspiracies to current politicians expressing their opinions ... ALL of which has nothing to do with original intent. Yet you CLAIM to have prepped some 250 court cases? How? Choosing news articles and views of current politicians OVER those originally involved in writing the Legislation in question .. or those involved in rendering their original judicial interpretation? Then replying STFU because they present such evidence through supported historical links, that contradicts and challenges your view and interpretation of Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution. Then you respond “idiot” when another individual presents evidence and questions your position because they don’t agree with your view? Yes .. I have seen that approach you’ve taken with several of the other posters who challenge your position on this thread before, this really is nothing new. When you have this pattern of referring to those who oppose you (beyond just myself) as idiots, when ALL you have left for someone who presents an opposing view is “you’re a racist”, a “LAIR”, it really plays to your ignorance. All this “getting your ass handed to you”, “pabulum puking, liberal proselyte”, is really reflective of mere adolescent behavior to say the least. Certainly not a response reflective of one who carries any college level legal knowledge and experience behind them at all.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.

You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries. True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on. Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.

Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links. Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.

If you are (as you simply put it) the original citing source, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion. An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written. In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States. NEVER will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining original intent towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself. I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.

Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court. The rest is .. put simply ... commentary fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.

Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written. An “original source opinion”, in comparison to law or Constitution’s “original intent” are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view. That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion. Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.

There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion. I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times). That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference

You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..

You talk absolute horseshit. When I say I am a "citing source," I'm talking about what I personally heard, saw, was a part of and / or knew someone who was. As for the balance, you are getting your ass kicked with that phony lie about Wikipedia.

You don't have anything; you got your ass handed to you, but got to say one thing, you are the dumbest son of a bitch on this board. I thought another guy was until you reverted back to your standard canard. My last couple of posts gave the readers at least twenty links to follow just to show you are a blowhard trying to wing his way through the thread with disproven theories. If you removed the lies you tell and face the facts, you'll find that you are a left wing, pabulum puking, liberal proselyte that is two-fold more the child of Hell than the Devil himself (my apologies to Jesus for borrowing his sentiments on this one.)

I simply presented that there is a clear difference between sharing an “opinion” with how one looks at the approach to seeking out a law’s “original intent”. This is typically how cases are presented and facts based when rendering a Supreme Court decision - original intent of the law during the time it was written is what justices use in rendering their decision. People will generally find that “original intent tactic” used behind the Justices written response in interpreting the United States Constitution. To which your response is, yet again your usual repetitive reply .... of nothing more than just referring to share an opposing view to your point as “idiots”. You don’t like your sources background or legal significance to the discussion questioned. Then you move on to stating someone is a liar as your only real means of defense to your argument, without any supportive evidence .. from those you don’t agree with. You have gone from presenting a Wikipedia of Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875), where I first really entered this thread discussion with ACTUAL dictation from the majority opinion of a Supreme Court judge in that case (who’s credentials holds a LOT more legal experience than you, I might add), using a government Supreme Court site.. which suddenly became just — “oh that’s just Constitutional judicial overreach”. Really? Based on what exactly? Your mere opinion over their legal experience and background? (Mistake Number one)
To then hearing you initially bring up the unConstitutionality of certain Amendments (?) unrelated to the thread topic above, to a recent New York Times Article, to New World Order conspiracies to current politicians expressing their opinions ... ALL of which has nothing to do with original intent. Yet you CLAIM to have prepped some 250 court cases? How? Choosing news articles and views of current politicians OVER those originally involved in writing the Legislation in question .. or those involved in rendering their original judicial interpretation? Then replying STFU because they present such evidence through supported historical links, that contradicts and challenges your view and interpretation of Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution. Then you respond “idiot” when another individual presents evidence and questions your position because they don’t agree with your view? Yes .. I have seen that approach you’ve taken with several of the other posters who challenge your position on this thread before, this really is nothing new. When you have this pattern of referring to those who oppose you (beyond just myself) as idiots, when ALL you have left for someone who presents an opposing view is “you’re a racist”, a “LAIR”, it really plays to your ignorance. All this “getting your ass handed to you”, “pabulum puking, liberal proselyte”, is really reflective of mere adolescent behavior to say the least. Certainly not a response reflective of one who carries any college level legal knowledge and experience behind them at all.

Give it a break. You sound desperate. Your attempts to sound like an intellectual come off as phony and insecure. Regardless of where you came into the discussion at, I am listing the relevant posts by number for those who want to see that you are lying.

If you'd like to sit down and swap resumes with me in a public place, we can do that. If you have more experience in this than I do, I will gladly admit it in writing and bow out of this thread - even leave the forum. All you have to do is tell me to name the time and place. We show up, swap resumes and then you'll have an honest answer.

You had one single old case, taken out of context that didn't mean shit. Insofar as Chy Lung v. Freeman, I learned that one in a seminar dealing with the chronology of important immigration cases. I can guarantee you that I will not use Wikipedia as any kind of resource and in my previous posts (4631 and 4633) most of that was a result of personal experience - like knowing about the stuff when it happened has not been disputed by you. Old legal maxim - that which is not denied is deemed to be admitted. You could not counter the facts so you resorted back to the personality contest.

Did I say you were a racist? What post is that? "LAIR?" I don't think my last three posts have anything to do with anything you've brought up. You keep crowing about some unnamed 1808 U.S. Supreme Court case you thought you found, but obviously wasn't relevant or you would be citing and explaining it.

What we do know is that from the ratification of the Constitution into 1802 EVERY time Congress revisited the Naturalization laws, one had to be a "free white person" in order to become a citizen. Check the 1802 Naturalization Act. NOTHING affected that law in any capacity until the mid 1850s when alien wives of Americans were admitted for naturalization. So, if you have a point, now would be the time to speak up since your alleged 1808 case seems to not be relevant.