A message from a Mexican to The USA

[OKTexas]

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

LOL- I may be ignorant, but we're all born that way. Some, if not many, like yourself, are arrogant fools working on a PhD in STUPID-

No my PHD lies in "bullshit detection" and you're full of it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

LOL- I may be ignorant, but we're all born that way. Some, if not many, like yourself, are arrogant fools working on a PhD in STUPID-

No my PHD lies in "bullshit detection" and you're full of it.

.

Your meter broke a long time ago. You seem to be all into assholes and shit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

 

[OKTexas]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

And it says that, where?

.

 

[Ame®icano]

I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational.

There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere. If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.

There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.

I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.

As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence.

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way.

In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever.

Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.

Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week. You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions. Not only am I NOT ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos. When can I expect to see your ugly mug?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

And it says that, where?

.

From that section of the Constitution you quoted:

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational.

There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere. If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.

There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.

I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.

As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence.

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way.

In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever.

Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.

I do not respond to multi quotes. They are posted by desperate people who have NO legitimate issue and after the first exchange other posters simply say TLDR.

Regardless of how much bandwidth you use, the federal government NEVER exercised control over foreigners unless they sought citizenship. It was a states rights issue until every founder and framer was dead and buried. Someone forgot to tell the men who ratified the Constitution of your asinine ideas. And while we're at it, it was YOUR SIDE that introduced the so - called "Patriot Act." And while it's obvious you cannot reply without reminding us of your drug habit, bear in mind that I don't do drugs and drug "humor" is sick - and only sick people would find it amusing.

 

[OKTexas]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.

Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week. You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions. Not only am I NOT ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos. When can I expect to see your ugly mug?

I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

And it says that, where?

.

From that section of the Constitution you quoted:

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.

Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week. You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions. Not only am I NOT ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos. When can I expect to see your ugly mug?

I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.

.

You're blowing smoke and you know it. Thank you for confirming it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

And it says that, where?

.

From that section of the Constitution you quoted:

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".

.

Well aware of it. Are you? I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to. If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue. Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable. I've worked on two legal teams that had cases won by the United States Supreme Court. The right would hate it if I were a freaking liberal.

The one thing your arrogant ass don't understand (other than your penchant for being consistently wrong) is that the solutions you support were the Democrats before you jumped onto the bandwagon with a lack of knowledge about our history and how political games are played.

 

[OKTexas]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.

Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week. You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions. Not only am I NOT ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos. When can I expect to see your ugly mug?

I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.

.

You're blowing smoke and you know it. Thank you for confirming it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

And it says that, where?

.

From that section of the Constitution you quoted:

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".

.

Well aware of it. Are you? I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to. If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue. Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.

Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.

.

 

[Ame®icano]

I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational.

There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere. If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.

There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.

I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.

As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence.

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way.

In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever.

Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.

I do not respond to multi quotes. They are posted by desperate people who have NO legitimate issue and after the first exchange other posters simply say TLDR.

Regardless of how much bandwidth you use, the federal government NEVER exercised control over foreigners unless they sought citizenship. It was a states rights issue until every founder and framer was dead and buried. Someone forgot to tell the men who ratified the Constitution of your asinine ideas. And while we're at it, it was YOUR SIDE that introduced the so - called "Patriot Act." And while it's obvious you cannot reply without reminding us of your drug habit, bear in mind that I don't do drugs and drug "humor" is sick - and only sick people would find it amusing.

" I do not respond to multi quotes. "

I break it out for you, on a single subject, yet you still ranting about unrelated issues. You didn't read it? That's normal for people who cannot debate, and whose heads are stuck in their own asses.

Bye bye, loser.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".

No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.

Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.

Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand. Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.

You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.

When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions. You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass. Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.

Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.

Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week. You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions. Not only am I NOT ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos. When can I expect to see your ugly mug?

I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.

.

You're blowing smoke and you know it. Thank you for confirming it.

.

You blow smoke and somebody owes you a link?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.

More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year. The so - called "illegals" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control. You people that are obsessed with this mythical "illegal alien" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.

Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

Naturalization Information

Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens. The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging. I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.

"undocumented foreigners"

You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.

You are an idiot. The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders. Maybe when your stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and you are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, you will get it: undocumented foreigner.

While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation, Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?

You've been researching my old posts. If not for the "plenary power" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws. It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.

I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.

Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court. This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty. You are conflating Liberty with citizenship. And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your unalienable Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well. Immigration is citizenship. according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

NOBODY is within their authority to commit unconstitutional acts. A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the authority. Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders. In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law. It limited citizenship to free white persons. Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market. Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me. IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death. That is what our country's history shows. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)

You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.

That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass. Try again.

And it says that, where?

.

From that section of the Constitution you quoted:

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".

.

Well aware of it. Are you? I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to. If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue. Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.

Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.

.

You suck commie dick. It's you buying into their solutions. Let's begin educating your dumb ass. Here you are as a democrat:





So, how do you suppose you ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID AND the so - called "Pariot Act?" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton? You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face. You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person. You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me? Or you? Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there. The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.

Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia. I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions. You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions. Let me make a prediction for you: Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left. I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.