A message from a Mexican to The USA

[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.

" 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.

There is nothing to "debate." If there were a "debate" you would have more than shotgun fallacies and ad hominems. The biggest difference between you and I is that I have actually been on the front lines of this issue. You haven't.

 

[Gdjjr]

All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- there are no caveats- Liberty and Justice for all- there are no caveats-

Free market implies unencumbered trade and commerce.
Regulating competition is encumbering. Restricting participation is encumbering.
Telling a trader what he can or can't trade and how it has to happen in encumbering.
Free markets do NOT exist. Highly Controlled markets do exist.
Who controls them? By what authority?

Rule of law is supposed to be our guiding light, not under the color of law.
Law is supposed to be blind, not blinded by.

Trump is merely a culmination of past narcissist. Exponential growth of blatant under the color of law acting.
Citizens are merely tools, or enemies, depending on how the wind is blowing in the District of Criminals- both are easily disposed of.

Rules are made to be broken. Laws are meant to punish for criminal offense.
What "rules" are citizens FORCED to abide by?
What "rules" do the critters in DC not abide by?

When cut everyone bleeds red. We are all born. Our Rights predate the DoI and the constitution.

That citizens are foolish enough to believe the lying bastards in DC and black robed idiots speaks to the improper education forced on them, which BOTH sides fully support, even though they don't have the authority in the rules granting them minor authority over citizens.

SMH-

 

[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.

.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

 

[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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

 

[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.

.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough 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.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

 

[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.

.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

 

[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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

 

[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.

.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

 

[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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

 

[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.

.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.

 

[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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.

You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board. You and I are the only two people reading this thread. Surely you know that much. But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to interpret the law. There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law. You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution. So, the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court reinterpreting the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders. So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court. Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist. Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem. And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution. A foreigner with "legal" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you. But, you seem to live in your own little world.

So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment is your real enemy. Without the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship. That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with. If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to. If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to. In other words, you get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you. But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility. One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration. And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and unalienable Rights.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.

You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board. You and I are the only two people reading this thread. Surely you know that much. But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to interpret the law. There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law. You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution. So, the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court reinterpreting the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders. So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court. Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist. Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem. And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution. A foreigner with "legal" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you. But, you seem to live in your own little world.

So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment is your real enemy. Without the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship. That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with. If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to. If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to. In other words, you get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you. But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility. One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration. And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and unalienable Rights.

Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.

Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?

 

[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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.

You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board. You and I are the only two people reading this thread. Surely you know that much. But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to interpret the law. There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law. You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution. So, the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court reinterpreting the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders. So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court. Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist. Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem. And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution. A foreigner with "legal" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you. But, you seem to live in your own little world.

So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment is your real enemy. Without the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship. That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with. If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to. If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to. In other words, you get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you. But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility. One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration. And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and unalienable Rights.

Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.

Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?

If you have is name calling, then you are projecting. I'll tell you the bottom line. You might talk your shit in public, but you are NOT a real activist because the first time you went to someone face to face with that chickenshit, you would not like it.

My personal view is that the decision was unconstitutional. I've never studied the reasoning so, it would be hard to say what would or would not have made a difference. Unless the science has changed OR something new has taken place, while I am against abortion, I would be against the United States Supreme Court now reinterpreting the law to my benefit. You'll find that I'm pretty damn consistent when I say it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

Trump's handpicked United States Supreme Court may rehear the same issues and reintrepret the law. If so, I would oppose that due to the method. They are not legislators. If we want the law changed, do it through your legislators. Now, have you ever been a victim of a law that you followed and the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the law and made something you had already done legally, a crime afterward for which you can be charged with?

 

[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.

.

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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.

You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board. You and I are the only two people reading this thread. Surely you know that much. But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to interpret the law. There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law. You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution. So, the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court reinterpreting the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders. So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court. Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist. Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem. And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution. A foreigner with "legal" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you. But, you seem to live in your own little world.

So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment is your real enemy. Without the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship. That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with. If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to. If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to. In other words, you get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you. But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility. One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration. And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and unalienable Rights.

Your ignorance is showing again, courts have an obligation to "apply" the law, they have no authority under article 3 to interpret anything.

.

 

[Ame®icano]

Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.

Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?

If you have is name calling, then you are projecting. I'll tell you the bottom line. You might talk your shit in public, but you are NOT a real activist because the first time you went to someone face to face with that chickenshit, you would not like it.

My personal view is that the decision was unconstitutional. I've never studied the reasoning so, it would be hard to say what would or would not have made a difference. Unless the science has changed OR something new has taken place, while I am against abortion, I would be against the United States Supreme Court now reinterpreting the law to my benefit. You'll find that I'm pretty damn consistent when I say it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

Trump's handpicked United States Supreme Court may rehear the same issues and reintrepret the law. If so, I would oppose that due to the method. They are not legislators. If we want the law changed, do it through your legislators. Now, have you ever been a victim of a law that you followed and the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the law and made something you had already done legally, a crime afterward for which you can be charged with?

You are the first one to throw the insult (Check your post #372), I am only returning the favor.

Although I said I am done with you, I kept reading this thread just to check how far your stupidity can reach.

No, I am not an activist, and I don't have an ideology. What I do have is a common sense.

Let's discuss your post, shall we? I do agree that Roe v. Wade decision is unconstitutional, and should be overturned, just like, for example, Dred Scott was overturned. Scott held that a runaway slave was the property of its owner and the state he ran to had to acknowledge the law of the slave state and return him. Harrowing to consider, but times have changed. Dred Scott was overturned by events.

Roe will likely be overturned by state laws regulating medical practices and procedures, perhaps with criminal consequences. Iowa’s knew law makes it unlawful to do an abortion under circumstances that include the heartbeat of the fetus being detected. New times, new technology. Roe relied in part on a woman’s right to privacy and to choose to kill the fetus (men have no such unilateral right and their unilateral abandonment can result in 18 years of support obligations). Nonetheless the woman’s right was not unlimited and the right of the unborn was not at issue so states can regulate how they will permit fetus killing. But here is the catch...

The only thing that can be declared unconstitutional is a law or action by a government agency. This is because the constitution declares limits on what the government can do, and then the Supreme Court makes sure those limits are adhered too. Roe v. Wade however, is not a law or government agency action that the supreme court would declare unconstitutional, but is a decision the court put out, which is how they tell us what the constitution means, that said that the government could not make it illegal to get an abortion. The Supreme Court is not bound to the decisions they make however, they have the power to change what they’ve said in the past and declare things they said we’re allowed under the constitution not allowed, and to declare things they said were constitutional unconstitutional.

That is the reason why I ask you this question that is completely unrelated to the discussion about immigration. A Supreme Court decision cannot generally be unconstitutional. The court itself decided, in Marbury v Madison, via some legal magic, that it has the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and even if Supreme Court's decision is overturned, there’s no grounds on which a future court might find that Court exceeded its powers. What’s at question is not whether the Supreme Court acted constitutionally in deciding Roe v. Wade, or Dred Scott, or Immigration issue, but whether the case was correctly decided.

Therefore, federal immigration laws ARE laws of the land, weather you like it or not. And if you think they're unconstitutional, sue the federal government, and try to make your case up to the SCOTUS, and test your activist knowledge in front of top justices of the land. Just like States today are arguing about constitutionality of CommieCare, or State's abortion laws, or gun control laws, by challenging the laws, you make your case. Either that, or like every other Commie, force them into submission.

I wont be replying to you after this, regardless of what you say. No point debating with you, due to your ideological insanity.

 

[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.

All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22 years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.

If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots. Had a friend that taught me what I know. His name was Hook Boutin. Look him up on Wikipedia. I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks. You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law. Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league. Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties. I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills. That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on. When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes. Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals. Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will never be in my league. IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.

Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.

If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you. I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots. You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.

Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.

Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it. Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM. Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is. I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion. So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution.) The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way. Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads. You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world. Your strategy works the same way. My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great. IF America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels. It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion. So, I've presented my view. If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM. Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously. You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.

You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.

What YOU fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage. Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.

The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.

You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board. You and I are the only two people reading this thread. Surely you know that much. But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to interpret the law. There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law. You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution. So, the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court reinterpreting the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders. So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court. Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist. Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem. And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution. A foreigner with "legal" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you. But, you seem to live in your own little world.

So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment is your real enemy. Without the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship. That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with. If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to. If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to. In other words, you get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you. But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility. One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration. And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and unalienable Rights.

Your ignorance is showing again, courts have an obligation to "apply" the law, they have no authority under article 3 to interpret anything.

.

My ignorance? Let's ask the federal government:

"Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases."

The Judicial Branch | The White House

Where the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the

www.whitehouse.gov

.

Let's ask the United States Supreme Court right from their own website:

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

www.supremecourt.gov

How about another government website about how our federal court work:

"Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes..."

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/understanding-federal-courts.pdf

IF you had gone to law school as I did, they would have taught you:

"The power to interpret the law of the United States will be held by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the lower federal courts."

What Does Article III Say? | The Judicial Learning Center

Brought to you by the Judicial Learning Center, St. Louis. Understand the powers given to the Federal Courts in the U.S. Constitution. Common Core Literacy in social studies.

judiciallearningcenter.org

USHistory.org is a relatively safe place from which to get an educated opinion of the subject. They state:

"The federal courts' most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution."

The Power of the Federal Courts [ushistory.org]

www.ushistory.org

Abbe Gluck was an Associate Professor of Yale Law School when he wrote this:

"But the creation of federal common law remains discouraged, thanks to Erie's continuing vitality and the durahility of the notion that Erie requires federal common law making to he "limited" and "restricted."^ As a result, federal courts have spent the last century engaged in an under-the-radar enterprise of fashioning and appl5dng what are arguahly hundreds of federal common law doctrines to questions of federal statutory interpretation, without acknowledging that they are doing so and without explaining how their actions fit into the Erie paradigm."

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5709&context=fss_papers

How about Wikipedia? Is that an acceptable source for you? They say:

"Judicial interpretation refers to different ways that the judiciary uses to interpret the law,..."

Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The American Bar Association accredits law schools and serves as the de facto vetting organization for federal judges and United States Supreme Court Justices:

"On October 13, 1932, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes addressed the crowd that gathered to watch the laying of the cornerstone for the building that would house the Supreme Court of the United States. “The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith,” he said. Our nation has entrusted the Court with interpreting—and some might say protecting—our governing document, the United States Constitution,..."

Is Constitutional Law, Law?

Constitutional interpretation is one of the most high-profile aspects of the Court’s docket, at least in terms of news cycles and public opinion at large. The Court’s power to interpret our Constitution is critical to keeping the faith in our governing system alive. And with an ever-increasing...

www.americanbar.org

The unconstitutional way the United States Supreme Court operates has always been a point of contention in the legal community and I have voiced my opinion from legislating from the bench. You'd do well to read this:

https://www.seattlelwv.org/uploads/1/1/7/8/117877553/role.pdf

What Is 'Judicial Activism'?

A shopworn phrase that has outlived its usefulness, James Taranto answers.

www.wsj.com

The "conservative" position is that judicial activism is unconstitutional. And your dumb ass is calling me ignorant for exposing judicial activism? Are you an idiot or a communist? Let me tell you something tough guy. While you spent 22 years being either a janitor or a cook (whichever it was), I spent nearly TWICE that in the political and legal arena. I've been in court 36 times to date and never lost nor got overturned on appeal. Most cases are settled before going that far, but that is a sufficient number of times IN a courtroom to establish the fact that I know my way around.

On the issue of immigration law, I spent SIX years working in it... defense side, prosecution side, expert witness, working with immigrants to pass the citizenship test, testifying about immigration matters before various government bodies and non-profit organizations, working in think tanks (the first one was working for John Tanton who founded and financed FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA - a total of about 12 anti-immigrant non-profit organizations. I've manned the border as civilian militia and spent way too many years trying to get dumb mother fuckers like you to understand WHY you're losing the battle. And homeboy, if you don't know the counter-argument to the bullshit you spew and / or you don't know who is behind your talking points, then you STILL are in no position to be in any debate with me. Come back again when you want another ass spanking.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.

Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?

If you have is name calling, then you are projecting. I'll tell you the bottom line. You might talk your shit in public, but you are NOT a real activist because the first time you went to someone face to face with that chickenshit, you would not like it.

My personal view is that the decision was unconstitutional. I've never studied the reasoning so, it would be hard to say what would or would not have made a difference. Unless the science has changed OR something new has taken place, while I am against abortion, I would be against the United States Supreme Court now reinterpreting the law to my benefit. You'll find that I'm pretty damn consistent when I say it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

Trump's handpicked United States Supreme Court may rehear the same issues and reintrepret the law. If so, I would oppose that due to the method. They are not legislators. If we want the law changed, do it through your legislators. Now, have you ever been a victim of a law that you followed and the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the law and made something you had already done legally, a crime afterward for which you can be charged with?

You are the first one to throw the insult (Check your post #372), I am only returning the favor.

Although I said I am done with you, I kept reading this thread just to check how far your stupidity can reach.

No, I am not an activist, and I don't have an ideology. What I do have is a common sense.

Let's discuss your post, shall we? I do agree that Roe v. Wade decision is unconstitutional, and should be overturned, just like, for example, Dred Scott was overturned. Scott held that a runaway slave was the property of its owner and the state he ran to had to acknowledge the law of the slave state and return him. Harrowing to consider, but times have changed. Dred Scott was overturned by events.

Roe will likely be overturned by state laws regulating medical practices and procedures, perhaps with criminal consequences. Iowa’s knew law makes it unlawful to do an abortion under circumstances that include the heartbeat of the fetus being detected. New times, new technology. Roe relied in part on a woman’s right to privacy and to choose to kill the fetus (men have no such unilateral right and their unilateral abandonment can result in 18 years of support obligations). Nonetheless the woman’s right was not unlimited and the right of the unborn was not at issue so states can regulate how they will permit fetus killing. But here is the catch...

The only thing that can be declared unconstitutional is a law or action by a government agency. This is because the constitution declares limits on what the government can do, and then the Supreme Court makes sure those limits are adhered too. Roe v. Wade however, is not a law or government agency action that the supreme court would declare unconstitutional, but is a decision the court put out, which is how they tell us what the constitution means, that said that the government could not make it illegal to get an abortion. The Supreme Court is not bound to the decisions they make however, they have the power to change what they’ve said in the past and declare things they said we’re allowed under the constitution not allowed, and to declare things they said were constitutional unconstitutional.

That is the reason why I ask you this question that is completely unrelated to the discussion about immigration. A Supreme Court decision cannot generally be unconstitutional. The court itself decided, in Marbury v Madison, via some legal magic, that it has the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and even if Supreme Court's decision is overturned, there’s no grounds on which a future court might find that Court exceeded its powers. What’s at question is not whether the Supreme Court acted constitutionally in deciding Roe v. Wade, or Dred Scott, or Immigration issue, but whether the case was correctly decided.

Therefore, federal immigration laws ARE laws of the land, weather you like it or not. And if you think they're unconstitutional, sue the federal government, and try to make your case up to the SCOTUS, and test your activist knowledge in front of top justices of the land. Just like States today are arguing about constitutionality of CommieCare, or State's abortion laws, or gun control laws, by challenging the laws, you make your case. Either that, or like every other Commie, force them into submission.

I wont be replying to you after this, regardless of what you say. No point debating with you, due to your ideological insanity.

You are absolutely wrong on all counts, but I've handed out one ass whipping tonight. So, I'll make it easy for you:

Since you do not have a law degree and have never been in court, you probably don't have a damn clue as to how the system really works. Neither do you know shit about what you're talking about. Dred Scott v. Sanford was overturned by the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. No state has the authority to overturn Roe v. Wade. If they find some new principle of law to litigate; if the known science changes regarding when a life begins - and the high Court considers it; if there was evidence that can be produced that would question the Roe v. Wade decision, then the Court could legitimately consider it. You asked a question and you got an answer. Anybody questioning my understanding skills and they don't know the difference between whether and weather is probably not smart enough to be IN this discussion. Come back when you've done some more reading.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The wall will do more to keep us in..... line than to keep anyone out. We are already asked about citizenship within 100 miles of the Rio Grande- the Police State despises free movement.

If you travel to any nation, you MUST have a passport and in some cases, a visa. The nations aren't "police states." They believe that if someone wants to enter their nation, they should try to be sure that the people traveling to them aren't fleeing arrest warrants, known terrorists, murderers, rapists, robbers, et cetera. It's common sense.
You're no doubt one of the "George Soros" Free Movement of Peoples crowd. Once nations like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, saw what carnage and deaths that was occurring by the EU allowing the George Soros concept to play out, they closed their borders and refused to let in any migrants, despite the EU's objections. Result...no similar problem. No terrorist activities. Now, Italy is getting tough on it and has tossed out thousands of migrants and has loosened its gun restrictions so that the Italians can protect themselves.

 

[Gdjjr]

If you travel to any nation, you MUST have a passport and in some cases, a visa. The nations aren't "police states." They believe that if someone wants to enter their nation, they should try to be sure that the people traveling to them aren't fleeing arrest warrants, known terrorists, murderers, rapists, robbers, et cetera. It's common sense.
You're no doubt one of the "George Soros" Free Movement of Peoples crowd. Once nations like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, saw what carnage and deaths that was occurring by the EU allowing the George Soros concept to play out, they closed their borders and refused to let in any migrants, despite the EU's objections. Result...no similar problem. No terrorist activities. Now, Italy is getting tough on it and has tossed out thousands of migrants and has loosened its gun restrictions so that the Italians can protect themselves.

FYI, this isn't other Nations. THIS Country's founding philosophy, the Declaration of Independence, clearly states MY beliefs- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are NO caveats- vs your apparent beliefs that you and your kind (authoritarians) are omnipotent and can declare that other humans don't have inherent Rights- kinda like George Soros, not to mention the Empty Suit brigade that infects the District of Criminals.