Court says illegal immigrants can't have guns
- Thread starter Clementine
- Start date
BuddyColt
Member
This is not the thread to debate whether it is illegal to enter or be in the United States without papers, but it most assuredly is not illegal.
See the thread about Mexicans versus Americans. I am going to follow up there and prove, unequivocally, that it is NOT a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers.
See the thread about Mexicans versus Americans. I am going to follow up there and prove, unequivocally, that it is NOT a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers.
Zoom-boing
Platinum Member
Improper entry by alien:
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
If you sneak in across the border are you following any of the above legal ways to enter the U.S.? No. Entering the U.S. in any other manner other than what is posted above is not legal, therefore, it is illegal.
Immigration law uses the term improper entry; those improperly entering the U.S. are considered to be here illegally.
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
If you sneak in across the border are you following any of the above legal ways to enter the U.S.? No. Entering the U.S. in any other manner other than what is posted above is not legal, therefore, it is illegal.
Immigration law uses the term improper entry; those improperly entering the U.S. are considered to be here illegally.
BuddyColt
Member
You ought to sue your brains for non -support. Your questions have been asked and answered here AND on the thread regarding Americans versus Mexicans. For those whose IQ is greater than their shoe size, you can find the thread.
Zoom - boing Title 8 of the United States Code is NOT a criminal section of law. It cannot impose a criminal penalty; therefore crimes are referenced as being Title 18 crimes in the statute you quote. Improper Entry is not a crime in Title 18. The criminal penalties are for people that elude police, lie to them, etc. Take a ******* remedial course in reading before you try and debate this.
Zoom-boing
Platinum Member
And? We're talking what is legal. Obviously you missed that.
If someone enters the U.S. in a manner other than what is posted above, are they here legally?
Liability
Locked Account.
False. You are absolutely and completely wrong. It provides criminal penalties thus MAKING it a criminal statute.
The very first act of an illegal alien in this country is the breaking of one of our CRIMINAL Laws.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
When the powers-that-be say that an act is a crime then by golly it is a crime. Adolf claimed that being a Jew was a crime 6,000,000 slaughtered , the former USSR claimed that being a dissident was crime, 9,000,000 exterminated . So the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US of A can claim that having brown skin is a crime.
.
Liability
Locked Account.
When a sovereign nation declares by its own laws that entry into the country is permitted under certain terms and conditions only, and makes it a criminal offense to enter or remain under any other conditions, then you are ******* right that the powers that be say when an act is a crime. And they have.
It is not even remotely analogous to what the Nazis did with Jewish people, you dishonest flaming idiot.
Damn. This shit isn't even tricky, Confusedatious.
,
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Really? Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and 3rd Prez said about the subject matter:
4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
.
BuddyColt
Member
And you should sue your brains for non - support, take a remedial reading class and quit trying to act like an authority on the subject.
EVERY top immigration immigration official in the United States disagrees with you.
You are a Nazi, BTW. You come here, repeating a lie, over and over hoping that the repetition will make a lie true.
The cold, hard facts for this non - reading NSM supporter:
1) Title 8 is a CIVIL section of the United States Code
2) Title 8 imposes NO criminal penalties PERIOD. We've examined the law on this thread
3) Title 18 (Eighteen) NOT 8 is the Criminal Code. Improper Entry is NOT a crime in Title 18
4) The word improper does not mean illegal
5) Even if the above could be ignored, we are still a nation that believes in a presumption of innocence and Due Process
6) The National Socialists that are ignoring all the above have a long history of being victims of their own bad strategies
7) Every point of contention among these National Socialists - every one is predicated upon some principle of National Socialism and / or communism
8) The United States Supreme Court has opined that nobody is bound to obey an unconstitutional act
9) ALL MEN are born with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
10) The National Socialists may appear strong today, but after they are exposed, you will see them for what they really are.
5)
Liability
Locked Account.
The Constitution DOES give power over immigration to the Federal Government, you ignorant idiot.
Article I, Section 8 gave explicit authority to Congress, To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
AND, you hapless moron, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides as follows: Amendment 14, Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Liability
Locked Account.
Entirely false, you dishonest sub-moron.
I don't care if you disagree with me. The idiot words of a shit head such as you are of no value.
The words in the Constitution ARE of value.
Your disagreement is with THOSE words. And as to that, I remain indifferent. You can "disagree" with oxygen too for all I care. It' still there and you are still a ******* idiot.
BuddyColt
Member
Liability,
Did you realize it was YOUR side that first resorted to name calling and insults? The reason for that is obvious. You guys got frustrated at losing the debate.
You might ignore the links that are being given. You might even see others post irrelevant junk or try to impress us with a lot bells and whistles.
But, it was your side that started the insults and name calling; it was you that ignored the substantive portions of many posts. It was your side misquoting the law and making this idiotic claim that civil law is somehow criminal. Again, to quote an Attorney General (Michael Mukasey) on this point of law:
"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."
Justice Staffers Won't Be Prosecuted For Illegal Hiring Practices
THE one word that defines the founding of America is Liberty. It is a foreign concept to the National Socialists among us. Granted Congress is charged with creating an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, but that does not apply to the regulation of guests within our borders.
People come and go; work and play; get an education or a job... and they do not become citizens. The laws could regulate immigration; however, for all intents and purposes, laws regulating Guest Workers are nonexistent. Therefore, the foreigner still retains a Right to Liberty; Americans have a right to Freedom of Association. "Liability" is left with bitching about not believing in the foundational principles upon which this country was founded.
For more info:
Outcasts and Outlaws :: View Forum - Debate Forum
BuddyColt
Member
Obviously the words of the Constitution are of NO value to you. You've denounced Due Process,you have not acknowledged that Americans have a Right to Freedom of Association (as per the NAACP V. Alabama), and you would deny the equal protection of the laws to those that disagree with you.
You can hide behind the platform of the National Socialist Party and throw all the insults at me you like. But, I really want you to check out the following thread and learn about those who think like you and what's really behind these childish outbursts you are making:
Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
I get your drift. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor James madison knew what they were talking about.
At any rate, I believe that what you are really saying is that the Constitution was amended by the KKK and neonazis bylaws.
.
Liability
Locked Account.
I get your drift. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor James madison knew what they were talking about.
At any rate, I believe that what you are really saying is that the Constitution was amended by the KKK and neonazis bylaws.
.
No. You don't "get" much of anything when it comes to the Constitution.
It says what it says not the tripe YOU wish it said.
And quoting TJ out of context really doesn't help your case.
TJ did not claim that a Congressional law that was explicitly authorized by the Constitution should be deemed a nullity, you moron.
And the Congress and the States, not the KKK or Nazis, passed and ratified the Amendment in question, you blithering fuckwit.
,
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
I get your drift. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor James madison knew what they were talking about.
At any rate, I believe that what you are really saying is that the Constitution was amended by the KKK and neonazis bylaws.
.
No. You don't "get" much of anything when it comes to the Constitution.
It says what it says not the tripe YOU wish it said.
And quoting TJ out of context really doesn't help your case.
TJ did not claim that a Congressional law that was explicitly authorized by the Constitution should be deemed a nullity, you moron.
And the Congress and the States, not the KKK or Nazis, passed and ratified the Amendment in question, you blithering fuckwit.
,
BTW, Thomas jefferson and Madison's opinion was confirmed by SCOTUS:
"... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in [143 U.S. 135, 160] which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so..."
U.S. Supreme Court
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)
Last edited:
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
Creek and Dutch.
You?
But, as you so astutely pointed out, we didn't have immigration laws back then.
Liability
Locked Account.
I get your drift. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor James madison knew what they were talking about.
At any rate, I believe that what you are really saying is that the Constitution was amended by the KKK and neonazis bylaws.
.
No. You don't "get" much of anything when it comes to the Constitution.
It says what it says not the tripe YOU wish it said.
And quoting TJ out of context really doesn't help your case.
TJ did not claim that a Congressional law that was explicitly authorized by the Constitution should be deemed a nullity, you moron.
And the Congress and the States, not the KKK or Nazis, passed and ratified the Amendment in question, you blithering fuckwit.
,
BTW, Thomas jefferson and Madison's opinion was confirmed by SCOTUS:
"... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in [143 U.S. 135, 160] which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so..."
U.S. Supreme Court
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)
Font size and color notwithstanding, is it REALLY your claim that a STATE can admit an alien and grant it the right to stay here when the Federal Government has elected NOT to grant that alien entry or permission to stay?
Because, if that's your contention, then plainly you are flatly wrong.
-- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
That is my contention precisely as was the Founding Fathers and the SCOTUS.
Of course, the states have been reduced to mere provinces and are no longer allowed to confer their citizenship upon whomever they want to.
The "states" of Arizona and Alabama are well within their authority to detain and deport aliens . But those states can not prevent California or any of the other 48 states fromk admitting aliens and conferring STATE citizenship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Poll: Republican Support for Trump Iran Deal Drops After Details Emerge- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Judge tosses DOJ lawsuit against 4 New Jersey 'sanctuary cities'
- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 2
-
Texas Woman Gets Fired For Telling The Truth About Islam and Now She's Thriving- Started by ChristisKing
- Replies: 0
