Our policy
NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE
THOSE MEXICANS AND SOUTH AMERICANS ARE NOT GUILTY OF ANY CRIME JUST BECAUSE THEY CAME HERE IN THE SAME WAY WHITE EUROPEANS CAME HERE.
THE WHITE EUROPEANS INVADED THE LAKOTA INDIANS SACRED BLACK HILLS AND WIPED THEM OUT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT CRIMINAL ACT FIRST.
.
You stupidity is unbelievable. Entering the country without a visa is a crime.
Illegals don't get a jury trial. They get a hearing. If they can't demonstrate they are citizens or have entered the country legally, on the bus to Mexico they go.
What happened 400 years ago before the United States existed has no relevance to current law.
BULLSHIT
To remind him that our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies,
Thomas Jefferson
How did that prove that entering the country without a visa is not illegal?
THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE AMENDED AS REQUIRED BY THE ******CONSTITUTION******* NOT BY 5 RACIST SCUMBAG SCOTUS "JUSTICES".
.THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE IS VOID - NO LAW - NO PRECEDENT
Why does the Constitution need to be amended? It already gives Congress the authority to control immigration.
NO IT DOESN'T.
SCOTUS ADMITTED THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ,TO INTERDICT, DETAIN AND DEPORT.
BUT THE CHINESE "MENACE" CONSTITUTED AN EMERGENCY AND WHENEVER EMERGENCIES OCCUR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN USURP POWERS.
WHY WAS THERE AN EMERGENCY ? BECAUSE THE CHINESE EMPLOYEES WERE NEVER SICK, WERE HIGHLY RELIABLE AND WANTED TO WORK IN THE CALIFORNIA GOLD MINES.
SO THERE YOU STUPID SON-OF-BITCH , THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY - SO YOU ARE GLORIFYING 5 STUPID RACIST STUPID FUCKS.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
But notwithstanding these strong expressions of friendship and goodwill, and the desire they evince for free intercourse, events were transpiring on the Pacific coast which soon dissipated the anticipations indulged as to the benefits to follow the immigration of Chinese to this country.
The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field. The competition steadily increased as the laborers came in...
NOW THE SUCUMBAS ADMITTED THAT THEY KNEW THAT JAMES MADISON - THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THOMAS JEFFERSON OBJECTED TO THE IMMIGRATION LAW OF 1789. WHICH EXPIRED IN 1800. BUT SUMMARILY DISMISSED THEIR OBJECTIONS:
"During the argument, reference was made by counsel to the Alien Law of June 25, 1798, and to opinions expressed at the time by men of great ability and learning against its constitutionality. 1 Stat. 570, c. 58. We do not attach importance to those opinions in their bearing upon this case. The act vested in the President power to order all such aliens as he should judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or should have reasonable grounds to suspect were concerned in any treasonable or secret machination against the government, to depart out of the territory of the United States within such time as should be expressed in his order. There were other provisions also distinguishing it from the act under consideration. The act was passed during a period of great political excitement, and it was attacked and defended with great zeal and ability. It is enough, however, to say that it is entirely different from the act before us, and the validity of its provisions was never brought to the test of judicial decision in the courts of the United States.
.
