The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.
You've bitched and wailed about "
illegal immigration" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case. You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.
You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil. Why B.S. each other? Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact. In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.
You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute. What you are NOT is a legitimate American.
You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal.
And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb **** about me. Twit.
California Girl,
You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself. Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy" Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic? Do you smoke dope?
IF you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.
I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal. The word improper does not mean illegal. THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about. You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper
is not illegal.
It's that simple.
Here's a free lesson for you. We live in a Republic. As such, all men are created equal. We have an
unalienable Right to Liberty. If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law. That's
exactly what the American people are doing relative to immigration. Those that
invite the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do. The government chooses not to regulate immigration. You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws. It's not illegal. It's improper. Your side LOST. HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law. If you're lost, read the thread. It's only been covered a half a dozen times.
In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny. The United States Supreme Court opined:
"
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them. They
could regulate immigration, but not prohibit it. That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.
