Right wing militia detains 200 migrants at gun point on New Mexico!! HELL YEAH!

[busybee01]

The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat

If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.

There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.

So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?

Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.

Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.

Ya and democrats call BP kidnappers..

At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.

You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.

Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.

Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.

I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the **** are you talking about?

ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your ******* point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.

We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.

If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.

Wow. Stupider than I thought.


"With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.


To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.

You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.

 

[Jitss617]

But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded

They can't do it at gunpoint.

We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing

You are a embarrassing thug.

No I talk like we used to talk!

Like a white supremacist.

What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??

 

[Correll]

Without out* our permission is an invasion.


And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down


I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America

According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate. That would be anything under 4 percent. If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have THEIR permission. If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.

We might not like it, but that's reality.

Who is "they" in your post?

The word "they" isn't in the post. What is it you have a concern with?

Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?


Or are you just playing really stupid games?

You are the one playing games. I can't read your freaking mind. Do you have a specific question?

You stated that "they must have their permission".

Who's permission are you talking about, that is more important than our democratically enacted laws?

 

[Correll]

It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?

And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of people who have
made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.

Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.

You're making a claim you cannot substantiate. If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.

I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks. One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.

The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it. Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?

Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled. It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States. It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to. Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.

1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.

2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.

1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office

2) Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:

"§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.

...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.

1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.

2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE ******* ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?

1) Most psychologists would disagree with you:



2) While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality. The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality. It's not constitutional, but it is reality. The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is not a crime.

Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony. You want to uphold such B.S.? Shame on you!

The employer owns the job he / she creates. Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.

1. I once perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
"most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.

2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.

 

[Correll]

It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?

And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of people who have
made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.

Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.

You're making a claim you cannot substantiate. If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.

I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks. One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.

The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it. Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?

Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled. It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States. It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to. Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.

1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.

2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.

You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed. And example is a parking ticket.
Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.

Illegal immigration is a violation of the Right of Self Determination of the American Citizens.

ie, to be more clear, part of the right of Self Determination is for the citizens of a sovereign state to decide who they wish to invite to become part of their community and thus impact their right to define their community at they see fit.

I would agree with you, but we have no express immigration clause.

Haven't seen you for a while. Did you go sane for a bit?

 

[Correll]

The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat

If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.

There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.

So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?

Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.

Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.

Ya and democrats call BP kidnappers..

At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.

Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.

Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.

I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the **** are you talking about?

ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your ******* point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.

We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.

If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.

Wow. Stupider than I thought.


"With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.


To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.

You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.

You know what would have made that post really powerful?


If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,

ie, that "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.



to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.



Funny you didn't do that....


Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.


To be clear, for the slower among us,


I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..



I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.


FUn times.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You're making a claim you cannot substantiate. If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.

I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks. One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.

The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it. Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?

Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled. It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States. It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to. Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.

1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.

2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.

1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office

2) Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:

"§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.

...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.

1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.

2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE ******* ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?

1) Most psychologists would disagree with you:



2) While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality. The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality. It's not constitutional, but it is reality. The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is not a crime.

Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony. You want to uphold such B.S.? Shame on you!

The employer owns the job he / she creates. Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.

1. I once perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
"most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.

2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.

Correll, you are not very intelligent. Let's face it. Let's talk reality.

From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not. First, however, let us answer a question.

What is immigration? Immigration is defined as:

The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.

immigration

So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a permanent resident, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen. But, what happens when a person does not want to become a permanent resident? The bottom line is that person does not fall under the purview of the Constitution. So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?

In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco. Here is something that was quite telling about that case:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]

...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched

...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent..."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you? Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue? You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon any branch of government any powers. That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not. So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act? See also:

Plenary power - Wikipedia

Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone? You will have done it to yourself.

 

[Correll]

1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.

2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.

1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office

2) Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:

"§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.

...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.

1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.

2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE ******* ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?

1) Most psychologists would disagree with you:



2) While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality. The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality. It's not constitutional, but it is reality. The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is not a crime.

Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony. You want to uphold such B.S.? Shame on you!

The employer owns the job he / she creates. Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.

1. I once perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
"most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.

2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.

Correll, you are not very intelligent. Let's face it. Let's talk reality.

From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not. First, however, let us answer a question.

What is immigration? Immigration is defined as:

The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.

immigration

So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a permanent resident, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen. But, what happens when a person does not want to become a permanent resident? The bottom line is that person does not fall under the purview of the Constitution. So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?

In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco. Here is something that was quite telling about that case:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]

...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched

...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent..."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you? Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue? You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon any branch of government any powers. That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not. So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act? See also:

Plenary power - Wikipedia

Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone? You will have done it to yourself.

Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, being called a "dick" by you, vs. being called "ignorant" as others have called you, I guess I can live with that. Nevertheless, I will just focus on the issue of the thread, which is the convicted felon who was just arrested by the FBI for illegally possessing a firearm, and his gang. All of whom having been disavowed by the Border Patrol, GoFundMe, and Paypal, and who everyone but the least educated among us recognizes is a fascist, vigilante gang of armed hoodlums, who need to get home and get friggin' jobs, instead of acting as wannabe Rambos, complete with judge and jury responsibilities, presuming to decide who is guilty, and who is not.

I am not a huge fan of militias in general but they serve a useful purpose when order has broken down as it has on the
border. I can't get too upset about assisting the U.S. Border Patrol in stemming the human flow of illegals that have
flowed over the border like a backed up toilet.

In this case the leader of the group apparently was a sketchy guy so that's not good but am I going to vilify and heap
leftist inspired dung on this group more than I already have? Nope! It serves no purpose.

This bit player in this drama would have been absolutely irrelevant and not even a factor if not for the actions of the Marxist plotters on the left who organized, financed and pulled off these caravans all with the intention of crashing the Southern borders, creating chaos and fueling the open borders left, a nasty group of anti American idiots.

Or of course New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a sanctuary advocate who believes the law is something she can use like an ala carte menu (I'll follow this law and that law but not those laws) to support her political ideology, just like Jim Crow politicians in the South. She was so swift in siccing the FBI on the militia...still waiting for her to show any support at all for our system of immigration law.

Who you condemn and not in this scenario shows where you are with regard to American sovereignty. I am in favor of it.
I take it you are not. .

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Cities are not required to enforce federal law. The federal government can deputize local law enforcement but only with the permission of local law enforcement. They are not breaking any laws.

There is a world of difference between simply not enforcing a law (just like Jim Crow fans of segregation did NOT do...a wonderful ideological mate for you asses) and proactively working to undermine the law, as sanctuary laws do.

For instance Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff announced the exact dates that ICE planned a sweep of her city and just like a look out in a bank robbery, she alerted all the criminals to the plans of the law.

Sanctuary policy aids and abets criminals in breaking the law. They are accomplices to the crime of illegal immigration.
Stop with your lying bullshit. You fool no one except yourself, I guess. .

 

[Jitss617]

This group in particular stopped 5,700 illegals held them for border patrol..

I think trump should Deputize them

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys. But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do. Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.

I said nothing about road wear of buses as opposed to cars. It's immaterial. The point is you implied that it's somehow unfair to ask people without cars to help build and maintain roads (through taxes, I guess).

And that is ridiculous unless of course those without cars never ever use roads but that's impossible because even IF they somehow were magically able to walk, or bicycle, everywhere they go they still receive all the benefits of the roads they help to pay for in many different ways.

Like for instance, how do you suppose all the food these people eat get to the supermarket for them to purchase....by carrier pigeon?

Stop making such infantile arguments that you can't defend. You won't look so dim witted.

 

[Jitss617]

What’s the point of having a milita to protect us from a tyrannical government , if that government controls you?? lol

 

[Porter Rockwell]

According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate. That would be anything under 4 percent. If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have THEIR permission. If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.

We might not like it, but that's reality.

Who is "they" in your post?

The word "they" isn't in the post. What is it you have a concern with?

Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?


Or are you just playing really stupid games?

You are the one playing games. I can't read your freaking mind. Do you have a specific question?

You stated that "they must have their permission".

Who's permission are you talking about, that is more important than our democratically enacted laws?

I don't believe in democracy, but when the people elect a governor, he is the head honcho in the Executive department of that state. Sorry they misinformed you, but every decision is NOT made by mob rule.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office

2) Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:

"§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.

...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.

1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.

2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE ******* ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?

1) Most psychologists would disagree with you:



2) While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality. The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality. It's not constitutional, but it is reality. The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is not a crime.

Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony. You want to uphold such B.S.? Shame on you!

The employer owns the job he / she creates. Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.

1. I once perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
"most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.

2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.

Correll, you are not very intelligent. Let's face it. Let's talk reality.

From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not. First, however, let us answer a question.

What is immigration? Immigration is defined as:

The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.

immigration

So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a permanent resident, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen. But, what happens when a person does not want to become a permanent resident? The bottom line is that person does not fall under the purview of the Constitution. So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?

In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco. Here is something that was quite telling about that case:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]

...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched

...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent..."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you? Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue? You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon any branch of government any powers. That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not. So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act? See also:

Plenary power - Wikipedia

Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone? You will have done it to yourself.

Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?

Why do you have to lie and start shit with people? You can't think of a different approach? You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.

FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot. Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined! Correll and the left are one and the same.

 

[whitehall]

It's legal for an armed citizen to detain a suspect who trespasses on their property but not someone who trespasses on their country. The people who stop illegal immigration are deemed the criminals while the people who harbor them and prevent their arrest are the heroes. Tell me the world isn't upside down.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, being called a "dick" by you, vs. being called "ignorant" as others have called you, I guess I can live with that. Nevertheless, I will just focus on the issue of the thread, which is the convicted felon who was just arrested by the FBI for illegally possessing a firearm, and his gang. All of whom having been disavowed by the Border Patrol, GoFundMe, and Paypal, and who everyone but the least educated among us recognizes is a fascist, vigilante gang of armed hoodlums, who need to get home and get friggin' jobs, instead of acting as wannabe Rambos, complete with judge and jury responsibilities, presuming to decide who is guilty, and who is not.

I am not a huge fan of militias in general but they serve a useful purpose when order has broken down as it has on the
border. I can't get too upset about assisting the U.S. Border Patrol in stemming the human flow of illegals that have
flowed over the border like a backed up toilet.

In this case the leader of the group apparently was a sketchy guy so that's not good but am I going to vilify and heap
leftist inspired dung on this group more than I already have? Nope! It serves no purpose.

This bit player in this drama would have been absolutely irrelevant and not even a factor if not for the actions of the Marxist plotters on the left who organized, financed and pulled off these caravans all with the intention of crashing the Southern borders, creating chaos and fueling the open borders left, a nasty group of anti American idiots.

Or of course New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a sanctuary advocate who believes the law is something she can use like an ala carte menu (I'll follow this law and that law but not those laws) to support her political ideology, just like Jim Crow politicians in the South. She was so swift in siccing the FBI on the militia...still waiting for her to show any support at all for our system of immigration law.

Who you condemn and not in this scenario shows where you are with regard to American sovereignty. I am in favor of it.
I take it you are not. .

You are NOT for American sovereignty. What you promote is neo-nazi National Socialism wherein the state owns and controls production and labor. Our God given, unalienable, inherent, absolute, irrevocable and natural Rights take a back seat to a freaking wall. So much for the Bill of Rights. You think there is only one way to solve the problem, but cannot see the downside of what happens IF you could actually win.

I condemn both the wallists AND the Democrats. The idea was that of the left before they conned dumb asses into supporting it. So, you have nothing against people coming here "legally" as you mistakenly call it. If America is taken over "legally" then it's all good??? What freaking stupidity! Currently 12 percent of the federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Of those, 11 out of the 12 first generation immigrants are Democrats. Of the second generation immigrants 39 are Democrats and 13 Republicans with 1 Independent. We're losing representation, but it's all legal like and all, so apparently it's all good. Right?

Immigrants or children of immigrants make up at least 12% of Congress

The stupidity of wallists theology is to keep everyone out unless they come in by some "legal" means which is code for citizen. Once these people become citizens, they are more than 3 times more likely to become Democrats than Republicans. Mr. Blair, you are destroying America. You neither understand the Constitution nor would you want to.

Your double talking, nonsensical mantra that was thought up by neo-nazis (that I can name them by name and affiliation) may fool those of limited intelligence, but what you are engaged in helps only the Democrats... and by and large, they don't give a shit about sovereignty.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Cities are not required to enforce federal law. The federal government can deputize local law enforcement but only with the permission of local law enforcement. They are not breaking any laws.

There is a world of difference between simply not enforcing a law (just like Jim Crow fans of segregation did NOT do...a wonderful ideological mate for you asses) and proactively working to undermine the law, as sanctuary laws do.

For instance Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff announced the exact dates that ICE planned a sweep of her city and just like a look out in a bank robbery, she alerted all the criminals to the plans of the law.

Sanctuary policy aids and abets criminals in breaking the law. They are accomplices to the crime of illegal immigration.
Stop with your lying bullshit. You fool no one except yourself, I guess. .

It has been explained to you that the United States Supreme Court (under a conservative Chief Justice) held that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. Get a life already, would you?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It's legal for an armed citizen to detain a suspect who trespasses on their property but not someone who trespasses on their country. The people who stop illegal immigration are deemed the criminals while the people who harbor them and prevent their arrest are the heroes. Tell me the world isn't upside down.

I'll bet you any amount of money you cannot tell me WHICH side of this argument made that imbalance a reality.

 

[RealDave]

They can't do it at gunpoint.

We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing

You are a embarrassing thug.

No I talk like we used to talk!

Like a white supremacist.

What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??

Most people do not assume that are supreme., Just you White Supremacists & your hero Hitler.

To whom do you think you are superior?