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

[Rigby5]

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.

Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha

A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.

But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol

Poor people have fewer cars than wealthy do.
Insurance, maintenance, parking, etc., can cost a whole lot of money.
The poorest segments of our society are students and elderly retired, and most of them do not have cars because they can't afford them.

Are you say poor people don’t have cars yes or no?? And what bubble do you live in I’m going to send you internet connection lol

There are about 250 million cars registered in the US.
Since many of those do not run, are collectibles, or more than one owned by the same person, like Jay Leno, then that leaves about 100 million at least without a car.

 

[Jitss617]

Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha

A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.

But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol

Poor people have fewer cars than wealthy do.
Insurance, maintenance, parking, etc., can cost a whole lot of money.
The poorest segments of our society are students and elderly retired, and most of them do not have cars because they can't afford them.

Are you say poor people don’t have cars yes or no?? And what bubble do you live in I’m going to send you internet connection lol

There are about 250 million cars registered in the US.
Since many of those do not run, are collectibles, or more than one owned by the same person, like Jay Leno, then that leaves about 100 million at least without a car.

Are you saying poor people don’t drive yes or no??

 

[Jitss617]

Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.

End of issue.

And if this was 1960 and you supported this action by the government you probably would have been confronted by your neighbors . this is sick that anyone would support any prosecution of guys helping out border patrol

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

 

[Correll]

The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.

Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
It's an absurd straw man lie.

When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance, that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
opposing US federal law.

MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.

That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. ******* leftists liars!

Agreed.

 

[Correll]

The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.

Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
It's an absurd straw man lie.

When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance, that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
opposing US federal law.

MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.

That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. ******* leftists liars!

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

They arrested people that were helping to enforce the laws. That is more than just NOT enforcing them, that is actively undermining them.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
Stephen King R-Iowa
Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis

1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.

2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.

 

[Correll]

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.

The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
Stephen King R-Iowa
Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis

Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country

If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so. You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.

BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it. Will you do so for me? Read some of the earlier posts here. IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.

We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks

White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.

Which does not contradict what he said. So, what is your point?

 

[Correll]

Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps

Funny. How many were allowed to.

How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha

America was never "all white".
There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.

There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America, again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..

The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.

Only a fucktard would say a lie like that.


You ever say that to a republican's face, or are you only a complete asshole online?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue. I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues. In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols. My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA. Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine. I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties. Having been on all sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do. We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. Those "civil rights" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "open border" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "civil rights" regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business, your Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps

Funny. How many were allowed to.

How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha

America was never "all white".
There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.

There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America, again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..

The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.

Trump is NOT the Republican Party. Donald Trump is the ultimate change agent. He was a Democrat and he is destroying the Republican Party from within.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue. I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues. In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols. My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA. Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine. I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties. Having been on all sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do. We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. Those "civil rights" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "open border" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "civil rights" regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business, your Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.


NONE.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

..and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:

FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros

Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.

And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to **** off (but perhaps not in those exact words).

Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.

I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:

Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
Caller, "Immigration"
San Francisco County cop, "**** off" (Click)

Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

..and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:

FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros

Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.

1. Discussing his actions, even defending his actions in this instance is hardly "raising him to hero status".

2. Sorry the FBI, is not to be trusted, not after the Steele Dossier fiasco.

3. Do you support unlimited, unvetted Third World immigration to the US?

 

[Correll]

Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.

And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to **** off (but perhaps not in those exact words).

Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.

I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:

Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
Caller, "Immigration"
San Francisco County cop, "**** off" (Click)

Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.

That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
Stephen King R-Iowa
Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis

Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country

If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so. You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.

BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it. Will you do so for me? Read some of the earlier posts here. IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.

We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks

White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.

How do you define "White?"

Jews started the trading of slaves in the New World and, by white supremacist ideology, Jews ain't white.

Slavery and the Jews

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

 

[Correll]

The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
Stephen King R-Iowa
Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis

Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country

If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so. You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.

BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it. Will you do so for me? Read some of the earlier posts here. IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.

We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks

White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.

How do you define "White?"

Jews started the trading of slaves in the New World and, by white supremacist ideology, Jews ain't white.

Slavery and the Jews

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Why limit the discussion of slavery to the New World?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

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)