The Land of my ancestors

[Flash]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

I agree. I actually think Trump is weak on immigration. He is a million times better than any filthy Democrat and most Republicans but there is a lot more that he could be doing.

The focus is wrong. Outside of calling for a National Emergency on all immigration, the balance of the solutions rests with the individual, not the government. Government cannot and will not resolve the debacle. If we keep thinking this is a job for government, we're going to wake up one day and be slaves in the country our ancestors fought, bled and died to build.

FWIW, this is not some simplistic and unrealistic nutjob idea like a call to arms either.

We could start by sending the military to the border. I don't mean support troops but combat troops with orders to shoot to kill. It wouldn't take too many casualties before they would stop coming over.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

I agree. I actually think Trump is weak on immigration. He is a million times better than any filthy Democrat and most Republicans but there is a lot more that he could be doing.

The focus is wrong. Outside of calling for a National Emergency on all immigration, the balance of the solutions rests with the individual, not the government. Government cannot and will not resolve the debacle. If we keep thinking this is a job for government, we're going to wake up one day and be slaves in the country our ancestors fought, bled and died to build.

FWIW, this is not some simplistic and unrealistic nutjob idea like a call to arms either.

We could start by sending the military to the border. I don't mean support troops but combat troops with orders to shoot to kill. It wouldn't take too many casualties before they would stop coming over.

Unfortunately, when we do these kinds of threads, it turns into a referendum about the popular Hegelian inspired "solutions." We are being led into a trap, so let's examine what you just said:

"We could start by sending the military to the border."

Bear in mind, your Congresscritter in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is either an attorney or, if not, has half a dozen working for them. The liberals are better than the right because their lawyers know how to con you. You cannot, on one hand, call people "illegal aliens" and on the other hand proclaim that it is the duty of the military to protect the border. According to Wikipedia:

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981."

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

So, you see, if we abide by the Rule of Law, the arguments you're making preclude the legal use of federal troops on the border. That would be the classic definition of a POLICE STATE. You have to decide whether you want to protect a border with the military which would mean, at this juncture, a Declaration of War by Congress OR you have to enforce domestic law enforcement policies via Law Enforcement Organizations.

If you choose to enforce the law, be mindful of two things:

1) The United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws (jurisdictions, separations of power, and state's rights exist for a reason.) Eliminating jurisdictions leads you to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. In practice, what this means is that if your state decides NOT to enforce what they believe is unconstitutional gun control, they don't have to. So, it's a decision you have to make as to how much government control you want in accordance with the Constitution

2) Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is not a crime to be in the United States without documentation. In a legal sense, you screw yourself every time you call on the government to remove "illegal aliens" because the military lacks the jurisdiction to enforce domestic policies (they are not LEOs.)

You have to look at the parameters from which you have to work and resolve the issue without the government. The more you plead with government to get involved, the bigger the problem will become. You are going to have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress. An analogy might be is that a friend of yours may save you from the guy bullying you, but then you are beholden to your friendly benefactor and he may want more than the bully did. So, you have to resolve the issue yourself.

 

[Flash]

It was fine for people to come here in the past. However, nowadays with 330 million we are pretty much full. We should end all immigration now.

Besides, when people came here in the past it was for opportunity. Nowadays they come here to sign up for our filthy ass welfare state. Big difference.

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

I agree. I actually think Trump is weak on immigration. He is a million times better than any filthy Democrat and most Republicans but there is a lot more that he could be doing.

The focus is wrong. Outside of calling for a National Emergency on all immigration, the balance of the solutions rests with the individual, not the government. Government cannot and will not resolve the debacle. If we keep thinking this is a job for government, we're going to wake up one day and be slaves in the country our ancestors fought, bled and died to build.

FWIW, this is not some simplistic and unrealistic nutjob idea like a call to arms either.

We could start by sending the military to the border. I don't mean support troops but combat troops with orders to shoot to kill. It wouldn't take too many casualties before they would stop coming over.

Unfortunately, when we do these kinds of threads, it turns into a referendum about the popular Hegelian inspired "solutions." We are being led into a trap, so let's examine what you just said:

"We could start by sending the military to the border."

Bear in mind, your Congresscritter in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is either an attorney or, if not, has half a dozen working for them. The liberals are better than the right because their lawyers know how to con you. You cannot, on one hand, call people "illegal aliens" and on the other hand proclaim that it is the duty of the military to protect the border. According to Wikipedia:

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981."

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

So, you see, if we abide by the Rule of Law, the arguments you're making preclude the legal use of federal troops on the border. That would be the classic definition of a POLICE STATE. You have to decide whether you want to protect a border with the military which would mean, at this juncture, a Declaration of War by Congress OR you have to enforce domestic law enforcement policies via Law Enforcement Organizations.

If you choose to enforce the law, be mindful of two things:

1) The United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws (jurisdictions, separations of power, and state's rights exist for a reason.) Eliminating jurisdictions leads you to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. In practice, what this means is that if your state decides NOT to enforce what they believe is unconstitutional gun control, they don't have to. So, it's a decision you have to make as to how much government control you want in accordance with the Constitution

2) Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is not a crime to be in the United States without documentation. In a legal sense, you screw yourself every time you call on the government to remove "illegal aliens" because the military lacks the jurisdiction to enforce domestic policies (they are not LEOs.)

You have to look at the parameters from which you have to work and resolve the issue without the government. The more you plead with government to get involved, the bigger the problem will become. You are going to have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress. An analogy might be is that a friend of yours may save you from the guy bullying you, but then you are beholden to your friendly benefactor and he may want more than the bully did. So, you have to resolve the issue yourself.

We can protect our borders. We have done it before. The action would be against foreign invaders, not American citizens so the Posse Comitatus Act in not applicable.

You are a little confused. Unlawful entry is a crime in the US.

We need to send the military there, shoot a few of them and start deporting the ones that are here. We may no get every one of the filthy little taco eaters but we can a whole shitload of them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I think most would agree; however, do they really know what immigration is?

According to Black's Law Dictionary immigration is people leaving their country to enter another for permanent residence. The problem we make in this battle is to try to control the flow of people via some non-existent (constitutionally speaking) "legal" process.

With that in mind, I'm wondering why Trump don't call for a National Emergency against ALL immigration (see the above definition) for a six month period OR until such time Congress delivers an immigration bill both Houses of Congress will approve. If they still cannot do it, Trump could extend the Order. That would give BICE an opportunity to catch up on paperwork.

I agree. I actually think Trump is weak on immigration. He is a million times better than any filthy Democrat and most Republicans but there is a lot more that he could be doing.

The focus is wrong. Outside of calling for a National Emergency on all immigration, the balance of the solutions rests with the individual, not the government. Government cannot and will not resolve the debacle. If we keep thinking this is a job for government, we're going to wake up one day and be slaves in the country our ancestors fought, bled and died to build.

FWIW, this is not some simplistic and unrealistic nutjob idea like a call to arms either.

We could start by sending the military to the border. I don't mean support troops but combat troops with orders to shoot to kill. It wouldn't take too many casualties before they would stop coming over.

Unfortunately, when we do these kinds of threads, it turns into a referendum about the popular Hegelian inspired "solutions." We are being led into a trap, so let's examine what you just said:

"We could start by sending the military to the border."

Bear in mind, your Congresscritter in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is either an attorney or, if not, has half a dozen working for them. The liberals are better than the right because their lawyers know how to con you. You cannot, on one hand, call people "illegal aliens" and on the other hand proclaim that it is the duty of the military to protect the border. According to Wikipedia:

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981."

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

So, you see, if we abide by the Rule of Law, the arguments you're making preclude the legal use of federal troops on the border. That would be the classic definition of a POLICE STATE. You have to decide whether you want to protect a border with the military which would mean, at this juncture, a Declaration of War by Congress OR you have to enforce domestic law enforcement policies via Law Enforcement Organizations.

If you choose to enforce the law, be mindful of two things:

1) The United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws (jurisdictions, separations of power, and state's rights exist for a reason.) Eliminating jurisdictions leads you to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. In practice, what this means is that if your state decides NOT to enforce what they believe is unconstitutional gun control, they don't have to. So, it's a decision you have to make as to how much government control you want in accordance with the Constitution

2) Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is not a crime to be in the United States without documentation. In a legal sense, you screw yourself every time you call on the government to remove "illegal aliens" because the military lacks the jurisdiction to enforce domestic policies (they are not LEOs.)

You have to look at the parameters from which you have to work and resolve the issue without the government. The more you plead with government to get involved, the bigger the problem will become. You are going to have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress. An analogy might be is that a friend of yours may save you from the guy bullying you, but then you are beholden to your friendly benefactor and he may want more than the bully did. So, you have to resolve the issue yourself.

We can protect our borders. We have done it before. The action would be against foreign invaders, not American citizens so the Posse Comitatus Act in not applicable.

You are a little confused. Unlawful entry is a crime in the US.

We need to send the military there, shoot a few of them and start deporting the ones that are here. We may no get every one of the filthy little taco eaters but we can a whole shitload of them.

Unlawful entry, as you call it is improper entry AND the people on your side recognize it as such. It is a civil violation of the law and, unless the border patrol interacts with a suspected violator at the point of entry, it is strictly a civil matter thereafter.



"BY DAILY NEWS STAFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, April 28, 2008

DOVER, N.J. - New Jersey's top federal prosecutor told a Latino group it's a civil offense - not a crime - for immigrants to live in the country without proper documentation, a comment that a spokesman later said was aimed at a narrowly worded question.

U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, widely considered to be a leading GOP contender for governor next year, spoke Sunday in response to a question on illegal immigration at an open forum that grew heated.

He said living in the U.S. without immigration paperwork is "an administrative matter" that federal immigration officials are supposed to address through deportation.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. attorney's office should be doing something about," Christie was quoted as saying in The Star-Ledger of Newark for Monday editions. "It is not."

Chris Christie on immigration

"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie said to more than 60 residents and city officials at local chapter of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

Being undocumented may be a civil violation, but it's not technically a crime, Christie continued.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about. It is not," he said."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...is-christie-in-2008-being-in-this-country-wit

Sorry, but that is two former top federal U.S. Attorneys who worked immigration cases and now loyal to Donald Trump stated for the record. This is a separate issue from the OP and I'll gladly debate it with you in another thread. Bottom line: If a foreigner gets by the authorities coming in, they are not criminals. I cannot change what your own United States Supreme Court has ruled:

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

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES

That is the no B.S. bottom line. It was "HELD" by the Court so that it is the final say - whether you like it or not.

The Posse Comitatus Act IS applicable because Americans willingly engage in otherwise legal activities with the foreigners; some states offer Sanctuary Cities; some states have stated that NO State of Emergency exists. Again, the Rule of Law is defined by the Courts and their legal definitions. Let us define an invasion:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395" - Black's Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary accepted by federal courts)

What is INVASION? definition of INVASION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Our Rights are not being jeopardized; Americans willingly do business with the foreigners; there is no "army" as per legal definition (shall I quote that as well?) It's all a lot of B.S. rhetoric that those who are into the wallist religion have been spewing for more than 15 years and they HAVE NEVER WON A SINGLE SOLITARY CASE BASED UPON THOSE ARGUMENTS.

So, it's your choice: change strategies or watch America become a third world country in the next two election cycles. Which will it be?