protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 59,863
- 20,370
- 2,250
Any law that is on the books counts, as long as it is there.
US Code 8, Section 1324, Section 1325, et al.
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
- Thread starter Geaux4it
- Start date
US Code 8, Section 1324, Section 1325, et al.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #4,542
You "assure" nothing. You don't even know the law. Immigration and threats to national security are the president's domain. He has full authority to use the military to build the wall, and to stop invaders from rampaging cross the borders, by the thousands. What could be more an issue of national security ?
Nothing in your post here presents anything worthwhile, and is just more of your flimsy earlier post that tries to discredit by association, a weak methodology at best.
As for New Mexico, it's a goofy blue state run by Democrats, populated by 1960s hippies. Who cares what they do ? Oh, they pulled out the New Mexico National Guard, did they ? I know about the National Guard. I served in it for 6 years. Watch how fast those New Mexico guardsman will be on the border, building the wall, the same day Trump orders them to be federalized, and 100% under HIS COMMAND. Wanna see how fast that can happen ? Maybe this is the part you had "forgotten">>>
President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy
And you seem to forget that Eisenhower did this because Congress was broken even then. That won't happen this time. Congress has already told him they would not accept it. The President can only do something like this with the tacit approval of Congress. Eisenhower was walking a very fine tight rope of the time. He had already set precedence in Alabama and for that had the total approval of the majority of Congress with the exception of a few southern state senators and congress people. Don't look for that to happen this time. The Texas reps have already spoken out against it. The NM reps have spoken out against it. Calif reps have spoken out against it. Arizona reps have spoken out against it. Declaring a National Emergency and usurping State Control is exactly what the first 10 amendments warn against. But I guess you just throw out the bill of rights and the constitution anytime it suits you, right?
As it stands, the Border is more a States issue anyway and the Feds have been well over the line for quite some time. Imagine if the Feds were to remove Federal Monies if the States were to not secure their own borders. Or to turn some of the border money over to the states for border control to improve border control. It's a pretty well known fact that the States can do thing cheaper and better than any Federal can. We should be fighting for States Rights, not expanding Federal Controls. But since your Orange Individual 1 wants it, you want to throw the Constitution out the window.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #4,543
Okay. Let's go with that. When are you going to push to have President Trump Impeached under that law? Let's face it, he's guilty as hell under that law. And don't give me the crap about "Cite, Cite, Cit". This is just one of his lesser crimes. Yah, I know, his defense will be, "Not to the best of my Knowledge" which will be just another lie.
I agree, it needs to be enforced. But it needs to be enforced by everyone including the ultra rich right wing fat cats. And that is why it hasn't been.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,544
We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
Nothing gets changed until the law is disobeyed. The United States Supreme Court disagress with you:
"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)
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,545
You "assure" nothing. You don't even know the law. Immigration and threats to national security are the president's domain. He has full authority to use the military to build the wall, and to stop invaders from rampaging cross the borders, by the thousands. What could be more an issue of national security ?
Nothing in your post here presents anything worthwhile, and is just more of your flimsy earlier post that tries to discredit by association, a weak methodology at best.
As for New Mexico, it's a goofy blue state run by Democrats, populated by 1960s hippies. Who cares what they do ? Oh, they pulled out the New Mexico National Guard, did they ? I know about the National Guard. I served in it for 6 years. Watch how fast those New Mexico guardsman will be on the border, building the wall, the same day Trump orders them to be federalized, and 100% under HIS COMMAND. Wanna see how fast that can happen ? Maybe this is the part you had "forgotten"
President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy
You have NO idea the extent of my legal knowledge.
The president can declare a national emergency, but in the instant case just because you got a hair up your ass over foreigners is not proof that Trump is acting on any national emergency.
He's acting to save his ass and get re-elected.
You WISH there were something wrong with my methodology. EVERY talking point that you want to believe in CAN AND HAS BEEN a socialist talking point. Period. Your denials of the truth don't make it any less true.
Finally, you have to ask yourself why the far left NEVER mentions the connection. How come they don't make the connections I did? Here's another connection that the MSM won't make an issue of:
Those National Socialists openly endorsed Trump for President:
Minuteman Project Leader Endorses Donald Trump for President! Suggests Cruz Run as VP.
Democrats in power don't talk about it as THEY ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
Last edited:
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,546
We have on express immigration clause. That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,547
an unnecessary and improper law that merely increases Regulation costs.
we have a naturalization clause and should have no costly illegal problem.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #4,548
We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
Nothing gets changed until the law is disobeyed. The United States Supreme Court disagress with you:
"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)
Good luck with that one. There are many people with felony arrests and convictions that followed your advice.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #4,549
We have on express immigration clause. That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
You have it backwards. We have an express immigration clause where the power is delegated to the Government by the People. It's We the People. It appears that our government has forgotten that once again.
We have on express immigration clause. That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
You have it backwards. We have an express immigration clause where the power is delegated to the Government by the People. It's We the People. It appears that our government has forgotten that once again.
The whole We the People thing has been inverted by statists. In the original usage the phrase "We the People" was meant to distinguish the people FROM the government. It was used to emphasize that the government should serve the people, and not the other way around.
Today, idiots and populists use the term to refer to the government itself, seeing the state as the embodiment of "We the People". This ignores the fact that, even in a perfectly democratic state, the government only represents the majority of the people. Everyone else is out of luck. It would be more accurate for those with this view to use the phrase "We the Majority of the People".
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,551
We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
Nothing gets changed until the law is disobeyed. The United States Supreme Court disagress with you:
"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)
Good luck with that one. There are many people with felony arrests and convictions that followed your advice.
Me quoting the United States Supreme Court is NOT advice. It should not be taken as such either. It's either the law or it is not. Furthermore, since the courts have been left to reinterpret their own decisions, what is legal today may be a felony for no reason tomorrow.
I'd like to quote you a few people who knew more than you and I combined:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot" Mark Twain
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle" Frederick Douglass - former slave
Yes, you are right. Standing up for your Liberty could very well cost you your life. The Declaration of Independence has this to say along those lines:
"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
When the tyranny became a bit too much for those held in bondage by King George, men came forward and put it as succinctly as possible:
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry
WHEN the people begin to feel as Henry did, only then will we begin to free ourselves from the shackles of bondage.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,552
You quoted a civil section of federal law, but even at that, the bottom line is WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN A STATE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF YOU ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
What do you not understand about that concept?
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,553
No, there is no express power delegated for immigration. We have an express Establishment clause for naturalization, every time this issue comes up.We have on express immigration clause. That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
As long as they are the law then they do count. It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional. Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
You have it backwards. We have an express immigration clause where the power is delegated to the Government by the People. It's We the People. It appears that our government has forgotten that once again.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 59,863
- 20,370
- 2,250
I understand. YOU don't. US Code 8 section 1324 and 1325 are both civil AND CRIMINAL. Try reading them before posting.
As for who come and goes or does whatever within a state, is both within the jurisdiction of the state OR the federal govt., depending on the law(s) involved. It looks like you're trying to take the US govt out of the immigration issue. That's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen anybody do in this forum.
8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,555
We have a naturalization clause; all foreign nationals in the US should be federally identified.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,556
Have you ever litigated either in court? If you had, you could see that what you're saying is absolute bullshit.
1) Title 8 is the CIVIL CODE GOVERNING ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
2) If you look closely, Title 18 is mentioned in Title 8. It is mentioned because Title 18 is the Criminal Code. If Title 8 were a Criminal Code, it would not need to reference Title 18
3) Title 8, especially in Section 1325 mentions immigration related offenses. Of these, they are crimes in Title 18 and can be prosecuted as crimes. For example in the first paragraph, Section 3 it mentions making false and misleading statements. This is covered in Title 18.
Title 18 Section 1001 makes it a crime - "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
It is the same for EVERY crime listed in Title 8 USC 1325 except what the heading of that Title is about... IMPROPER ENTRY. Look for yourself. Improper Entry is NOT a Title 18 crime.
Even if it were, we've covered this so many times it is almost pointless.
The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration. IF you can show me where, in the Constitution, where that document gives The United States Supreme Court the AUTHORITY to do anything except interpret the laws, I will kiss your ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw the crowd.
In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) a case went before the United States Supreme Court. In the ruling of that case, the Court " it is said 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." But, long story short, The United States Supreme Court gave plenary powers over immigration to Congress.
Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
Plenary power - Wikipedia
IF we were honest and observing the Rule of Law, we would admit that the statutes you're citing have little relevance and most are unconstitutional since the feds had NO JURISDICTION in state matters. The United States Supreme Court has no authority to grant to ANY other branch of government any powers.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 59,863
- 20,370
- 2,250
Great bunch of babbling there. Now that I've woke up, after falling asleep in the middle of the most boring and worthless post I've ever read, let me just say that if you are an alien outside the US, and you cross the US border without inspection from US immigration authorities, the "relevance" it will have to you, can be measured from the inside of a federal prison cell.
If you engage in marriage fraud, the "relevance" it might have to you will be 5 years of your life behind bars in a federal prison, plus 1/4 of a Million $$ out of your pocket. I could go on and on with the various relevances to you of the laws I cited, and their various subsections and penalties, but since I'm not one to write long diatribes like you do, I'll just cut to the one with the most "relevance".
If you violate any of Section 1324 subparagraph 1 - 5, and it results in the death of someone, you could spend the rest of your life in a federal prison, and if your life has any "relevance" to you, you might note that you could lose your life entirely, with the death penalty.
8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
And yes, I've litigated in court, the last case being Florida Statute 316.061 - Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.
Last edited:
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #4,558
He didn't say you didn't litigate in court. He asked if you litigated the respective Title 8 USC 1325 in court. Well, Have you? If so, when.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,559
Well whoopie fucking doo. I have published articles on immigration law. Taken seminars from Uncle Scam on the issue as well. Spent many an hour in all kinds of immigration proceedings on EVERY side of the issue.
I think you're off your meds as your post does not make any sense. You tried to claim that Title 8 imposes criminal penalties and you were proven wrong. If you think my posts are not worth your time, quit bitching about it and ignore them. Some people on this thread are not like you. Their IQ is higher than their shoe size.
The immigration laws are so convoluted that even the legal community cannot tell you what the law is definitively. It's the result of having the United States Supreme Court give Congress a power they have not authority to give. If it were there, instead of being a smart ass, you'd show it to all the rest of us that are below your great intellectual level.
Who comes and goes within a state falls under the jurisdiction of the individual state.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 666
- 140
- Banned
- #4,560
Yeah, that IS the question - and I have had to litigate the cases as a volunteer in an qualifying organization - which means that since they are authorized by the government, I can do the same things relative to immigration (i.e. improper entry) as attorneys.
That also means that when immigrants face charges IN ADDITION TO improper entry (lying to authorities, trying to elude them, marriage fraud, etc. as per the statutes) they are tried under Title 18 of the Criminal Code and, as most people know, I can only represent myself in a criminal case. That is why Title 8 is civil law.
Furthermore, improper entry cases are NOT tried in the judicial branch of the government. Improper entry cases are tried in the Executive branch of government with the Attorney General being the head man in charge. Immigration judges work in the Executive department. THAT should tell you something.
When foreigners do commit crimes related to their improper entry, case law has allowed the courts to roll the improper entry into the criminal case to streamline the process since it is a moot point. If a foreigner breaks the criminal law, it is immaterial whether or not they entered improperly since deportation follows the conviction of a crime. Not even a fraction of those who entered improperly go on to commit other crimes (which includes but it is not limited to stolen SSNs, getting welfare, and other benefits of citizenship.)
Adding insult to injury, the United States Supreme Court went even further:
" it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States"
Arizona v United States 641 F. 3d 339 (2012)
I think we should give protectionist another lesson just so he understands his predicament. The whole build the wall philosophy revolves around whether or not foreigners have rights in the United States. That issue was settled BEFORE the wannabe Minutemen organized. It happened after a civilian border patrol group had an altercation on private property along the border. Ranch Rescue, the border patrol group, was manning the property of Jack Foote, the property owner.
Some Salvadorans tried to enter improperly and were turned back by Ranch Rescue when the Salvadorans came across Foote's property. An altercation ensued and the matter ended up in court. The judge found that Ranch Rescue violated the civil rights of the Salvadorans. I personally tried to get both sides to appeal the decision at the time. A lot of the ruling was an impediment to stopping eminent domain abuses. But, yep, those people do have rights - and apparently they trump those of private property owners in America, but it was protectionist's side that made it law.
Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
Can the UK afford to defend itself from Moscow 🇷🇺 empire ?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 13
-
Dems have ‘scrambled around’ since this ‘iceberg moment’: Lara Trump
- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 1
-
