|
Post by The Resister on Jul 10, 2022 16:22:16 GMT
" Illegal immigration." This is a subject that most people are emotionally invested in. The left has such a commitment to multiculturalism that they would make citizens out of the third world and hand America over to them in fee simple. The right goes to the opposite extreme by conflating unalienable Rights with the privileges of citizenship and developing a self destructive policy that does more harm to the citizenry than anything the left can do. It is time to call out my right wing brethren and have an actual conversation about this. First, and foremost, it is important that everybody understand the words that are being used. In legal parlance all of this is relative. Let's start with the work immigration. Immigration is defined as: " The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." thelawdictionary.org/immigration/Foreigners coming into the United States without papers and not intending to become permanent residents are NOT immigrants. So, are they " illegal?" The answer is NO. The United States Supreme Court has ruled: " As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182This is important to every American citizen because the high Court HELD in that case that " Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all." And, more importantly, they HELD that " By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law." If you can't read between the lines and want to know why that should be important to you, as an individual, then read my next posting on this thread. If you want further proof that what I said is legally accurate I am leaving a couple of links that are pretty authoritative. At the same time, do not presume that I am a liberal. Take the time to read the FACTS. You may learn that I'm more conservative than you. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/dec/01/kathy-sheehan/being-undocumented-immigrant-us-not-crime/accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/undocumented-immigrants%E2%80%99-rights-under-united-states-constitution
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 10, 2022 16:53:48 GMT
If you're reading this posting, you wanted more information regarding so - called "illegal immigration." Why you should never call someone an "illegal" anything will become very important in a moment. I've been involved nearly forty years and since I've been an activist not one single person ever went to jail or prison for taking my advice. This is one time that your misuse of words can have devastating effects on YOU as a citizen.
Whether we like it or not; agree or not, the illegally ratified 14th Amendment gave all persons (as differentiated from citizens) a guaranteed "equal protection of the laws." In my previous post I cited the court on this point that bears repeating: "By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law."
If you call someone an "illegal, illegal alien, criminals, criminal illegals, illegal immigrant", etc. absent due process, you are screwing yourself. As a constitutionalist I work hard against warrantless searches. When we call people something they are not AND authorize warrantless searches we have opened the door for the federal government to deny to us OUR unalienable Rights and ignore the concept of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, pursuing each of you for pretend crimes. I once went to court and the prosecution had NO evidence, NO investigation, NO witnesses, and NO probable cause. During discovery, I inquired of the attorney for the state: "When did we start ignoring legal protections and presume people were guilty before due process was administered?" The attorney replied, "Sir, we do it all the time. Haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?" That changed my mind regarding the approach to this subject.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that people being here without papers are not committing a crime. If I insist they are, then the LEO community can assume that you or I are an enemy combatant and / or domestic terrorist and proceed to treat us as criminals - enemy of the state without the protections of due process. There will always be idiots out there that don't appreciate that advice, but they've not yet had their doors kicked down, beaten, carted off, interrogated, and run through the criminal justice system without being presumed innocent, without a warrant, without the advice of counsel, without being able to make bail... Let me tell you right now, this stuff happens. What kind of legal wrangling do you think is going on with Red Flag Gun Laws? The equal protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that we all be treated the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the foreigner has no legal protections then neither do you.
And this doesn't stop here. There is even MORE to the story. Globalists, wanting the right and the left to destroy each other, have employed one of the greatest political propaganda warfare campaigns that has ever been carried out. They have been completely successful. So, we need to discuss this issue from top to bottom. Right now, the short story is, if you value your own Liberty, don't call people names and expect action without meeting those constitutional thresholds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 1:20:57 GMT
Well, here are some of the reactions I got from conservatives:
"A rose by any other name . . . .”
"We don’t care what you call them – we don’t want them here."
"Your post is so boring it even put Sleepy Joe out for the count.
"Incorrect. They most certainly are.
8 U.S. Code § 1325
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.
You're no constitutionalist. You're a moron who believes propaganda instead of facts. Hell, I bet you think the separation between church and state, and Row v. Wade's right of privacy are actually written into the constitution.
In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never actually read the Constitution at all."
"They are ‘I squared’….Illegal Invaders. They all need to be thrown out with the garbage."
"This topic is beyond retarded. Perhaps there should be a place to move topics like these to a ‘mentally challenged open forum’ ?"
"you are traitor to your own kin."
"I don't care whether they're legal or not. If they're not White, I don't want them here."
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 11, 2022 3:46:12 GMT
Well, here are some of the reactions I got from conservatives: "A rose by any other name . . . .” "We don’t care what you call them – we don’t want them here." "Your post is so boring it even put Sleepy Joe out for the count. "Incorrect. They most certainly are. 8 U.S. Code § 1325 Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty. You're no constitutionalist. You're a moron who believes propaganda instead of facts. Hell, I bet you think the separation between church and state, and Row v. Wade's right of privacy are actually written into the constitution. In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never actually read the Constitution at all." "They are ‘I squared’….Illegal Invaders. They all need to be thrown out with the garbage." While that is the typical responses you get from those people, they only make those arguments on their sites. What did their own lawyers say? Let's ask Trump's top man, Rudy Giuliani: Listen carefully to what Giuliani says... not only is it not a crime, but it shouldn't be. We're asking someone ON their side! Let's try another. This man helped eliminate Marco Rubio in the 2016 primary presidential election in favor of the man who did win the primary. He is Republican Chris Christie: " Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime." Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.
Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not." www.americans-working-together.com/the_real_chris_christie/id19.htmlIn 2007 and 2008 when those two gentlemen were making those statements, they were sons of bitches. In 2016 they were angels or apostles for the man they rallied behind for president. They told those idiots what they wanted to hear and all of a sudden, they were the good guys. What we believe politically and what the United States Supreme Court ultimately rules are two different things. Those who hate foreigners on the basis of Title 8 of the United States Code are too damn stupid to understand the law. For example, I genuinely believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. Yet I explained to you HOW the courts would interpret that law. It doesn't mean I agree with the 14th Amendment OR the application of the law, but you have run into really dumb mother fornicators that lack the courage to defend those statements on their board (wherever it might be) OR to come onto this board. They wouldn't say that to my face either as they know I'd beat the living Hell out of them. And I'm being nice considering what they've done to me over the past few years. But, I digress. You read what the United States Supreme Court had to say. One day I will get into citizenship versus unalienable Rights, but suffice it to say those grade school keyboard commandos don't have a single attorney, judge, or immigration official that will back them up. When I worked in immigration law, Janet Napolitano, head of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security at the time stated: “ And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.”www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/napolitano-illegals-crime/2009/04/22/id/329647/Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the highest ranking immigration official in the United States at the time ruled in 2009: " (2) Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings and removal proceedings are civil in nature." case-law.vlex.com/vid/matter-of-compean-interim-895384251Mukasey was appointed to the federal court by Ronald Reagan and appointed as Attorney General under George Bush. He is a Republican. NOTE: Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, overturned the decision to give undocumented immigrants a court appointed attorney; HOWEVER, Holder did not address the fact that we are dealing with civil, not criminal law. For those interested, I will now explain the law in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 11, 2022 4:19:59 GMT
You can leave the immigration debacle to stupid people that end up with their leaders in jail, prison, or graves OR you can choose to learn this subject. Know this: I manned the border and worked for the most hard core anti-immigrant people on the face of this earth. I have never backed down or took a step backward. For ANYONE to denigrate my patriotism or commitment to the cause is fighting words. If any one of those who have posted garbage about me want to say that stuff to me face to face, I would love nothing more than the opportunity to make it happen. Now, let us examine the law: U.S. Code Title 8 CHAPTER 12 SUBCHAPTER II Part VIII § 13258 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
prev | next (a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of— (1)at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2)twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c)Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d)Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, § 275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 99–639, § 2(d), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. 101–649, title I, § 121(b)(3), title V, § 543(b)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4994, 5059; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, § 306(c)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title I, § 105(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–556.)Let's simplify this:The above statute comes from the United States Code, the official laws of the United States. You will note that, in this instance, the law refers you to Title 8. There are 53 Titles in the United States Code. Each covers a different area of the law. Title 8 (EIGHT) is Immigration and Naturalization. The low IQ anti-immigrants confuse Title 8 (EIGHT) with Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) which is CRIMINAL LAW. So, right away, we know we are dealing with civil law, not criminal law.American jurisprudence is divided into two basic kinds of law: Criminal law and Civil Law. Civil law is not criminal law, though many times the two cross paths and are tried together. More on that later. Divorce, suing a neighbor over property damage, child custody, suing someone for infringing on a patent are all civil law. Michael Mukasey, the same Attorney General and highest ranking immigration official in the U.S. at the time spoke before the American Bar Association. He told the ABA: " Mr. Mukasey told the American Bar Association that he did not see any crimes to prosecute. “Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13wed2.html#:~:text=Mr.%20Mukasey%20told%20the%20American%20Bar%20Association%20that,been%20punished%2C%20he%20claimed%2C%20by%20%E2%80%9Csubstantial%20negative%20publicity.%E2%80%9D Second point. My detractors keep saying we are dealing with " criminal law." If that is so, maybe they can explain WHY Congress attempted to change Title 8 and replace the word IMPROPER to UNLAWFUL in Title 8 1325. The measure failed. www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/4437 SEE SECTION 203 If improper entry meant it was a crime, why change the wording of Title 8 to make it a crime? It is not a crime. That is why. Now I'll do another post to help you even more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 4:29:48 GMT
am passing it on
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 11, 2022 4:48:05 GMT
Title 8 USC 1325 is a federal civil statute. It defines what improper entry into the United States consists of. In order to further understand the law, suppose that you are going down the road and make a U Turn where the law prohibits it. A cop sees you. He will charge you with making an improper U Turn. In and of itself, that is not a crime. You won't go to jail for that act alone. Pay your fine and be on your way. If you try to flee instead of pulling over, then you get charged with a crime. That's the same deal with Title 8 USC 1325. Let's look at the law:
In paragraph A certain offenses are mentioned. There are three specific offenses that mentioned. The law is poorly written as there is NO crime in Title 18 for improper entry. I cannot prove a negative to you. I can tell you that, for criminal behavior such as "(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18" as per Title 8 USC 1325 is covered in Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the U.S. Code:
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
I cannot show you a Title 18 crime for improper entry. It doesn't exist. But I can show you the statutes that Title 8 says a foreigner can be tried for in addition to the civil violation of improper entry. Section b of the statute in 8 USC 1325 clarifies the fact that we are not dealing with a crime. It begins by saying "improper time or place; civil penalties" The civil penalty of $50 to $250 for improper entry is in addition to any criminal penalty.
So, let's put this into practice: Hosea is caught trying to come into the United States. When the Border Patrol sees him, he doesn't run, he doesn't lie, and he cooperates. He will be charged with a federal civil misdemeanor and required to pay $50 to $250. Okay, now let us say that Hosea decides to lie to the officers and maybe even try to use forged papers. Then, as per the opening section of that law, Hosea will be charged under Title 18 USC 1001 for the false statements AND he will still have to go to a separate civil proceeding to face the civil violation of improper entry.
This stuff is plain common horse sense. Should it be a crime? That is a matter of opinion. This is not an issue of believe in multiculturalism, flooding the country with foreigners, etc. or not. This is about what the law IS. and I've been straight up with you. My dog in the fight is HOW they can apply certain precedents to us based upon our deliberate misinterpretation of the law for the wrong reasons. The people who oppose what I'm telling you have a penchant for having their supporters end up in jail, prison, or a graveyard if they don't become Confidential Informants. If that's what you're looking for, go for it. Personally, I don't see how that kind of attitude is very productive and they can't show you any accomplishment they've made using that strategy... UNLESS their strategies put them in hot water and ended up HELPING the left, Democrats, liberals, socialists, etc. If you still believe their B.S. maybe you should be drawing a paycheck from the Democratic National Committee.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 411
|
Post by professorx on Jul 11, 2022 12:43:47 GMT
Having been asked to give input on this thread let me say a couple of things. Without asking yamcha exactly where he is posting this information it is a safe bet that we have been there before. When I say we that would be myself, The Resister, Danite, and one or two other people. Having been banned on a site that accused me of being The Resister you can rest happy knowing that the owner of the board that participated in that charade was offered a chance at face time with me. The Resister had been doxed. It wouldn't be rocket science to look at video this gentleman already had to verify it is two different people. That board owner was too dishonest to admit his misidentification. Imagine that. You are dealing with people that are afraid of their own shadow.
Call those people on their misinterpretations and they make accusations calling people traitors or Biden supporters. Question them and the accusation is one where they say they are being trolled. They live in FEAR. False Evidence Appearing Real. They are the cowards as you will not see an open and honest give and take discussion with no censorship. They could respond right here. Since it hasn't been said there are two points that need to be made.
The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that the people yamcha interacts with have a standard mantra. Part of it is that we should enforce the existing immigration laws. In that grouping of laws is the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart–Celler Act (aka the 1965 Immigration Act and also the Kennedy Immigration Law (s).) Part of that that law did was to open the borders to the third world. That law was called the National Origins Formula and it had been established in the 1920s to preserve American homogeneity by promoting immigration from Western and Northern Europe. At the time whites were only 13 percent of the world's population. By opening the doors to the third world, it was an absolute guarantee that we would change the demographic make up of America. Still the detractors defend this kind of statutory genocide because they are either intellectually challenged or they are deliberate disinformation agents.
The second point is that if the 14th Amendment were nullified today blacks and the third worlders would not be allowed to vote in the future. The reason being is that without the 14th Amendment the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision would stand. That decision held that whites were the posterity mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution would mean that only whites can be citizens. While there is no law that would take away the citizenship of people already here - in the future only whites would have the right to vote and they could decide from that point on who can and cannot become a citizen. Those who bought Bill Clinton's solution to the immigration problems lack the requisite critical thinking skills to figure that one out.
The people yamcha is conversing with will remain unnamed as per his earlier requests. He knows who they are and he should be put on notice of what they will say next. They will have to claim that this position is racist and that the existing laws were put into place for a reason. Those laws were put into place for a reason. It was to commit a legal form of genocide against the white race in America. Those laws were not put in place to regulate trade or business nor to regulate immigration. Immigration is people coming here for permanent residence. People are not coming here for purposes of immigration. They are guest workers. We do not need to force people to become citizens in order to work here. Furthermore the United States has not adjusted the numbers to compensate for the differences in population growth over the last 55 years. If the excuse was to regulate guest workers then Congress did not do its job. The problem those arguing against this position has made this about immigration. They are the ones that support laws that would alter the racial and cultural makeup of this country. They are the traitors. They are seditionists. They are no more conservative than I am a billionaire.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 11, 2022 18:21:36 GMT
To sum up my position, I object to people using inaccurate language as it creates a precedent by which patriots can be pursued. This is a concept that is wasted on the anti-immigrant lobby. To illustrate the point, one guy who got caught up in the anti-immigrant hoopla was my friend, Sheriff Richard Mack. Mack was a Sheriff that refused to waste county resources in order to conduct background checks on firearms for the federal government. Other sheriffs felt the same way. Mack had a lawsuit going, and I did a lot of legal research on it. In the end that suit was rolled into one lawsuit and was heard in the United States Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)What that case did was tell the federal government that they cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal laws. When Sanctuary Cities came along to protect undocumented foreigners, the controversy ended up in the courts. The Printz decision was used as a precedent to protect Sanctuary Cities. scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=clr See pages 252 – 256 especially That case will show you how a precedent can be applied. What I said in the OP is accurate and honest. Those people with a problem with it will continue to be ineffective and their followers will continue to go to jail, prison, graves, or maybe become Confidential Informants as their strategy is flawed. BTW, Sheriff Richard Mack said he would not have fought against the background checks for firearms if he knew it was going to affect immigration laws. The rest of this post follows…
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 11, 2022 18:39:18 GMT
For the better part of a quarter of a century now the anti-immigrant lobby has bitched, moaned, groaned, cried, and complained about so – called “illegal immigration.” The people being brainwashed by the propaganda have bought into outlandish B.S. that they cannot defend in a public debate on a level field. They resort to name calling and making baseless charges. They practice censorship on social media. Any time they get challenged, they run like a scalded dog, claiming that someone is trolling them. These are gutless, spineless, ignorant cowards. Adding insult to injury, their issue has gotten progressively worse over that period of time.
Anti-immigrants conflate citizenship with rights and, worse, unalienable Rights. They cannot come to grips with the concept that all people, regardless of citizenship status, have unalienable Rights. Having unalienable Rights does not give anyone the privilege of voting. It should not, under our Constitution (as originally written and intended) , be a way to tap into the public dole (a free education, welfare, socialist security, etc.) Having unalienable Rights should never be used as a pretext to become a citizen. The privileges of citizenship are not Rights.
No person should be required to become a citizen in order to get a job. Employers should be under no duty to hire any given person. The employer owns the job they create. Until 1875 the states retained the right to determine who may or come in their country. An unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court supposedly granted to the federal government “plenary powers” over immigration. There is no such authority conferred on the United States Supreme Court in the Constitution to grant powers to anybody or any branch of government. Who can come and go within a state is the state's prerogative, NOT the federal government's.
Until the federal government got involved in the issue of guest workers and immigration, the system worked pretty good. The whole objective when the federal government got involved was to change the demographics of the United States. The way it works best is to allow employers to hire who they want to hire and fire who they want to fire. Landlords can rent to who they choose and people do business willingly. If you got rid of this B.S. where people can't discriminate in their own personal business, the issue of so - called "illegal immigration" would disappear on its own. The reason the federal government got involved in our personal business telling us who we could and could not hire and fire; rent to and sell to and buy from; associate with and disassociate with was to control our lives and incrementally commit genocide against the whites. It's really stupid to help perpetuate that evil with socialist solutions that deny people private property Rights, the Right to associate and disassociate with whomever we choose, and the right conduct our personal business without Uncle Scam's controlling hand in everything.
If a foreigner drove across the border without any resistance, but couldn't find a job or someone willing to rent to them; if there were no government handouts; if there were no guaranteed paths to citizenship how many people do you think would waste their time to drive across that border? THAT'S how they used to regulate the situation. Compared to that surveillance society dreamed up by those in love with a POLICE STATE, the old way worked pretty good. Don't expect those who say things on other boards to come here and defend the indefensible. They won't. They will disparage my position in their controlled environments, but they haven't the courage to debate it and they would NEVER talk that trash to my face. They will only strike at me where I can't defend myself. Who do YOU think is being up front with you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 23:34:37 GMT
Well, I got a few more but they are just too stupid to post. Like this one:
"This is a bunch of legalese bs that boils down to 'no human is illegal' 'respect the people' evil manipulation through abuse of value of compassion"
And this one: "I don't want to read a book."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 23:35:34 GMT
Having been asked to give input on this thread let me say a couple of things. Without asking yamcha exactly where he is posting this information it is a safe bet that we have been there before. When I say we that would be myself, The Resister, Danite, and one or two other people. Having been banned on a site that accused me of being The Resister you can rest happy knowing that the owner of the board that participated in that charade was offered a chance at face time with me. The Resister had been doxed. It wouldn't be rocket science to look at video this gentleman already had to verify it is two different people. That board owner was too dishonest to admit his misidentification. Imagine that. You are dealing with people that are afraid of their own shadow. Call those people on their misinterpretations and they make accusations calling people traitors or Biden supporters. Question them and the accusation is one where they say they are being trolled. They live in FEAR. False Evidence Appearing Real. They are the cowards as you will not see an open and honest give and take discussion with no censorship. They could respond right here. Since it hasn't been said there are two points that need to be made. The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that the people yamcha interacts with have a standard mantra. Part of it is that we should enforce the existing immigration laws. In that grouping of laws is the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart–Celler Act (aka the 1965 Immigration Act and also the Kennedy Immigration Law (s).) Part of that that law did was to open the borders to the third world. That law was called the National Origins Formula and it had been established in the 1920s to preserve American homogeneity by promoting immigration from Western and Northern Europe. At the time whites were only 13 percent of the world's population. By opening the doors to the third world, it was an absolute guarantee that we would change the demographic make up of America. Still the detractors defend this kind of statutory genocide because they are either intellectually challenged or they are deliberate disinformation agents. The second point is that if the 14th Amendment were nullified today blacks and the third worlders would not be allowed to vote in the future. The reason being is that without the 14th Amendment the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision would stand. That decision held that whites were the posterity mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution would mean that only whites can be citizens. While there is no law that would take away the citizenship of people already here - in the future only whites would have the right to vote and they could decide from that point on who can and cannot become a citizen. Those who bought Bill Clinton's solution to the immigration problems lack the requisite critical thinking skills to figure that one out. The people yamcha is conversing with will remain unnamed as per his earlier requests. He knows who they are and he should be put on notice of what they will say next. They will have to claim that this position is racist and that the existing laws were put into place for a reason. Those laws were put into place for a reason. It was to commit a legal form of genocide against the white race in America. Those laws were not put in place to regulate trade or business nor to regulate immigration. Immigration is people coming here for permanent residence. People are not coming here for purposes of immigration. They are guest workers. We do not need to force people to become citizens in order to work here. Furthermore the United States has not adjusted the numbers to compensate for the differences in population growth over the last 55 years. If the excuse was to regulate guest workers then Congress didn't do its job. The problem those arguing against this position has made this about immigration. They are the ones that support laws that would alter the racial and cultural makeup of this country. They are the traitors. They are seditionists. They are no more conservative than I am a billionaire. I have been going to non-political forums but yeah, the reaction is the same. 10/10 don't understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 1:16:06 GMT
Here is a smart-assed one:
"The legal analysis is the kind of quality one expects from a 1L student for whom a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
First of all, the topical codification of laws into Titles is not the original source of law anyway. It's a mere convenience for lawyers and researchers.
Statutes passed by Congress are simply published in chronological order first in Congressional Records as "Public Law xx-xx and then in the volumes known as United States Statutes at Large. Only later do these laws appear in regularly updated publications known as United States Code. So the laws are not separated into civil and criminal by designation, what separates civil and criminal is the substantive content.
The fact these statutes are codified later is an editorial decision. So the fact that a law in one title creates an offense specifically is all that is needed to create an offense. It does not have to go in the Penal Code to be a penal offense.
And you wouldn't want all offenses to be penal code offenses anyway. For example, the Texas Transportation Code defines all violations related to motor vehicles, like speeding, seatbelt, open container, blah blah blah.
Looking at 8 U.S.C. § 1325, the substantive language emphatically creates an offense.
It seems like the most favorable way I can look at what you're trying to say is that maybe you think simply entering the country is a crime, but simply remaining here is not. Like once they're here, they've touched "base" or something. And even that just isn't legally or even practically correct.
If you read the statute carefully, it also says "Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed." 8 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2). So the statute itself acknowledges it creates criminal offenses.
I think the kernel of truth the OP is actually pointing out is that "illegal alien" is not technically considered a "status offense" (e.g. criminalizing homelessness) and thus suspicion of being illegal in the country alone will not provide probable cause for a warrantless arrest. But WHEN THEY DO GET ARRESTED for something else, we could deport their ass then if we only had the will. Some serious criminals do get deported but I see multiple-DWI offenders get released all the time after they do their few months.
Likewise, nothing is stopping the government from rounding them up for the purposes of deportation, if not prosecution, other than a lack of will.
As a practical matter the federal government typically does not prosecute first-time offenders. Hell, if you're just a joe-blow truck driver who lets an illegal hitch a ride and you get caught, they give you a free one on that too. They eventually get around to prosecuting you if your name keeps coming up because you keep getting arrested. It doesn't mean they don't have the right to prosecute you the first time if they wanted to."
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 12, 2022 2:56:37 GMT
Here is a smart-assed one: "The legal analysis is the kind of quality one expects from a 1L student for whom a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. First of all, the topical codification of laws into Titles is not the original source of law anyway. It's a mere convenience for lawyers and researchers. Statutes passed by Congress are simply published in chronological order first in Congressional Records as "Public Law xx-xx and then in the volumes known as United States Statutes at Large. Only later do these laws appear in regularly updated publications known as United States Code. So the laws are not separated into civil and criminal by designation, what separates civil and criminal is the substantive content. The fact these statutes are codified later is an editorial decision. So the fact that a law in one title creates an offense specifically is all that is needed to create an offense. It does not have to go in the Penal Code to be a penal offense. And you wouldn't want all offenses to be penal code offenses anyway. For example, the Texas Transportation Code defines all violations related to motor vehicles, like speeding, seatbelt, open container, blah blah blah. Looking at 8 U.S.C. § 1325, the substantive language emphatically creates an offense. It seems like the most favorable way I can look at what you're trying to say is that maybe you think simply entering the country is a crime, but simply remaining here is not. Like once they're here, they've touched "base" or something. And even that just isn't legally or even practically correct. If you read the statute carefully, it also says "Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed." 8 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2). So the statute itself acknowledges it creates criminal offenses. I think the kernel of truth the OP is actually pointing out is that "illegal alien" is not technically considered a "status offense" (e.g. criminalizing homelessness) and thus suspicion of being illegal in the country alone will not provide probable cause for a warrantless arrest. But WHEN THEY DO GET ARRESTED for something else, we could deport their ass then if we only had the will. Some serious criminals do get deported but I see multiple-DWI offenders get released all the time after they do their few months. Likewise, nothing is stopping the government from rounding them up for the purposes of deportation, if not prosecution, other than a lack of will. As a practical matter the federal government typically does not prosecute first-time offenders. Hell, if you're just a joe-blow truck driver who lets an illegal hitch a ride and you get caught, they give you a free one on that too. They eventually get around to prosecuting you if your name keeps coming up because you keep getting arrested. It doesn't mean they don't have the right to prosecute you the first time if they wanted to." What a word salad! I would challenge anyone to look at the statute carefully. Read it and show me where it says that improper entry is a crime. They can't. And if those people cannot read the few paragraphs I've devoted it, you can bet your ass they don't understand the law. When I had the highest ranking immigration official in the United States, the head of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, TWO former United States Attorneys (both Republicans that not only prosecuted immigration infractions, but aligned themselves with anti - immigrant politicians) AND the United States Supreme Court ruling on what the statute means, then those on the right that continue to dodge, duck, deflect, and outright lie WHILE ADMITTING THAT THEY CANNOT READ THAT MUCH LEGALESE, they don't understand the law. If improper entry were a crime, why would the most anti-immigrant politician on Capitol Hill propose a law to change Title 8 USC 1325 to make the statute a criminal statute if it were not already one? If improper entry were a crime, how come that very statute they cited refers you to Title 18 for prosecuting the criminal charges? Title 8 section 1325 does NOT create criminal statutes. It refers you to the Criminal Code for any alleged crimes that a suspect may commit and such crimes are separate and apart from the civil violation When the United States Supreme Court rules that it is not a crime, it is not a crime. AND the high Court said it is up to immigration officials whether to deport people or not. The people arguing the idiocy of mass deportations live in a fantasy land. First, you have the fact than most people here without papers have relatives that are American citizens. Any dumb ass with an IQ the size of their shoe or larger should think about that. You're going to permanently separate families over a $250 MAXIMUM civil misdemeanor violation and any amateur could challenge that on 8th Amendment grounds and win the freaking case. That's a NO BRAINER. They expect the federal government to round up, feed, house, try immigrants on a charge that maxes out at $250 AND pay for their attorney in the process. How many hours would it take to round up, hold hearings, file paperwork, appear before a judge and deport MILLIONS of people? Do all those on the right, lacking reading skills, smoke that much weed? They would spend THOUSANDS of dollars in legal fees to get a $250 fine? Those having these unrealistic ideas want to punish immigrants because the American people WILLINGLY hire, rent to, buy from and otherwise do business with foreigners? You can't just round people up. Then, again, that is why the people claiming to be " conservative" have taken a giant shit on the Fourth Amendment and ignored the concept of probable cause. You can't round them up for the same reason the government doesn't just round the anti-immigrants up. And NOBODY should want that. Maybe they'd be better served working with me to have the Fourteenth Amendment declared null and void. That makes too much sense. Insofar as their criticisms are concerned, I worked in immigration law for six years. There's not a swinging soul among those criticizing me that will match resumes' with me. They can talk their shit on their boards all they like, but on a level playing field they don't pack the gear. That is why they've sent you in to play errand boy. They can't sustain their idiocy on a level playing field. That's why I'm not a nice guy when I discuss this stuff. I took the time out to learn it after having written some of the talking points they rely on for their propaganda. They plagiarize my work, deny that I have more experience, try to make you believe a first year law student would " know better" and those dumb mother fornicators admit that a dozen paragraphs are TLDR. They should sue their brain for non support (presuming they have one.)
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 12, 2022 3:13:51 GMT
I am embarrassed by those who fight so hard against non-existent "illegal immigration." There is no such thing. People coming here to work and earn a few dollars with the intent of returning home are not immigrants. Coming into the United States does not make one automatically "illegal" or deportable. Once a person's feet hit U.S. soil, they are fully protected by the Constitution of the United States - compliments of those who illegally ratified the 14th Amendment.
What the anti-immigrant lobby cannot stand is exposure. That is why I am here and they are wherever in the Hell they choose to hide. They talk a good game about deportation while not having any respect for those of us who fought the REAL fights. I was on the border, manning it before most of those spouting off were born. I've forgotten more than they are capable of learning. That is why they admit getting intimidated by a dozen paragraphs at a time. Twelve paragraphs is a book? That is true if we're talking children's books for second graders.
No matter what those people do, they cannot tell me who I can hire, fire, rent to, sell to, buy from, or otherwise do business with. That is the foreigners unalienable Right and my unalienable Right. If we, the people, do not want the foreigners here, we won't do business with them. The anti-immigrants are so strategy deprived, they can't even force governments to limit a free public education to the citizens. That's pretty weak. They have criticized me through a third party, but have shielded themselves from relevant questions. NOBODY in the legal community backs up their theory of law. NOBODY. I'm the only one between all of us that has actually presented a solution. And, unlike the socialist solutions my critics have come up with, I don't have to fabricate things about my opposition. Lastly for the thundering idiot who tried to mansplain how the law is collected and codified, I can guarantee all of you if he cited the law in a legal document with that strategy, his case would be thrown out and he'd be trying explain his utter incompetence.
|
|