# Is it really "illegal?"



## BuddyColt

*Is it really Illegal?
*
Is coming into the United States really illegal?  Should it be illegal?  Are the anti  immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?

Im going to do this in several parts because it is difficult and you should take your time, reading each post, thinking it over and responding only after meditating on the facts versus the myths widely believed.

Im starting this thread and there is nothing new, but it if it all appears at the beginning of a thread, you can see the circus atmosphere that the National Socialists will start because they cannot prevail over the facts.  All you should do is concern yourself with is the facts.  *YOUR* Liberty depends upon it.

The first* FACT* is that there are no laws making it a crime to be in the United States without papers.  The National Socialists will try and dispute it, but we will present irrefutable facts.  The reason this is important is that if they are allowed to create bad precedents in interpreting the law, it will have a *net negative impact on YOUR Rights and Liberties.*  So, lets get right to it.  

The only statute the National Socialists can come up with is Title 8 USC 1325 to attempt to _prove_ a supposed crime of illegal immigration (which absolutely does not exist.)  My commentary on the statute is in red.  It is fully quoted:

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

Notice that this is a civil section of the law.  It is not a criminal title.  It is talking about an improper action, not an illegal one.

(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.

Notice that under this section, several infractions / crimes are being discussed.  Title 8 (Eight) does not impose a criminal penalty, but defers the criminal consequences to Title 18

(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

Improper Entry is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, an immigrant cannot be charged with a crime for improper entry since none exists in Title 18 (Eighteen); however, there is the civil penalty of up to $250


(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.

The civil penalties are different from the criminal charges and are treated separately.  For instance, the  criminal courts may fine a foreigner a total of one amount for lying to authorities and evasion (they may even suspend the criminal penalties) but that has no bearing on the civil penalties for improper entry (which consist of a fine of up to $250 and deportation)

(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. (End of Statute)

*YOUR Liberties depend upon a correct interpretation of the facts.
*


----------



## BuddyColt

The power to interpret and enforce the immigration laws starts with the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and immigration officials that handle the cases (i.e. the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys..  Do they say that Title 8 USC 1325 improper entry is a crime or a civil violation?

Janet Napolitano, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security is very specific.  She states that _&#8220;crossing the border is not a crime per se.&#8221;
_
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqim4Se70k]Napolitano: Illegally Crossing Mexican Border's Not A Crime. All Terrorists Crossed Canadian Border - YouTube[/ame]

A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction lands one in a civil procedure before an immigration official like the Attorney General.  Here is an actual ruling by George W. Bush&#8217;s Attorney General in an actual case:

&#8220;(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.&#8221;
_
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf

Note: We know that a reading of the law states that there can be crimes associated with Title 8 USC 1325; however, improper entry, which leads to deportation, is not a crime.  A foreigner that lies to authorities or attempts to elude them can be tried for crimes under Title 18, but merely crossing the border is NOT a crime.  It is a civil infraction of the law.  Improper entry is not a crime under Title 18.  It is a civil infraction of the law.

Now, let us hear what a former U.S. Attorney said regarding this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0]Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Not A Crime And Should Not Be - YouTube[/ame]

Notice, Rudy Giuliani says that not only is crossing the border not a crime, _but it should not be.  
_
Gov. Chris Christie was once a U.S. Attorney working with immigration cases.  Here was what he said:

&#8220;_Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime._

_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.&#8221;_

Now, let us ask a the* LEO community*:

"S_orry, but need to chime in to clarify. Entry Without Inspection, Title 8 USC 1325, is NOT a felony. There is legistlation proposed to make it so, but not law. It is either a misdemeanor or a civil infraction depending on how you read the statute. Yes, please supply me the law that says it is a felony. I will need it, since I deal with it every day._ "

Citizens arrests for illegals [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

"_Contrary to popular belief, so-called &#8220;Illegal Aliens&#8221;
have the same civil rights as any American. This is a matter of law and is beyond debate.

As partial evidence of the civil rights protection for aliens, the 14th Amendment contains the following clause:
&#8220;No State shall &#8230;. deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.&#8221;

Note use of the word &#8220;person,&#8221; not citizen.

The rules that prevent us from &#8220;rounding up&#8221; unauthorized aliens are the same rules that protect you and every other American from unwarranted search and seizure, unlawful detentions, and the &#8220;knock in the night&#8221; on your front door.

We cannot solve the problems of illegal immigration with simplistic, &#8220;feel-good&#8221; responses.

The mere unauthorized presence in the U.S. is a civil, not a criminal, violation of U.S. law1. The removal of aliens not authorized to be in the U.S. is an administrative process, not a criminal process.
Local law enforcement in Okaloosa County arrests about 500 illegal aliens a year on state charges. These charges most often stem from traffic and document violations.

State and local law enforcement officers have no legal authority to arrest people for the civil violation of being in the US without authorization."_

http://www.sheriff-okaloosa.org/Immi...0Imm Enf.pdf  (While the link is dead, I copy and pasted it before they changed their website)

*So, here is what we have so far:*

1 -The law in question

2 - The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security&#8217;s interpretation of that law

3 - A *RULING* by the highest immigration official in the United States telling us entry is not a crime

The view of *TWO Republicans* that served  as *U.S. Attorneys* in the field

4 - The *LEOs view* of what the law means.  

I have not interjected my own opinions.  I&#8217;m stating what the facts, separate and apart from any political opinion I have might be.  I do, however, agree with the Okaloosa Sheriff&#8217;s Department&#8217;s assessment as to the consequences of attempting to treat foreigners like criminals.  It DOES result in the denial of DUE PROCESS for people like you and I.  Been There Done That Did Not Like It.


----------



## California Girl

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be. 

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?


----------



## BuddyColt

In 2003, in a case involving a militia group called Ranch Rescue, the members of Ranch Rescue attempted to detain some people trespassing over private property and come into the United States without papers.  In short, they were charged with crimes; the property owner lost his ranch:

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue | Southern Poverty Law Center

Like it or not, the courts said that the immigrants had civil rights and, from what I can tell, the courts have apparently said that those civil rights *trumped* the property Rights of *American land owners*.  

Since that time, the anti  immigrant lobby has been able to con a lot of Americans into a race war against Hispanics with bad strategies  the *SAME *strategies that sent the Ranch Rescue members into prison.  The anti  immigrant, National Socialists have proven that their campaign is based upon racism and hatred,* NOT any genuine effort to restore the Republic and guarantee Liberty.*

The first self appointed Head Honcho that came along after Ranch Rescue was *Jim Gilchrist.*  I told people within the movement, at that time, he was a racist and a Nazi.  All he did was reintroduce David Dukes Border Watch idea from 1977.  Duke was an ex Nazi turned K.K.K. leader.  

Raciality.com - and Brutality: Best Racist Friends of Jim Gilchrist ( Minutemen Racists ) including Tom Tancredo and Steve Levy ( Long Island, New York )

As some of you know, Rep. James Sensenbrenner is the man that  introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act into Congress AND the so  called Patriot Act that nullified the Bill of Rights and he was one of Jim Gilchrists friends!

Gilchrist had a second in command by the name of *Chris Simcox*.  Simcox was exposed as a Nazi as was his best friend, *J.T. Ready*  J.T. Ready, as most of you know went on a rampage and killed his girlfriend,  his own child, and two others before committing suicide.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ6owsJTCYI]Chris Simcox&#39;s Minutemen and Nazi " HOLY WAR " (JT Ready) - YouTube[/ame]

J.T. Ready Gilbert Massacre: Listen to the Unedited 9-1-1 Recordings Here - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

Simcox had a not too spotless background:

U.S. Senate Hopeful Chris Simcox, aka, "The Little Prince," His Criminal Record, and the Other Baggage He Brings with Him - Phoenix News - Feathered Bastard

Then there was another of these beaming paragons of human virtue, Shawna Forde (another friend of Gilchrists.)  She was convicted of a very despicable murder:

Shawna Forde death sentence: Ariz. anti-immigrant activist condemned to die for killing father, daughter - Crimesider - CBS News

In Georgia, the Miltia of Georgia had an attempted coup.  The anti  immigrants broke off with the elected leadership.  *ALL *of those that went with the anti  immigrants ended up in jail, prison, or working as snitches for Uncle Scam even after repeated warnings from yours truly:

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire

Court hears Georgia terror suspects on tape | 11alive.com

Darren Wesley Huff, Georgia Birther, Convicted Of Plot To Take Over Courthouse To Topple Obama

BTW, Id like to quote Huff from the article:


_Huff himself testified, fighting back tears as he told jurors how hurt he was that "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."
_
Look at that, hes now crying after *I spent YEARS warning him and the rest of that bunch the long term ramifications of calling people illegal aliens absent Due Process*.  You see, Huff  was presumed guilty too just as those foreigners HE judged absent Due Process.

My opinion is their strategy sucks.

My opinion is that any _movement_ that attracts this inordinate number of killers, liars, and social misfits is probably not a very serious _movement_ over the long haul.  In J.T. Readys case, it was proven they can twist the arms of politicians, but like Russell Pearce proved, those politicians will throw them under the bus the first time it becomes convenient.

The *facts* are the anti  immigrants are directly responsible for the so  called _Patriot Act_, the National ID / REAL ID Act, the end to the presumption of innocence, the crackdown on your Miranda Warning, and the proliferation of warrant less searches.  The anti  immigrant / National Socialists have been instrumental in the assaults on private property and have added fodder for the anti  gun lobby in the future.  

They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you.  For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one.  When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you.  The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us


----------



## BuddyColt

California Girl said:


> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?



You're the idiot around here.  If you can't tell a fact from an opinion, you aren't smart enough to be allowed to vote much less offer any opinion on an adult topic.  I only wished the hell you had let me finish before starting that chickenshit.


----------



## Mr. H.

I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.


----------



## starcraftzzz

According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone


----------



## BuddyColt

Mr. H. said:


> I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.




My case is proven.  See how this dumbass tries to turn the topic into a freaking cartoon and then advocates turning America into a country equal to a socialist dictatorship.


----------



## Mr. H.

BuddyColt said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My case is proven.  See how this dumbass tries to turn the topic into a freaking cartoon and then advocates turning America into a country equal to a socialist dictatorship.
Click to expand...


Hoarders Without Borders. 

Lovely. Just lovely.


----------



## BuddyColt

starcraftzzz said:


> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone



The whole point of their silly strategy is that they demand a felony consequence for what, in the most anti - immigrant reading of the law, would be a misdemeanor.  

The judges, the courts and the LEOs do not look at the law as being criminal NOR can you be charged for a crime according to the RULINGS of the court for the mere act of entering or being in the U.S. without papers.

That's not my opinion.  I worked in immigration law and that is the way it is interpreted and applied.

It looks good to those who get off on this crap, but as Darren Huff learned: it ain't pretty when *you* are on the receiving end.


----------



## Big Black Dog

If you enter the US illegally, you are a criminal.  Pretty easy to understand - except for those that don't believe the laws apply to them.


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?



No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'

Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?

.


----------



## BuddyColt

Big Black Dog said:


> If you enter the US illegally, you are a criminal.  Pretty easy to understand - except for those that don't believe the laws apply to them.



Where, in the *CRIMINAL CODE*, (Title 18) is there a crime called illegal entry, unlawful entry, crossing the border illegally or some wording close to that?  

Or  is your socialist ass blowing smoke?


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> *Is it really Illegal?
> *
> Is coming into the United States really illegal?  Should it be illegal?  Are the anti  immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?
> 
> Im going to do this in several parts because it is difficult and you should take your time, reading each post, thinking it over and responding only after meditating on the facts versus the myths widely believed.
> 
> Im starting this thread and there is nothing new, but it if it all appears at the beginning of a thread, you can see the circus atmosphere that the National Socialists will start because they cannot prevail over the facts.  All you should do is concern yourself with is the facts.  *YOUR* Liberty depends upon it.
> 
> The first* FACT* is that there are no laws making it a crime to be in the United States without papers.  The National Socialists will try and dispute it, but we will present irrefutable facts.  The reason this is important is that if they are allowed to create bad precedents in interpreting the law, it will have a *net negative impact on YOUR Rights and Liberties.*  So, lets get right to it.
> 
> The only statute the National Socialists can come up with is Title 8 USC 1325 to attempt to _prove_ a supposed crime of illegal immigration (which absolutely does not exist.)  My commentary on the statute is in red.  It is fully quoted:
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
> 
> Notice that this is a civil section of the law.  It is not a criminal title.  It is talking about an improper action, not an illegal one.
> 
> (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.*
> 
> Notice that under this section, several infractions / crimes are being discussed.  *Title 8 (Eight) does not impose a criminal penalty, but defers the criminal consequences to Title 18*
> 
> (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
> 
> Improper Entry is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, an immigrant cannot be charged with a crime for improper entry since none exists in Title 18 (Eighteen); however, there is the civil penalty of up to $250
> 
> 
> (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.
> 
> The civil penalties are different from the criminal charges and are treated separately.  For instance, the  criminal courts may fine a foreigner a total of one amount for lying to authorities and evasion (they may even suspend the criminal penalties) but that has no bearing on the civil penalties for improper entry (which consist of a fine of up to $250 and deportation)
> 
> (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. (End of Statute)
> 
> *YOUR Liberties depend upon a correct interpretation of the facts.
> *



Wow.  I guess I'd always thought that if you were sent to prison for something then it implied you had been found guilty of committing a crime.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My case is proven.  See how this dumbass tries to turn the topic into a freaking cartoon and then advocates turning America into a country equal to a socialist dictatorship.
Click to expand...


How is your case proven?


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it really Illegal?
> *
> Is coming into the United States really illegal?  Should it be illegal?  Are the anti  immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?
> 
> Im going to do this in several parts because it is difficult and you should take your time, reading each post, thinking it over and responding only after meditating on the facts versus the myths widely believed.
> 
> Im starting this thread and there is nothing new, but it if it all appears at the beginning of a thread, you can see the circus atmosphere that the National Socialists will start because they cannot prevail over the facts.  All you should do is concern yourself with is the facts.  *YOUR* Liberty depends upon it.
> 
> The first* FACT* is that there are no laws making it a crime to be in the United States without papers.  The National Socialists will try and dispute it, but we will present irrefutable facts.  The reason this is important is that if they are allowed to create bad precedents in interpreting the law, it will have a *net negative impact on YOUR Rights and Liberties.*  So, lets get right to it.
> 
> The only statute the National Socialists can come up with is Title 8 USC 1325 to attempt to _prove_ a supposed crime of illegal immigration (which absolutely does not exist.)  My commentary on the statute is in red.  It is fully quoted:
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
> 
> Notice that this is a civil section of the law.  It is not a criminal title.  It is talking about an improper action, not an illegal one.
> 
> (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.*
> 
> Notice that under this section, several infractions / crimes are being discussed.  *Title 8 (Eight) does not impose a criminal penalty, but defers the criminal consequences to Title 18*
> 
> (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
> 
> Improper Entry is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, an immigrant cannot be charged with a crime for improper entry since none exists in Title 18 (Eighteen); however, there is the civil penalty of up to $250
> 
> 
> (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.
> 
> The civil penalties are different from the criminal charges and are treated separately.  For instance, the  criminal courts may fine a foreigner a total of one amount for lying to authorities and evasion (they may even suspend the criminal penalties) but that has no bearing on the civil penalties for improper entry (which consist of a fine of up to $250 and deportation)
> 
> (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. (End of Statute)
> 
> *YOUR Liberties depend upon a correct interpretation of the facts.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess I'd always thought that if you were sent to prison for something then it implied you had been found guilty of committing a crime.
Click to expand...


Nobody is being sent to prison.  Did you not read the court *ruling* by Mukasey?

A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction is a civil violation of the law.  Mukasey cites many other rulings to show that these are civil infractions, NOT crimes.  THAT is why he denied the taxpayer funded attorney to the defendant in the case.  

Are you reading the posts OR just posting B.S., hoping to find really ignorant people to side with you?  Do you care what happens when you keep having people believe this claptrap that a civil violation equals a crime?  

Darren Huff used to agree with you.  Read my opening three posts.  Do you STILL think Huff would agree with you?  OR would he say, I should have listened...?????


----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes it should be.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it really Illegal?
> *
> Is coming into the United States really illegal?  Should it be illegal?  Are the anti  immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?
> 
> Im going to do this in several parts because it is difficult and you should take your time, reading each post, thinking it over and responding only after meditating on the facts versus the myths widely believed.
> 
> Im starting this thread and there is nothing new, but it if it all appears at the beginning of a thread, you can see the circus atmosphere that the National Socialists will start because they cannot prevail over the facts.  All you should do is concern yourself with is the facts.  *YOUR* Liberty depends upon it.
> 
> The first* FACT* is that there are no laws making it a crime to be in the United States without papers.  The National Socialists will try and dispute it, but we will present irrefutable facts.  The reason this is important is that if they are allowed to create bad precedents in interpreting the law, it will have a *net negative impact on YOUR Rights and Liberties.*  So, lets get right to it.
> 
> The only statute the National Socialists can come up with is Title 8 USC 1325 to attempt to _prove_ a supposed crime of illegal immigration (which absolutely does not exist.)  My commentary on the statute is in red.  It is fully quoted:
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
> 
> Notice that this is a civil section of the law.  It is not a criminal title.  It is talking about an improper action, not an illegal one.
> 
> (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.*
> 
> Notice that under this section, several infractions / crimes are being discussed.  *Title 8 (Eight) does not impose a criminal penalty, but defers the criminal consequences to Title 18*
> 
> (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
> 
> Improper Entry is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, an immigrant cannot be charged with a crime for improper entry since none exists in Title 18 (Eighteen); however, there is the civil penalty of up to $250
> 
> 
> (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.
> 
> The civil penalties are different from the criminal charges and are treated separately.  For instance, the  criminal courts may fine a foreigner a total of one amount for lying to authorities and evasion (they may even suspend the criminal penalties) but that has no bearing on the civil penalties for improper entry (which consist of a fine of up to $250 and deportation)
> 
> (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. (End of Statute)
> 
> *YOUR Liberties depend upon a correct interpretation of the facts.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess I'd always thought that if you were sent to prison for something then it implied you had been found guilty of committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is being sent to prison.  Did you not read the court *ruling* by Mukasey?
> 
> A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction is a civil violation of the law.  Mukasey cites many other rulings to show that these are civil infractions, NOT crimes.  THAT is why he denied the taxpayer funded attorney to the defendant in the case.
> 
> Are you reading the posts OR just posting B.S., hoping to find really ignorant people to side with you?  Do you care what happens when you keep having people believe this claptrap that a civil violation equals a crime?
> 
> Darren Huff used to agree with you.  Read my opening three posts.  Do you STILL think Huff would agree with you?  OR would he say, I should have listened...?????
Click to expand...


No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is.  I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My case is proven.  See how this dumbass tries to turn the topic into a freaking cartoon and then advocates turning America into a country equal to a socialist dictatorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is your case proven?
Click to expand...


You really don't read this stuff, do you?  Let me copy and paste my exact words:

"_They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us"_

A lot of people are directing anger toward me for saying a judge ruled, an official said,  the LEOs interpret the law as meaning...   Dude, the cartoons, the turning of a serious discussion into a damn joke to avoid reality isn't helping your case.  

Your anti - immigrant / National Socialist leadership cannot have a cartoon free, big type / colorful free thread that focuses in on the FACTS.  The facts are, the anti - immigrant side has been losing.  They trade Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they become victims of their own bad strategies (i.e. totalitarian precedents and socialist legislation / rulings.)  It's a _movement_ run by killers, liars and people that are so insecure that they attack those who disagree with them as opposed to discussing constructive ways to understand each other.

The dumb asses that look at my posts and then claim this is all my opinion aren't smart enough to even be allowed to vote.  I came from the side they are on.  I wrote a lot of the talking points they use... and I did it *TWENTY YEARS AGO!*  A lot of it was based upon the same one sided information they have.  I had no idea of the long term ramifications of what was happening.  I wasn't an economist.  Neither are the critics here.  And I have had a few decades of working on ALL sides of the issue (including six years work in immigration law) so that I could fully understand what is really happening.

In the process, I've had many former friends, acquaintances, and people I knew in the movement that have paid for stupidity with their lives and their Liberties.  And, for telling them the truth, I'm the enemy?


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My case is proven.  See how this dumbass tries to turn the topic into a freaking cartoon and then advocates turning America into a country equal to a socialist dictatorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is your case proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't read this stuff, do you?  Let me copy and paste my exact words:
> 
> "_They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us"_
> 
> A lot of people are directing anger toward me for saying a judge ruled, an official said,  the LEOs interpret the law as meaning...   Dude, the cartoons, the turning of a serious discussion into a damn joke to avoid reality isn't helping your case.
> 
> *Your anti - immigrant / National Socialist leadership* cannot have a cartoon free, big type / colorful free thread that focuses in on the FACTS.  The facts are, the anti - immigrant side has been losing.  They trade Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they become victims of their own bad strategies (i.e. totalitarian precedents and socialist legislation / rulings.)  It's a _movement_ run by killers, liars and people that are so insecure that they attack those who disagree with them as opposed to discussing constructive ways to understand each other.
> 
> The dumb asses that look at my posts and then claim this is all my opinion aren't smart enough to even be allowed to vote.  I came from the side they are on.  I wrote a lot of the talking points they use... and I did it *TWENTY YEARS AGO!*  A lot of it was based upon the same one sided information they have.  I had no idea of the long term ramifications of what was happening.  I wasn't an economist.  Neither are the critics here.  And I have had a few decades of working on ALL sides of the issue (including six years work in immigration law) so that I could fully understand what is really happening.
> 
> In the process, I've had many former friends, acquaintances, and people I knew in the movement that have paid for stupidity with their lives and their Liberties.  And, for telling them the truth, I'm the enemy?
Click to expand...


You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy".  That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.

I've also bolded a section of your reply.  Was the bolded sentence directed at me?  You think I'm anti-immigrant?


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess I'd always thought that if you were sent to prison for something then it implied you had been found guilty of committing a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is being sent to prison.  Did you not read the court *ruling* by Mukasey?
> 
> A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction is a civil violation of the law.  Mukasey cites many other rulings to show that these are civil infractions, NOT crimes.  THAT is why he denied the taxpayer funded attorney to the defendant in the case.
> 
> Are you reading the posts OR just posting B.S., hoping to find really ignorant people to side with you?  Do you care what happens when you keep having people believe this claptrap that a civil violation equals a crime?
> 
> Darren Huff used to agree with you.  Read my opening three posts.  Do you STILL think Huff would agree with you?  OR would he say, I should have listened...?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is.  I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.
Click to expand...


Of course you did not read the entire thread.  Neither did any critic on this board.  Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.  

You have to read the entire statute.  Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime.  Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE.  Read Title 8 (EIGHT.)  It does not impose criminal penalties.  Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18  (Eighteen is the criminal code.)  Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is being sent to prison.  Did you not read the court *ruling* by Mukasey?
> 
> A Title 8 USC 1325 infraction is a civil violation of the law.  Mukasey cites many other rulings to show that these are civil infractions, NOT crimes.  THAT is why he denied the taxpayer funded attorney to the defendant in the case.
> 
> Are you reading the posts OR just posting B.S., hoping to find really ignorant people to side with you?  Do you care what happens when you keep having people believe this claptrap that a civil violation equals a crime?
> 
> Darren Huff used to agree with you.  Read my opening three posts.  Do you STILL think Huff would agree with you?  OR would he say, I should have listened...?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is.  I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did not read the entire thread.  Neither did any critic on this board.  Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.
> 
> You have to read the entire statute.  Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime.  Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE.  Read Title 8 (EIGHT.)  It does not impose criminal penalties.  Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18  (Eighteen is the criminal code.)  Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.
Click to expand...


Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it.  That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW.  It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.

What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is your case proven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't read this stuff, do you?  Let me copy and paste my exact words:
> 
> "_They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us"_
> 
> A lot of people are directing anger toward me for saying a judge ruled, an official said,  the LEOs interpret the law as meaning...   Dude, the cartoons, the turning of a serious discussion into a damn joke to avoid reality isn't helping your case.
> 
> *Your anti - immigrant / National Socialist leadership* cannot have a cartoon free, big type / colorful free thread that focuses in on the FACTS.  The facts are, the anti - immigrant side has been losing.  They trade Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they become victims of their own bad strategies (i.e. totalitarian precedents and socialist legislation / rulings.)  It's a _movement_ run by killers, liars and people that are so insecure that they attack those who disagree with them as opposed to discussing constructive ways to understand each other.
> 
> The dumb asses that look at my posts and then claim this is all my opinion aren't smart enough to even be allowed to vote.  I came from the side they are on.  I wrote a lot of the talking points they use... and I did it *TWENTY YEARS AGO!*  A lot of it was based upon the same one sided information they have.  I had no idea of the long term ramifications of what was happening.  I wasn't an economist.  Neither are the critics here.  And I have had a few decades of working on ALL sides of the issue (including six years work in immigration law) so that I could fully understand what is really happening.
> 
> In the process, I've had many former friends, acquaintances, and people I knew in the movement that have paid for stupidity with their lives and their Liberties.  And, for telling them the truth, I'm the enemy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy".  That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.
> 
> I've also bolded a section of your reply.  Was the bolded sentence directed at me?  You think I'm anti-immigrant?
Click to expand...



I said your anti - immigrant leadership.  If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant.  I took the law apart save of one small detail:

When the law speaks of a "_subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both_" THAT is covered in Title 18.

Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony.  Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor.  Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.  

The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime.  As Rudy Giuliani said, "_it is not a crime nor should it be_."   I agree.  If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next.  I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this.  One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't read this stuff, do you?  Let me copy and paste my exact words:
> 
> "_They have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us"_
> 
> A lot of people are directing anger toward me for saying a judge ruled, an official said,  the LEOs interpret the law as meaning...   Dude, the cartoons, the turning of a serious discussion into a damn joke to avoid reality isn't helping your case.
> 
> *Your anti - immigrant / National Socialist leadership* cannot have a cartoon free, big type / colorful free thread that focuses in on the FACTS.  The facts are, the anti - immigrant side has been losing.  They trade Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they become victims of their own bad strategies (i.e. totalitarian precedents and socialist legislation / rulings.)  It's a _movement_ run by killers, liars and people that are so insecure that they attack those who disagree with them as opposed to discussing constructive ways to understand each other.
> 
> The dumb asses that look at my posts and then claim this is all my opinion aren't smart enough to even be allowed to vote.  I came from the side they are on.  I wrote a lot of the talking points they use... and I did it *TWENTY YEARS AGO!*  A lot of it was based upon the same one sided information they have.  I had no idea of the long term ramifications of what was happening.  I wasn't an economist.  Neither are the critics here.  And I have had a few decades of working on ALL sides of the issue (including six years work in immigration law) so that I could fully understand what is really happening.
> 
> In the process, I've had many former friends, acquaintances, and people I knew in the movement that have paid for stupidity with their lives and their Liberties.  And, for telling them the truth, I'm the enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy".  That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.
> 
> I've also bolded a section of your reply.  Was the bolded sentence directed at me?  You think I'm anti-immigrant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said your anti - immigrant leadership.  If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant.  I took the law apart save of one small detail:
> 
> When the law speaks of a "_subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both_" THAT is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony.  Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor.  Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.
> 
> The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime.  As Rudy Giuliani said, "_it is not a crime nor should it be_."   I agree.  If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next.  I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this.  One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then.  If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.

And I don't have a "leadership".  I have an opinion.  Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't read the ruling and have no idea who Mukasey is.  I just read the bit that said that if you'd entered the country in a manner that was not consistent with what was required then the penalties include to possibility of six months in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you did not read the entire thread.  Neither did any critic on this board.  Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.
> 
> You have to read the entire statute.  Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime.  Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE.  Read Title 8 (EIGHT.)  It does not impose criminal penalties.  Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18  (Eighteen is the criminal code.)  Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it.  That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW.  It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.
> 
> What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.
Click to expand...


Again, I have been at this for a long time.  I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S.  So forgive me if I'm defensive.  The National Socialists did not address your concern.  Let me repeat it:

In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437.  In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 *from* its wording of _improper entry_ *to* unlawful entry.  THAT BILL FAILED.  I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a _"crime_,"  WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?  

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr4437/text

In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.

Should we pass laws restricting Liberty?  NO.  So, how do we address this issue of immigration?  Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists.  Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it.  Forgive me for being defensive  (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you did not read the entire thread.  Neither did any critic on this board.  Mukasey was the nation's highest ranking immigration official - he was George W. Bush's Eric Holder.
> 
> You have to read the entire statute.  Unless improper entry is in Title 18, it cannot possibly be a crime.  Title 18 is the CRIMINAL CODE.  Read Title 8 (EIGHT.)  It does not impose criminal penalties.  Title 8 says the penalty for the criminal acts a foreigner may commit are punishable under Title 18  (Eighteen is the criminal code.)  Improper entry is not in Title 18 and all improper entry infractions are decided in a civil forum AND deportation is NOT a criminal consequence, but rather a civil penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it.  That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW.  It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.
> 
> What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I have been at this for a long time.  I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S.  So forgive me if I'm defensive.  The National Socialists did not address your concern.  Let me repeat it:
> 
> In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437.  In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 *from* its wording of _improper entry_ *to* unlawful entry.  THAT BILL FAILED.  I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a _"crime_,"  WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?
> 
> Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us
> 
> In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.
> 
> Should we pass laws restricting Liberty?  NO.  So, how do we address this issue of immigration?  Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists.  Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it.  Forgive me for being defensive  (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)
Click to expand...


I think we must agree to disagree, but I'm glad that you now feel that my questioning is not malicious.  It isn't and was never meant to be.

One other thing.  You keep referring to National Socialists.  Can you clarify who you include in this group?


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to think that if someone doesn't immediately agree with your views that they are attacking them and treating you as "the enemy".  That's a position that won't go a long way if you genuinely want people to debate your views with you.
> 
> I've also bolded a section of your reply.  Was the bolded sentence directed at me?  You think I'm anti-immigrant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said your anti - immigrant leadership.  If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant.  I took the law apart save of one small detail:
> 
> When the law speaks of a "_subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both_" THAT is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony.  Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor.  Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.
> 
> The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime.  As Rudy Giuliani said, "_it is not a crime nor should it be_."   I agree.  If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next.  I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this.  One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then.  If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.
> 
> And I don't have a "leadership".  I have an opinion.  Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.
Click to expand...


Notice the "_SHOULD BE_" according to what you said.  Right now it is not.  Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:


"_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
Thomas Paine


That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.


----------



## California Girl

BuddyColt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the idiot around here.  If you can't tell a fact from an opinion, you aren't smart enough to be allowed to vote much less offer any opinion on an adult topic.  I only wished the hell you had let me finish before starting that chickenshit.
Click to expand...


Oh cool, you hate democracy. 

I'm not a mind reader.... how the fuck was I supposed to realize that your bullshit OP was a 'to be continued' with yet more bullshit? 

Moron.


----------



## California Girl

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it. 

Idiot.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said your anti - immigrant leadership.  If you follow their arguments, then you would be anti - immigrant.  I took the law apart save of one small detail:
> 
> When the law speaks of a "_subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both_" THAT is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Repeat offenders / habitual violators of any breach of the laws eventually becomes a felony.  Case in point: DUI is a misdemeanor.  Do it repeatedly and when you reach that magic number, it is a felony.
> 
> The mere entry and presence in the United States without papers is NOT a crime.  As Rudy Giuliani said, "_it is not a crime nor should it be_."   I agree.  If the government can put restrictions on Liberty... you're next.  I've witnessed it first hand for more than twenty years of being involved in this.  One patriot losing his liberty is not worth kicking a thousand people out of the U.S. for pretend crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then.  If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.
> 
> And I don't have a "leadership".  I have an opinion.  Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice the "_SHOULD BE_" according to what you said.  Right now it is not.  Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:
> 
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.
Click to expand...


I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).


----------



## California Girl

Mr. H. said:


> I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.



Stupid people struggle with very basic concepts. Unfortunately, it appears that the OP is one such individual.


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being neither a lawyer nor an immigration expert, you can clearly run rings around me with this, since I'm not prepared to spend all of Sunday researching it.  That doesn't make me your enemy, BTW.  It does make me someone who doesn't entirely buy what you're selling, but it also means that I will be prepared to keep a relatively open mind and read with interest things I see posted about this in future.
> 
> What I will say (and I don't think you'll like this) is that if as you imply there is no crime of "Illegal Immigration' then the law should be changed to make it a crime, and the law should be written in a form of words that make it clear and unambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have been at this for a long time.  I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S.  So forgive me if I'm defensive.  The National Socialists did not address your concern.  Let me repeat it:
> 
> In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437.  In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 *from* its wording of _improper entry_ *to* unlawful entry.  THAT BILL FAILED.  I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a _"crime_,"  WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?
> 
> Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us
> 
> In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.
> 
> Should we pass laws restricting Liberty?  NO.  So, how do we address this issue of immigration?  Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists.  Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it.  Forgive me for being defensive  (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we must agree to disagree, but I'm glad that you now feel that my questioning is not malicious.  It isn't and was never meant to be.
> 
> One other thing.  You keep referring to National Socialists.  Can you clarify who you include in this group?
Click to expand...


1)  National Socialists make this bogus claim that people they call _"illegal aliens_" are stealing (sic) American jobs.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates them.  The ONLY way one can "_steal"_ a job in the manner described is if jobs are owned by the government.  That is a text book definition of socialism.  Control of production and labor by the government is socialism

2)  National Socialists want to impose the same immigration laws found in socialist and communist regimes

3)  National Socialists prey upon your fears with bogus claims that undocumented workers don't pay income taxes.  The claim is false, but the real issue is, National Socialists engage in_ class warfare _in order to uphold the unconstitutional income tax (which is based upon the Communist Manifesto.)

4)  As mentioned above, the darling Congressman of the National Socialists behind the anti - immigrant "movement" is Rep. James Sensenbrenner.  Sensenbrenner introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National Socialist National ID / REAL ID Act.

Shall I continue or is that enough?


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Typical neonazi conservative. 

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.


----------



## BuddyColt

California Girl said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have been at this for a long time.  I presented this on another thread and it got lost among the cartoons, big colorful type and B.S.  So forgive me if I'm defensive.  The National Socialists did not address your concern.  Let me repeat it:
> 
> In 2006, anti immigrant lawyer and U.S. Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437.  In Section 203 of that law, Sensenbrenner proposed changing Title 8 USC 1325 *from* its wording of _improper entry_ *to* unlawful entry.  THAT BILL FAILED.  I keep asking those guys with the large type, cartoons, and repetitious B.S. here, IF Title 8 USC 1325 meant entry were a _"crime_,"  WHY CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW?
> 
> Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us
> 
> In the last five years I have not gotten an answer.
> 
> Should we pass laws restricting Liberty?  NO.  So, how do we address this issue of immigration?  Once I have a people realizing what a bad strategy they are endorsing, I have an answer... but not before I expose the National Socialists.  Much of what you've heard is B.S. and they know it.  Forgive me for being defensive  (see the Americans v Mexicans thread.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we must agree to disagree, but I'm glad that you now feel that my questioning is not malicious.  It isn't and was never meant to be.
> 
> One other thing.  You keep referring to National Socialists.  Can you clarify who you include in this group?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  National Socialists make this bogus claim that people they call _"illegal aliens_" are stealing (sic) American jobs.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates them.  The ONLY way one can "_steal"_ a job in the manner described is if jobs are owned by the government.  That is a text book definition of socialism.  Control of production and labor by the government is socialism
> 
> 2)  National Socialists want to impose the same immigration laws found in socialist and communist regimes
> 
> 3)  National Socialists prey upon your fears with bogus claims that undocumented workers don't pay income taxes.  The claim is false, but the real issue is, National Socialists engage in_ class warfare _in order to uphold the unconstitutional income tax (which is based upon the Communist Manifesto.)
> 
> 4)  As mentioned above, the darling Congressman of the National Socialists behind the anti - immigrant "movement" is Rep. James Sensenbrenner.  Sensenbrenner introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National Socialist National ID / REAL ID Act.
> 
> Shall I continue or is that enough?
Click to expand...


No, we could debate some of that for several days but you've made your position and your use of the term fairly clear.  Thank you.


----------



## California Girl

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical neonazi conservative.
> 
> Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Damn, you really are too stupid.


----------



## Katzndogz

California Girl said:


> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?



A complete idiot.  See, those who support illegal immigration and think that the US shouldn't even have borders assume that ALL illegals are hard working people from mexico.  They would understand it better if the illegals were white people from Eastern Europe, or millions of those nice communists from China.


----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical neonazi conservative.
> 
> Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You've chosen to graft skin color onto her position.  Is that based on something she has posted previously, or on something you suspect?


----------



## California Girl

BuddyColt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.
Click to expand...


Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:

enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or

eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or

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.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical neonazi conservative.
> 
> Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are too stupid.
Click to expand...


Damn, you really are too racist. 

Are you also a KKK imperial wizard 









.


----------



## BuddyColt

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then.  If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.
> 
> And I don't have a "leadership".  I have an opinion.  Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the "_SHOULD BE_" according to what you said.  Right now it is not.  Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:
> 
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).
Click to expand...


The current law is what needs examining.  Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa.  It is for seasonal, temporary work.  That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.  

The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa.  It does not cover the exact reasons people come here.    But, it's capped at 66,000 per year.  That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.

The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care.  They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and _stealing_ American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "_legally._"  

B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?  

The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  Create a _"proper_" method of entry and you resolve the issue.  You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S.  But, the National Socialists want a brown free America.  It just ain't gonna happen.

Thanks


----------



## BuddyColt

Katzndogz said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A complete idiot.  See, those who support illegal immigration and think that the US shouldn't even have borders assume that ALL illegals are hard working people from mexico.  They would understand it better if the illegals were white people from Eastern Europe, or millions of those nice communists from China.
Click to expand...


The facts are, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration is that 75 percent of those without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the taxes... which means they are obeying the laws.

Additionally, those foreigners are paying some $12 BILLION DOLLARS per year into Socialist Security and cannot draw one thin dime out in retirement.


----------



## BuddyColt

California Girl said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:
> 
> enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
> 
> eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
> 
> 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.
> 
> Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


You call me an idiot?  Can you read?  The law provides no criminal penalty for improper entry.  You aren't helping anything except establishing the fact that you are wrong.


----------



## Contumacious

tigerbob said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical neonazi conservative.
> 
> Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've chosen to graft skin color onto her position.  Is that based on something she has posted previously, or on something you suspect?
Click to expand...


1- The US had no FEDERAL immigration law until 1888

2- Then the US Supreme Court USURPED the authority to amend the Constitution because the Chinese - who were members of the "yellow" race were an emergent threat to "our people" . There were no claims that the chinese were abusing welfare or were a burden on the public fisc

3- Hoover' s Mexican Repatriation Act deported Americans of Mexican descent and concentrated on those who were brown skinned ; they deported 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican Americans

4- Prior to 1965 we had open borders with Mexico and there was never a problem -

.


----------



## tigerbob

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the "_SHOULD BE_" according to what you said.  Right now it is not.  Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:
> 
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current law is what needs examining.  Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa.  It is for seasonal, temporary work.  That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.
> 
> The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa.  It does not cover the exact reasons people come here.    But, it's capped at 66,000 per year.  That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.
> 
> The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care.  They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and _stealing_ American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "_legally._"
> 
> B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?
> 
> The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  Create a _"proper_" method of entry and you resolve the issue.  You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S.  But, the National Socialists want a brown free America.  It just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free.  I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.

I also understand that the costs of going through the application process for legal entry (even if they could meet the requirements) are impossibly high for many.  So on the face of it a low cost 'Guest Worker' visa program might seem to be a good idea.  However, I do have concerns about the number of people this would accredit and what benefits it would entitle them to - benefits that would be paid for by existing taxpayers.  Plus I have a concern that, once established, the next item on the agenda would instantly become pathway to citizenship.  As I believe I recently posted on another thread, give a mouse a cookie and he'll want a glass of milk.

If the Guest Worker visa also required (1) a named place of residence, (2) payment of taxes and (3) good conduct, and maybe some other things, then I might support it.  Obviously I'd have to think about it a bit more.


----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical neonazi conservative.
> 
> Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've chosen to graft skin color onto her position.  Is that based on something she has posted previously, or on something you suspect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1- The US had no FEDERAL immigration law until 1888
> 
> 2- Then the US Supreme Court USURPED the authority to amend the Constitution because the Chinese - who were members of the "yellow" race were an emergent threat to "our people" . There were no claims that the chinese were abusing welfare or were a burden on the public fisc
> 
> 3- Hoover' s Mexican Repatriation Act deported Americans of Mexican descent and concentrated on those who were brown skinned ; they deported 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican Americans
> 
> 4- Prior to 1965 we had open borders with Mexico and there was never a problem -
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, that didn't really answer my question, did it?


----------



## Contumacious

tigerbob said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current law is what needs examining.  Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa.  It is for seasonal, temporary work.  That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.
> 
> The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa.  It does not cover the exact reasons people come here.    But, it's capped at 66,000 per year.  That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.
> 
> The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care.  They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and _stealing_ American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "_legally._"
> 
> B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?
> 
> The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  Create a _"proper_" method of entry and you resolve the issue.  You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S.  But, the National Socialists want a brown free America.  It just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free.*  I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That is because you are racist scumbag.

The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient . 

Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was *BEFORE* Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.

Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?

.


----------



## BuddyColt

Contumacious,

I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:

A few years ago, radio talk show host Neal Boortz claimed to have done a study wherein he started with the year 1787 and broke American history down into 25 year segments, each segment representing the working career of an individual.  He wanted know what generation of Americans had it the best.

According to Boortz, between 1982 and 2007 were the years, that we had the most money, the most assets, paid the least in taxes and were the most affluent.  If you can find a better twenty five year era, go ahead.  Boortz credited the Reagan and Bush tax policies for this.  I noticed something different, however about the U.S. being affluent.  

In *1986* we had an estimated *10 MILLION* people in the United States without papers and *TWO MILLION* more entering the U.S. without papers every year - and we had *SEVEN AMNESTIES* between 1986 and 2007. In *1982* *our unemployment rate was nearly 10 percent and in 2000 we were under 4 percent unemployment*.

How can that be?  Ten percent unemployment, two million undocumented foreigners crossing an open border, seven amnesties and we cut the unemployment rate in half.

Here's a contrast for you. In 1953 the federal government began _Operation Wetback_ and within a year all the brown people were being rounded up.  The unemployment rate *doubled in less than five years* thereafter and we never had an unemployment that low again in our nation's history.


----------



## Contumacious

Bud,

I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:

Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:



*Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration*

For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American people&#8212;descendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open borders&#8212;exude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders? 

.


----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current law is what needs examining.  Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa.  It is for seasonal, temporary work.  That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.
> 
> The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa.  It does not cover the exact reasons people come here.    But, it's capped at 66,000 per year.  That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.
> 
> The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care.  They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and _stealing_ American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "_legally._"
> 
> B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?
> 
> The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  Create a _"proper_" method of entry and you resolve the issue.  You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S.  But, the National Socialists want a brown free America.  It just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free.*  I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you are racist scumbag.
> 
> The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .
> 
> Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was *BEFORE* Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.
> 
> Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Racism (n.):  A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement.

On that definition, nothing I said was racist.  I did not attribute my comments to any particular race.  You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.

On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.

Therefore, it is you who is the racist.  Q.E.D.


----------



## Contumacious

tigerbob said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free.*  I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you are racist scumbag.
> 
> The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .
> 
> Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was *BEFORE* Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.
> 
> Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism (n.):  A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement.
> 
> On that definition, nothing I said was racist.  I did not attribute my comments to any particular race.  You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.
> 
> On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.
> 
> *Therefore, it is you who is the racist.  Q.E.D.*
Click to expand...





I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:


"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated Chi*na, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked.* These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, *proved to be exceedingly useful*. For some years little opposition was made to them, *except when they sought to work in the mines,* but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with *our* artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and *our people* was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. *The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. *Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. *It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living.* As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration.* The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation. *
*
U.S. Supreme Court 

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)*


----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you are racist scumbag.
> 
> The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .
> 
> Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was *BEFORE* Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.
> 
> Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism (n.):  A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement.
> 
> On that definition, nothing I said was racist.  I did not attribute my comments to any particular race.  You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.
> 
> On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.
> 
> *Therefore, it is you who is the racist.  Q.E.D.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:
> 
> 
> "The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated Chi*na, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked.* These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, *proved to be exceedingly useful*. For some years little opposition was made to them, *except when they sought to work in the mines,* but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with *our* artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..
> 
> The competition between them and *our people* was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. *The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. *Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. *It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living.* As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration.* The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation. *
> *
> U.S. Supreme Court
> 
> CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)*
Click to expand...


So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.

Do you sort of make this up as you go along?


----------



## Contumacious

tigerbob said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism (n.):  A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement.
> 
> On that definition, nothing I said was racist.  I did not attribute my comments to any particular race.  You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.
> 
> On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.
> 
> *Therefore, it is you who is the racist.  Q.E.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:
> 
> 
> "The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated Chi*na, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked.* These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, *proved to be exceedingly useful*. For some years little opposition was made to them, *except when they sought to work in the mines,* but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with *our* artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..
> 
> The competition between them and *our people* was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. *The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. *Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. *It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living.* As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration.* The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation. *
> *
> U.S. Supreme Court
> 
> CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.
> 
> *Do you sort of make this up as you go along?*
Click to expand...



No , I read YOUR post #45



> Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on *the basis of all the stuff they can get for free*



.


----------



## hjmick




----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> 
> 
> I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:
> 
> 
> "The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated Chi*na, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked.* These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, *proved to be exceedingly useful*. For some years little opposition was made to them, *except when they sought to work in the mines,* but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with *our* artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..
> 
> The competition between them and *our people* was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. *The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. *Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. *It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living.* As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration.* The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation. *
> *
> U.S. Supreme Court
> 
> CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.
> 
> *Do you sort of make this up as you go along?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No , I read YOUR post #45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on *the basis of all the stuff they can get for free*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


1.  What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
2.  What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
3.  What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?


----------



## California Girl

BuddyColt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:
> 
> enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
> 
> eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
> 
> 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.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot?  Can you read?  The law provides no criminal penalty for improper entry.  You aren't helping anything except establishing the fact that you are wrong.
Click to expand...


It provides for either fines or imprisonment for illegally entering this country. We do not have, and cannot have, an open border. I appreciate that this is above your intellectual pay grade but there is nothing I can, or want, to do about your stupidity.


----------



## California Girl

tigerbob said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.
> 
> *Do you sort of make this up as you go along?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No , I read YOUR post #45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on *the basis of all the stuff they can get for free*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
> 2.  What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
> 3.  What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?
Click to expand...


Contemptible assumes that everyone who illegally enters our country has black or brown skin. Rational people know that is not the case... there are many Europeans who also outstay their permits.... but in order for him to get on his high horse, he must pretend all illegals are brown or black. 

I think he is possibly on a par with rderp and TruthMocker when it comes to intellect.


----------



## Contumacious

tigerbob said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.
> 
> *Do you sort of make this up as you go along?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No , I read YOUR post #45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on *the basis of all the stuff they can get for free*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
Click to expand...


Immigrants 



> 2.  What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?



The Supreme Court did not , and could not, identify the Constitutional proviso which permitted the federal government to interdict and deport aliens or classify them as "illegal" . 

As a matter of fact they pointed out that they knew that the Father of the Constitution James Madison as well as Founding Father and 3rd president Thomas Jefferson had opposed federally imposed immigration laws. 

But , nevertheless, ignored their position because the chinese yellow skin and their superior productivity was irritating "our people"




> 3.  What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?



Prior to 1965, we had open borders with Mexico. They would come here , make some money and take it home. There was no welfare state. So the insinuation that they came here to get "free stuff" is wholly without foundation, insulting and racist.

'nuff said.

.


----------



## California Girl

BuddyColt said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the "_SHOULD BE_" according to what you said.  Right now it is not.  Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:
> 
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current law is what needs examining.  Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa.  It is for seasonal, temporary work.  That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.
> 
> The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa.  It does not cover the exact reasons people come here.    But, it's capped at 66,000 per year.  That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.
> 
> The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care.  They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and _stealing_ American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "_legally._"
> 
> B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?
> 
> The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  Create a _"proper_" method of entry and you resolve the issue.  You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S.  But, the National Socialists want a brown free America.  It just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


We don't have enough jobs for our own citizens. We don't need more coming in without authorization to take those jobs. I'm sure there are a few fools who would prefer that our nation be an 'all white' one.... but that does not mean that everyone who wants to enforce our immigration laws are racist..... that is bullshit. 

You're a rather hysterical little twit, aren't you?


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone



False.  When you have to outright lie to make what passes for a  "point," that's a good clue that you have no actual point.

However, crossing the national border without the consent of the sovereign nation you are entering is at least akin to criminal trespass (which is also a crime, genius).


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> No , I read YOUR post #45
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
> 2.  What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
> 3.  What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Contemptible assumes that everyone who illegally enters our country has black or brown skin. Rational people know that is not the case...* there are many Europeans who also outstay their permits....* but in order for him to get on his high horse, he must pretend all illegals are brown or black.
> 
> I think he is possibly on a par with rderp and TruthMocker when it comes to intellect.
Click to expand...


*European Illegal Immigrants Attempt to Deport Themselves*

Unfortunately, they are not successful. *In the white man's point of view, it is absurd to suggest that europeans are illegal. *Racist minds can't recognize truth even when it is staring them in fhe face. 
The ICE agents in this video think it is all a joke!


----------



## California Girl

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
> 2.  What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
> 3.  What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contemptible assumes that everyone who illegally enters our country has black or brown skin. Rational people know that is not the case...* there are many Europeans who also outstay their permits....* but in order for him to get on his high horse, he must pretend all illegals are brown or black.
> 
> I think he is possibly on a par with rderp and TruthMocker when it comes to intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *European Illegal Immigrants Attempt to Deport Themselves*
> 
> Unfortunately, they are not successful. *In the white man's point of view, it is absurd to suggest that europeans are illegal. *Racist minds can't recognize truth even when it is staring them in fhe face.
> The ICE agents in this video think it is all a joke!
Click to expand...


It's not about race, it's about the law. Dolt.


----------



## Liability

The very premise of this stupid thread is false.

We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.

And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.

Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contemptible assumes that everyone who illegally enters our country has black or brown skin. Rational people know that is not the case...* there are many Europeans who also outstay their permits....* but in order for him to get on his high horse, he must pretend all illegals are brown or black.
> 
> I think he is possibly on a par with rderp and TruthMocker when it comes to intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *European Illegal Immigrants Attempt to Deport Themselves*
> 
> Unfortunately, they are not successful. *In the white man's point of view, it is absurd to suggest that europeans are illegal. *Racist minds can't recognize truth even when it is staring them in fhe face.
> The ICE agents in this video think it is all a joke!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about race, it's about the law. Dolt.
Click to expand...



Supreme case law and the Constitution (1787) clearly show that it is about race and ethnicity. Edited

.


----------



## California Girl

Liability said:


> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.



The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
Click to expand...


The very premise of the thread is absolutely true

The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And  -- secondly -- they  are not Aryans.

The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents  a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue. 

.


----------



## Ernie S.

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *European Illegal Immigrants Attempt to Deport Themselves*
> 
> Unfortunately, they are not successful. *In the white man's point of view, it is absurd to suggest that europeans are illegal. *Racist minds can't recognize truth even when it is staring them in fhe face.
> The ICE agents in this video think it is all a joke!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about race, it's about the law. Dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme case law and the Constitution (1787) clearly show that it is about race and ethnicity. ****.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Negged for use of "C" word.


----------



## California Girl

Ernie S. said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about race, it's about the law. Dolt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme case law and the Constitution (1787) clearly show that it is about race and ethnicity. ****.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negged for use of "C" word.
Click to expand...


Contemptible apparently does not have to live by the same rules that the rest of the board do. He's a pathetic, hysterical, whiny little girl.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.



You're one to preach about false premises.  Let me see here: liability -_ the ability to lie_.

This thread is over 50 posts long and not one statute has been given in a Criminal Section that says illegal alien, unlawful alien, or anything close to it.

What language is it you speak again?  The word improper is a different word than that of illegal... but hell, what do care about honesty?  YOU FAIL.


----------



## BuddyColt

California Girl said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contemptible assumes that everyone who illegally enters our country has black or brown skin. Rational people know that is not the case...* there are many Europeans who also outstay their permits....* but in order for him to get on his high horse, he must pretend all illegals are brown or black.
> 
> I think he is possibly on a par with rderp and TruthMocker when it comes to intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *European Illegal Immigrants Attempt to Deport Themselves*
> 
> Unfortunately, they are not successful. *In the white man's point of view, it is absurd to suggest that europeans are illegal. *Racist minds can't recognize truth even when it is staring them in fhe face.
> The ICE agents in this video think it is all a joke!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about race, it's about the law. Dolt.
Click to expand...


The laws of democracy?  Majority / mob rule?  If it weren't about race, you'd take a remedial class in reading and figure out that the word improper and illegal are not synonyms.


----------



## BuddyColt

California Girl said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
Click to expand...


You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.

You've bitched and wailed about "_illegal immigration_" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case.  You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.

You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil.  Why B.S. each other?  Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact.  In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.

You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute.  What you are NOT is a legitimate American.


----------



## tigerbob

Contumacious said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> No , I read YOUR post #45
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court did not , and could not, identify the Constitutional proviso which permitted the federal government to interdict and deport aliens or classify them as "illegal" .
> 
> As a matter of fact they pointed out that they knew that the Father of the Constitution James Madison as well as Founding Father and 3rd president Thomas Jefferson had opposed federally imposed immigration laws.
> 
> But , nevertheless, ignored their position because the chinese yellow skin and their superior productivity was irritating "our people"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prior to 1965, we had open borders with Mexico. They would come here , make some money and take it home. There was no welfare state. So the insinuation that they came here to get "free stuff" is wholly without foundation, insulting and racist.
> 
> 'nuff said.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


1.  Immigrants are not a race, but let's let that one slide.  I'm not a US Citizen.  I'm an immigrant.  So, exactly how am I prejudiced against immigrants?
2.  You've added 3 paragraphs that in no way answer, or even address my question.
3. Where did I ever say that prior to 1965 Mexicans came here to get "free stuff"?  Oh, I didn't.  I also didn't mention 1965.  You did.  I also didn't mention Mexicans.  You did.


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme case law and the Constitution (1787) clearly show that it is about race and ethnicity. ****.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for use of "C" word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Contemptible apparently does not have to live by the same rules that the rest of the board do. He's a pathetic, hysterical, whiny little girl.
Click to expand...


No, I don't.

I live using LIBERTARIAN principles which demand that I live and let live. 

Which demand that I do not transgress upon my fellow human beings UNALIENABLE rights to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness.

Now , let's go over to the flaming zone, I have a few choice words for ya'.

.

.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.
> 
> You've bitched and wailed about "_illegal immigration_" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case.  You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.
> 
> You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil.  Why B.S. each other?  Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact.  In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.
> 
> You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute.  What you are NOT is a legitimate American.
Click to expand...



We both know that you are barely smart enough to breathe.  With mechanical assistance at that.

The FACT is that illegal entry and remaining here without authorization IS a crime.

We went through this already.

You may deny reality as much as you like.  But you really shouldn't be surprised that reality doesn't change to suit your idiotic and dishonest thinking, you imbecile.  

And speaking of your dishonesty -- as you know but just lied again to avoid -- I did educate you about the CRIMINALITY under the law of entering and remaining in the US outside the authorized entry and temporary residency permissions of the Federal Government.  It's called the I&NA.

Now wrap your dishonest and addled little pinhead around something honest people (a species you can't even recognize) call "the law."



> Section 1325 [of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII].
> 
> *Improper entry by alien*
> 
> (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.



Since you are too woefully ignorant to know, I'll educate your sorry mind:  For the first offense, the penalty is for a MISDEMEANOR.

For a second offense, the penalty is that of a FELONY.

Those ARE crimes, you inconsequential moron.


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very premise of the thread is absolutely true
> 
> The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And  -- secondly -- they  are not Aryans.
> 
> The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents  a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You are wrong and you are blathering stupidly.

They are aliens because they are not U.S. citizens.  They come from other lands.

They are here illegally because our LAW says what *legal* entry is, and when they come in by OTHER means they are breaking our law.

That YOU (being the pathetic fucking moron you are) do not CARE for the law or ascribe racist motivation to some or all of it is not illuminating -- except to underscore that you have silly opinions.  Because, whether YOU like a law or not has nothing to do with whether or not it IS the law.  And the law in question DOES impose CRIMINAL penalties for the violation thereof.  That makes it a "CRIMINAL" Law.  

,



,


;



,


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one to preach about false premises.  Let me see here: liability -_ the ability to lie_.
> 
> This thread is over 50 posts long and not one statute has been given in a Criminal Section that says illegal alien, unlawful alien, or anything close to it.
> 
> What language is it you speak again?  The word improper is a different word than that of illegal... but hell, what do care about honesty?  YOU FAIL.
Click to expand...


You are an asshole.  That's already plain.

Cite the post where I said that the law uses the terminology "illegal alien."

You won't because you can't and you can't because that's not a claim I made.  Nor is it relevant to the discussion.

An alien who enters outside the bounds of the immigration law has committed a crime.  That makes him or her an illegal alien.

You don't like it?

I don't care.

It is still true, you pathetic turd.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one to preach about false premises.  Let me see here: liability -_ the ability to lie_.
> 
> This thread is over 50 posts long and not one statute has been given in a Criminal Section that says illegal alien, unlawful alien, or anything close to it.
> 
> What language is it you speak again?  The word improper is a different word than that of illegal... but hell, what do care about honesty?  YOU FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an asshole.  That's already plain.
> 
> Cite the post where I said that the law uses the terminology "illegal alien."
> 
> You won't because you can't and you can't because that's not a claim I made.  Nor is it relevant to the discussion.
> 
> An alien who enters outside the bounds of the immigration law has committed a crime.  That makes him or her an illegal alien.
> 
> You don't like it?
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> It is still true, you pathetic turd.
Click to expand...


You like to stoop to name calling because you have nothing going for you.  What you do when others aren't looking says more than what you can say on a discussion board.  Remember that.

An alien that enters "outside the bounds of law" is *not* an illegal alien.  You are a dishonest liar and this has been explained over and over.

The law uses the term "_proper,_" but there is not always a "_prope_r" way of entering the United States.  You cannot cite the statute that says illegal.  It don't exist.

You make all this pompous fanfare when you come onto a thread and all you spew is bullshit that a five year old could see through.

Title 8 says a person can be tried under Title 18  (that's the Criminal Code), but improper entry or entry / presence is NOT covered in Title 18.  In 2006 Rep. James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437 that would have changed the wording *from* improper entry *to* unlawful entry.  The bill failed. Improper entry is NOT a crime.  Case closed.  Bite me.

Whenever there is some agreement with respect to people having the ability to come here properly, Congress will address the issue, but not before then.  Until that happens, *Improper entry is a civil infraction that the courts have ruled is NOT A CRIME.*

You repeating a lie every other post will not make a lie the truth.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of the thread is absolutely true
> 
> The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And  -- secondly -- they  are not Aryans.
> 
> The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents  a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I would have to guess that you try to hold yourself out to be an authority on the law when you don't know anything, but the moderators should shut your name calling down.  There is a response directed to people just like you... in this case directed at you:\
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us
> 
> All your bullshit is answered withing the first four posts of this thread.  The rest is answered in the above link.
> 
> 
> You are wrong and you are blathering stupidly.
> 
> They are aliens because they are not U.S. citizens.  They come from other lands.
> 
> They are here illegally because our LAW says what *legal* entry is, and when they come in by OTHER means they are breaking our law.
> 
> That YOU (being the pathetic fucking moron you are) do not CARE for the law or ascribe racist motivation to some or all of it is not illuminating -- except to underscore that you have silly opinions.  Because, whether YOU like a law or not has nothing to do with whether or not it IS the law.  And the law in question DOES impose CRIMINAL penalties for the violation thereof.  That makes it a "CRIMINAL" Law.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
Click to expand...


You know, I would have to guess that you try to hold yourself out to be an authority on the law when you don't know anything, but the moderators should shut your name calling down.  There is a response directed to people just like you... in this case directed at you:\

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us

All your bullshit is answered withing the first four posts of this thread.  The rest is answered in the above link.


----------



## California Girl

BuddyColt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of this stupid thread is false.
> 
> We call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens.  And they -- secondly -- are also here illegally.
> 
> And the illegality of their coming here and remaining here is a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> Why  the ignorant and dishonest author of the OP persists in pretending that illegal entry is not "criminal" is more than a little odd.  It has been established BEYOND any quibble that it *is* a criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.
> 
> You've bitched and wailed about "_illegal immigration_" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case.  You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.
> 
> You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil.  Why B.S. each other?  Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact.  In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.
> 
> You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute.  What you are NOT is a legitimate American.
Click to expand...


You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal. 

And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb fuck about me. Twit.


----------



## BuddyColt

California Girl said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.
> 
> You've bitched and wailed about "_illegal immigration_" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case.  You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.
> 
> You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil.  Why B.S. each other?  Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact.  In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.
> 
> You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute.  What you are NOT is a legitimate American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal.
> 
> And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb fuck about me. Twit.
Click to expand...


California Girl,

You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself.  Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy"  Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic?  Do you smoke dope?

*IF* you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.  

I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal.  The word improper does not mean illegal.  THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about.  You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper *is not* illegal.  

It's that simple.  

Here's a free lesson for you.  We live in a Republic.  As such, all men are created equal.  We have an *unalienable Right* to Liberty.  If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law.  That's* exactly *what the American people are doing relative to immigration.  Those that *invite* the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do.  The government chooses not to regulate immigration.  You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws.  It's not illegal.  It's improper.  Your side LOST.  HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law.  If you're lost, read the thread.  It's only been covered a half a dozen times.

In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny.  The United States Supreme Court opined:

   " _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)


As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them.  They *could* regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.  That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.


----------



## Contumacious

California Girl said:


> You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. .



Wrong again.

We are supposed to be a COMPACT OF SOVEREIGN STATES - it was NEVER their intent to form a nation. The powers conferred to the central government were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED . The authority to confer citizenship was NEVER GRANTED TO WASHINGTON DC. The Constitution (1787) has NEVER been amended. 

So don't give me this bullshit about being a "nation of laws" but then try to convince us that  a statute trumps the Constitution, the supremacy clause nothwithstanding.

*"In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."


James Madison
Federalist #39

*

.


----------



## California Girl

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> We are supposed to be a COMPACT OF SOVEREIGN STATES - it was NEVER their intent to form a nation. The powers conferred to the central government were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED . The authority to confer citizenship was NEVER GRANTED TO WASHINGTON DC. The Constitution (1787) has NEVER been amended.
> 
> So don't give me this bullshit about being a "nation of laws" but then try to convince us that  a statute trumps the Constitution, the supremacy clause nothwithstanding.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're welcome to carry on trying to discuss the topic with me, but the only response you're gonna get is....

Fuck you, dog breath.


----------



## BuddyColt

Contumacious,

I never thought about it in the terms you expressed.  Even if we are a nation of laws the United States Supreme Court was unequivocal in their opinion that if any law conflicts with the Constitution is void.

The numbers of people willing to hire the undocumented foreigner at risk of being tried on felony charges has made the law of no effect.  The government could not enforce the laws against employers equally without shutting America down completely.

For people like California Girl, she doesn't give two hoots in hell about any nation of laws.  She just wants the country rid of little brown people.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can insult people all day, but you and I know, beyond any reasonable doubt that you could not get through high school.
> 
> You've bitched and wailed about "_illegal immigration_" hoping that somebody would pull you out of the ditch and make your case.  You probably failed at most of what you did in life and picking Internet fights makes you feel good about yourself.
> 
> You might snow some of the people on this board, but when you can't tell the difference between 8 and 18; between improper and illegal; and between right and wrong, you are simply following a multitude to do evil.  Why B.S. each other?  Your avatar is probably deceptive; your posts are misleading; you have not addressed a single fact.  In short, you're lazy and you need someone else equally misguided to carry your sorry ass while you ride on the backs of others.
> 
> You are first a blister... that's what shows up AFTER the work is done and secondly you are a political propaganda prostitute.  What you are NOT is a legitimate American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal.
> 
> And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb fuck about me. Twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California Girl,
> 
> You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself.  Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy"  Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic?  Do you smoke dope?
> 
> *IF* you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.
> 
> I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal.  The word improper does not mean illegal.  THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about.  You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper *is not* illegal.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you.  We live in a Republic.  As such, all men are created equal.  We have an *unalienable Right* to Liberty.  If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law.  That's* exactly *what the American people are doing relative to immigration.  Those that *invite* the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do.  The government chooses not to regulate immigration.  You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws.  It's not illegal.  It's improper.  Your side LOST.  HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law.  If you're lost, read the thread.  It's only been covered a half a dozen times.
> 
> In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny.  The United States Supreme Court opined:
> 
> " _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)
> 
> 
> As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them.  They *could* regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.  That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.
Click to expand...


BuddyPopgun:

You lie.

I quoted the law to you, you dishonest maggot.  

That law DOES provide that illegal entry IS a crime, specifically, it's a misdemeanor the first time.  And for a second offense it is a felony, even.

Accordingly, since you can't post without relying on your dishonesty, your credibility  on the topic is officially zero.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of the thread is absolutely true
> 
> The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And  -- secondly -- they  are not Aryans.
> 
> The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents  a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I would have to guess that you try to hold yourself out to be an authority on the law when you don't know anything, but the moderators should shut your name calling down.  There is a response directed to people just like you... in this case directed at you:\
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us
> 
> All your bullshit is answered withing the first four posts of this thread.  The rest is answered in the above link.
> 
> 
> You are wrong and you are blathering stupidly.
> 
> They are aliens because they are not U.S. citizens.  They come from other lands.
> 
> They are here illegally because our LAW says what *legal* entry is, and when they come in by OTHER means they are breaking our law.
> 
> That YOU (being the pathetic fucking moron you are) do not CARE for the law or ascribe racist motivation to some or all of it is not illuminating -- except to underscore that you have silly opinions.  Because, whether YOU like a law or not has nothing to do with whether or not it IS the law.  And the law in question DOES impose CRIMINAL penalties for the violation thereof.  That makes it a "CRIMINAL" Law.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I would have to guess that you try to hold yourself out to be an authority on the law when you don't know anything, but the moderators should shut your name calling down.  There is a response directed to people just like you... in this case directed at you:\
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Enemies Among Us
> 
> All your bullshit is answered withing the first four posts of this thread.  The rest is answered in the above link.
Click to expand...


Whining like you do when your imbecility has been documented only makes you come across as even more of a pussy, you fucking cock bite.

Helpful tip!


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability,

You have only shown that you have the ability to lie.  Other than that, you don't have a good comprehension of our laws nor any consideration for Liberty.

You are the one whining about a "_legal_" alien versus an_ illegal_ (sic) one.  The statutory term is* improper entry*.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal or unlawful neither in legal terminology or in simple English.

You can scream and do all the name calling you like.  You're trying to compensate for some shortcoming.  Perhaps you realize that you are part of a mob that wants to force their opinion on the world, but realizing with each passing year, you're failing and you're losing.

Maybe you do all that expletive deleted type language because you are worried about your lack of intelligence, or as the psychologists might surmise, you are trying to compensate for a small dick.  In any event, none of it impresses me.

You will either have a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship OR one day, the Hispanics will have enough political clout to make this a moot argument.  That's your choices and next year, without the Guest Worker program, the fastest growing demographic in our society will be another step closer to rendering this argument inconsequential.


----------



## High_Gravity

I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.


----------



## High_Gravity

California Girl said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> We are supposed to be a COMPACT OF SOVEREIGN STATES - it was NEVER their intent to form a nation. The powers conferred to the central government were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED . The authority to confer citizenship was NEVER GRANTED TO WASHINGTON DC. The Constitution (1787) has NEVER been amended.
> 
> So don't give me this bullshit about being a "nation of laws" but then try to convince us that  a statute trumps the Constitution, the supremacy clause nothwithstanding.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome to carry on trying to discuss the topic with me, but the only response you're gonna get is....
> 
> Fuck you, dog breath.
Click to expand...


----------



## BuddyColt

High_Gravity said:


> I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.



My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.
Click to expand...


Ok than, I will notify Mali and Somalia all their citizens can just come here and live.


----------



## BuddyColt

High_Gravity said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in awe that people think anyone from any country can just waltz into the US and do whatever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok than, I will notify Mali and Somalia all their citizens can just come here and live.
Click to expand...


If they find willing employers that want to hire them, a willing landlord willing to rent to them and stores willing to sell to them, on what basis do you want to exclude them?  

Let's presuppose that you have an argument.  Make it.

How do you propose to limit the Liberties of another person?

How deep do you want the government in YOUR private life?

OR, are you making that argument that the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that is only inclusive of the white race?

Are you not aware of the_ equal protection_ clause of Constitution?  You know, it's applied to ALL PERSONS as differentiated from just the citizens.  Any infringement on the Liberties of ANY PERSON can and must used against you as well.  

So, at what limits are you advocating?


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My forefathers did it and established the Constitution you live under today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok than, I will notify Mali and Somalia all their citizens can just come here and live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they find willing employers that want to hire them, a willing landlord willing to rent to them and stores willing to sell to them, on what basis do you want to exclude them?
> 
> Let's presuppose that you have an argument.  Make it.
> 
> How do you propose to limit the Liberties of another person?
> 
> How deep do you want the government in YOUR private life?
> 
> OR, are you making that argument that the Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that is only inclusive of the white race?
> 
> Are you not aware of the_ equal protection_ clause of Constitution?  You know, it's applied to ALL PERSONS as differentiated from just the citizens.  Any infringement on the Liberties of ANY PERSON can and must used against you as well.
> 
> So, at what limits are you advocating?
Click to expand...


So you are saying according to the Constitution, America is open to anyone everywhere in the world? most illegals who come here don't have a job until they arrive, so why should the Somalis be any different? they should just be able to come right?


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You started the thread.... so, technically, it is you that is 'bitching' about illegal immigration. We are a Republic, not a democracy... a Republic... a nation of laws. One of those laws references the legal way to enter our nation. If one takes an alternative route, one is breaking our laws.... ergo, committing an illegal act. Therefore, the term 'illegal immigrant'.... for the record, I don't give a rats ass what country that person comes from, nor do I give a rats ass what color that person's skin happens to be. Illegal is illegal.
> 
> And.... for the record, not only did i manage to complete high school... I managed to get through several years at an Ivy League school, followed by another year at a 'redbrick' (the UK equivalent of our Ivy League)... So, not only are you wrong about illegal immigration, you're also a dumb fuck about me. Twit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl,
> 
> You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself.  Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy"  Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic?  Do you smoke dope?
> 
> *IF* you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.
> 
> I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal.  The word improper does not mean illegal.  THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about.  You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper *is not* illegal.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you.  We live in a Republic.  As such, all men are created equal.  We have an *unalienable Right* to Liberty.  If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law.  That's* exactly *what the American people are doing relative to immigration.  Those that *invite* the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do.  The government chooses not to regulate immigration.  You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws.  It's not illegal.  It's improper.  Your side LOST.  HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law.  If you're lost, read the thread.  It's only been covered a half a dozen times.
> 
> In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny.  The United States Supreme Court opined:
> 
> " _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)
> 
> 
> As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them.  They *could* regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.  That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BuddyPopgun:
> 
> You lie.
> 
> I quoted the law to you, you dishonest maggot.
> 
> That law DOES provide that illegal entry IS a crime, specifically, it's a misdemeanor the first time.  And for a second offense it is a felony, even.
> 
> Accordingly, since you can't post without relying on your dishonesty, your credibility  on the topic is officially zero*.
Click to expand...


If you quoted the law, show it to me.  Where?  What statute says it is a crime to enter or be in the United States?  Did you tell the Dept. of Homeland  (IN) Security?  Did you tell any of the many U.S. Attorneys?  Have you told the LEO community?  Have you told the Attorney General that rules on immigration laws?  

I've been to all of them, sir.  They disagree with you.  The only statute anybody has provided has been Title 8 USC 1325.  It's a civil law and not a criminal one.  Title 8 USC 1325 references Title 18 of the United States Code to impose criminal penalties.  Improper Entry is* not* a Title 18 crime. The criminal penalties are for things like lying to authorities, eluding authorities, etc.  They are Title 18 crimes.   If you cannot show me Improper Entry in Title 18, then it ain't no crime.  End of story.  The proof is when your own poster boy and attorney proposed a law to change the Title 8 USC 1325  and make it Unlawful Entry instead of Improper Entry.  That bill failed, sir.

What law are you relying on?  Where is the statute that says it is a crime to enter the United States or be here without papers?  You have not made a reference to any law that contradicts what those in the business of immigration are aware of.  

Quit trying to provoke a fight that you aren't willing to get in and answer the damn questions.  Show us this elusive law.  The LEOs can't find; judges can't find it, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security can't find it.  They all disagree with you.

So, enlighten us or STFU.  Let me clue you in you stupid, mother fucking idiot:  The law is not about "Illegal" Entry.  Illegal and Improper are not synonyms in the English language you non English speaking, living abortion.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl,
> 
> You are so full of yourself that you should marry yourself.  Don't you recall in post # 28 you were trying to be sarcastic and said "Oh cool, you hate democracy"  Now, you're trying to lecture me about living in a Republic?  Do you smoke dope?
> 
> *IF* you graduated anything above high school, you should use this thread as evidence that you need to sue and get your money back.
> 
> I would agree that illegal is illegal; however, you have not cited a single, solitary statute in the United States Code that says coming here or being here is illegal.  The word improper does not mean illegal.  THAT'S what this entire pissing match is about.  You ignorant people are too lazy to get a dictionary and find out that improper *is not* illegal.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you.  We live in a Republic.  As such, all men are created equal.  We have an *unalienable Right* to Liberty.  If a law is passed that infringes upon our Liberty, we can ignore that law.  That's* exactly *what the American people are doing relative to immigration.  Those that *invite* the foreigner here have just as many Rights as you do.  The government chooses not to regulate immigration.  You cannot prohibit it... and that's what is being done by not updating the laws.  It's not illegal.  It's improper.  Your side LOST.  HR 4437 was NOT enacted into law.  If you're lost, read the thread.  It's only been covered a half a dozen times.
> 
> In this Republic, the people have reserved to legally reject your ideas on tyranny.  The United States Supreme Court opined:
> 
> " _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)
> 
> 
> As long as there are willing employers and willing landlords, the laws cannot discriminate against them.  They *could* regulate immigration, but not prohibit it.  That is why you are going to lose in the final analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BuddyPopgun:
> 
> You lie.
> 
> I quoted the law to you, you dishonest maggot.
> 
> That law DOES provide that illegal entry IS a crime, specifically, it's a misdemeanor the first time.  And for a second offense it is a felony, even.
> 
> Accordingly, since you can't post without relying on your dishonesty, your credibility  on the topic is officially zero*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you quoted the law, show it to me.  Where?  What statute says it is a crime to enter or be in the United States?  Did you tell the Dept. of Homeland  (IN) Security?  Did you tell any of the many U.S. Attorneys?  Have you told the LEO community?  Have you told the Attorney General that rules on immigration laws?
> 
> I've been to all of them, sir.  They disagree with you.  The only statute anybody has provided has been Title 8 USC 1325.  It's a civil law and not a criminal one.  Title 8 USC 1325 references Title 18 of the United States Code to impose criminal penalties.  Improper Entry is* not* a Title 18 crime. The criminal penalties are for things like lying to authorities, eluding authorities, etc.  They are Title 18 crimes.   If you cannot show me Improper Entry in Title 18, then it ain't no crime.  End of story.  The proof is when your own poster boy and attorney proposed a law to change the Title 8 USC 1325  and make it Unlawful Entry instead of Improper Entry.  That bill failed, sir.
> 
> What law are you relying on?  Where is the statute that says it is a crime to enter the United States or be here without papers?  You have not made a reference to any law that contradicts what those in the business of immigration are aware of.
> 
> Quit trying to provoke a fight that you aren't willing to get in and answer the damn questions.  Show us this elusive law.  The LEOs can't find; judges can't find it, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security can't find it.  They all disagree with you.
> 
> So, enlighten us or STFU.  Let me clue you in you stupid, mother fucking idiot:  The law is not about "Illegal" Entry.  Illegal and Improper are not synonyms in the English language you non English speaking, living abortion.
Click to expand...


Go back and re-read, you fully dishonest, dishonorable and lazy piece of crap.

Any law that provides for incarceration for a violation is a criminal law.  

What I posted concerned Title 8 of the U.S. Code, you moron:



> *8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien*
> 
> (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.*



I took the liberty of highlighting the portion that provides for the* criminal penalties,* you dishonest hack shit head.  AS I told you already, no statute that provides for criminal penalties is anything other than a criminal law.  A violator of that law commits a CRIME.  Words have meaning, you fuckwit.

I also highlighted a snippet at the end of the quoted extract.  I realize that it will sail over your pin head, but what that final portion means is that there are ALSO civil penalties, not civil penalties alone.  That re-establishes that entering outside the provisions of that law constitutes a CRIME.

And nobody disagrees with that, you sub-moron lying sack of shit.


----------



## Liability

BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.



If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.

595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc.  Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition

But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.
> 
> 595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc.  Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition
> 
> But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.



Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with *eluding authorities*, NOT improper entry.  This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.

*Eluding authorities *is a crime, punishable according to the standards of Title 18 that defines crimes.  The man was not charged with improper entry... which is NOT a crime in Title 18.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.
> 
> 595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc.  Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition
> 
> But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with *eluding authorities*, NOT improper entry.  This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.
Click to expand...


I don't have the time to teach you how to read and comprehend those "word" things, you blithering dishonest hack piece of crap.

8 U.S.C § 1325 is a CRIME.

Besides which, I cited TWO different cases and a legal reference book and your idiotic "reply" refers to "the" guy.

I also don't have the time or inclination to dig up for your ignorant benefit a multitude of criminal cases involving the violation and prosecution for the violation of that law.  But skim the excerpt of the reference work and see how many cases are prosecuted in the border areas for the criminal violation of the immigration laws.  





> In
> fiscal year 2008, 28.2% of all federal criminal prosecutions were for immigration
> offenses.3 Immigration offenses make up a disproportionately high percent of
> prosecutions in the border districts
> of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern and
> Western Texas: 70.2% of all federal criminal prosecutions in New
> Mexico in 2008; 72.7% in the Southern District of Texas; 47.2% in the
> Western District of Texas; 61.9% in the Southern District of
> California; and 58.1% in the District of Arizona.


 Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition


----------



## Contumacious

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.
> 
> 595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc.  Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition
> 
> But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with *eluding authorities*, NOT improper entry.  This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.
> 
> Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.
Click to expand...


Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

**NO FAMILY*

Go fig.

.


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.
> 
> 595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc.  Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition
> 
> But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with *eluding authorities*, NOT improper entry.  This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.
> 
> Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.
> 
> **NO FAMILY*
> 
> Go fig.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.

Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law.  Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.

You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.

You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.

Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest  pissant.

,


;


-

,


----------



## High_Gravity

Contumacious said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyPopgun maintains that nobody in the U.S. Government considers 8 U.S.C. §1325 a criminal statute.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, we shouldn't be able to find ANY hint of any criminal prosecution of ANYBODY EVER for the crime of improper entry.
> 
> 595 F.2d 1192: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Francisco Rincon-jimenez, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> There are even practice books, written for criminal practitioners, about the criminal DEFENSE of criminal charges under 8 U.S.C §1325, etc.  Defending the Crime of Illegal Entry and Reentry - Chapter 15 - Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense - 3rd Edition
> 
> But the courts and the lawyer/scholar/authors, etc., all don't know as much as BuddyPopgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with *eluding authorities*, NOT improper entry.  This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.
> 
> Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.
> 
> **NO FAMILY*
> 
> Go fig.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Insulting family is against the rules here you stupid ass cock sucker.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with *eluding authorities*, NOT improper entry.  This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.
> 
> Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.
> 
> Lie_ability is po'd because he wife left him for an illegal alien.
> 
> Go fig.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.
> 
> Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law.  Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.
> 
> You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.
> 
> You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.
> 
> Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest  pissant.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> -
> 
> ,
Click to expand...


Liability has the time to try and prove he's 100 percent wrong, but everybody has their "_dog in the fight_" and somebody today attacked me, accusing me of having a family member that was one of those "_illegal_" aliens.

Liability cannot read.  Sure, there are immigration crimes as per his statistics, but improper entry is not one of them.  He claims I'm lying, but I have the words of the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES telling him that crossing the border is not a crime... nor is presence without papers.

A conviction for eluding the authorities is mentioned in Title 8, but it is *prosecuted *as a Title 18 crime.  Improper Entry is not mentioned in Title 18.

Liability is a liability to good common sense.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.
> 
> Lie_ability is po'd because he wife left him for an illegal alien.
> 
> Go fig.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.
> 
> Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law.  Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.
> 
> You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.
> 
> You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.
> 
> Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest  pissant.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> -
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liability has the time to try and prove he's 100 percent wrong, but everybody has their "_dog in the fight_" and somebody today attacked me, accusing me of having a family member that was one of those "_illegal_" aliens.
> 
> Liability cannot read.  Sure, there are immigration crimes as per his statistics, but improper entry is not one of them.  He claims I'm lying, but I have the words of the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES telling him that crossing the border is not a crime... nor is presence without papers.
> 
> A conviction for eluding the authorities is mentioned in Title 8, but it is *prosecuted *as a Title 18 crime.  Improper Entry is not mentioned in Title 18.
> 
> Liability is a liability to good common sense.
Click to expand...


I didn't insult your family, I said you have a family member or loved one who is an illegal because you are so angry and worked up over this subject, and you want all the illegals to be able to stay because of that person or people.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.
> 
> Lie_ability is po'd because he wife left him for an illegal alien.
> 
> Go fig.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.
> 
> Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law.  Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.
> 
> You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.
> 
> You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.
> 
> Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest  pissant.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> -
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liability has the time to try and prove he's 100 percent wrong, but everybody has their "_dog in the fight_" and somebody today attacked me, accusing me of having a family member that was one of those "_illegal_" aliens.
> 
> Liability cannot read.  Sure, there are immigration crimes as per his statistics, but improper entry is not one of them.  He claims I'm lying, but I have the words of the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES telling him that crossing the border is not a crime... nor is presence without papers.
> 
> A conviction for eluding the authorities is mentioned in Title 8, but it is *prosecuted *as a Title 18 crime.  Improper Entry is not mentioned in Title 18.
> 
> * * * *
Click to expand...


You are merely denying the law and the cases which prove you --without question -- to be flatly wrong.

I credit this to your dishonesty.

*I* said nothing whatsoever about your family -- but your fellow idiotic sub-moron pal, Confusedatious -- did say something about my wife.  Nice of you to try to deflect for him. 







  from:  Prosecuting Immigration [eScholarship]

That ^ there is a whole lot of criminal prosecution for allleged *non* crimes.

But ass-hats like BuddyPopgun continue to imagine they have a point.  

They don't.


----------



## Liability

And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.

No surprise.

But the truth is:  the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.

Fact.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.
> 
> No surprise.
> 
> But the truth is:  the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.
> 
> Fact.



Having worked in immigration law for six years and *HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.*

Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving* improper entry* are civil cases and not crimes.  I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.

The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities.  BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.

Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him.  Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face.  So, tell me again, all about honesty.  

Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.


----------



## BuddyColt

In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:

_They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists}  have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I&#8217;ve challenged them to a public debate &#8211; one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they* turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you*. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:_

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=531&mforum=outcastsandoutl
Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration.  So, here is the truth: 

*It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers*.

No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.

The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime.  It isn't.  The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal.  It doesn't.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature.  The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving *eluding authorities* as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.

These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked.  Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the *due process of law*.

In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings.  Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts.  The xenophobes have failed to read them.  They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> Having worked in immigration law for six years and *HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.*



Thats ridiculous, I'm not buying it.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.
> 
> No surprise.
> 
> But the truth is:  the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having worked in immigration law for six years and *HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.*
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving* improper entry* are civil cases and not crimes.  I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.
> 
> The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities.  BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.
> 
> Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him.  Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face.  So, tell me again, all about honesty.
> 
> Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.
Click to expand...


If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.  

Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.  

The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.

BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest.  No big thing.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.
> 
> No surprise.
> 
> But the truth is:  the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having worked in immigration law for six years and *HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.*
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving* improper entry* are civil cases and not crimes.  I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.
> 
> The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities.  BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.
> 
> Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him.  Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face.  So, tell me again, all about honesty.
> 
> Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.
> 
> Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.
> 
> The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.
> 
> BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest.  No big thing.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU.  Desperation is really setting in.  I'm going to do another post just for you.  It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having worked in immigration law for six years and *HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.*
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving* improper entry* are civil cases and not crimes.  I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.
> 
> The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities.  BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.
> 
> Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him.  Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face.  So, tell me again, all about honesty.
> 
> Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.
> 
> Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.
> 
> The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.
> 
> BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest.  No big thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU.  Desperation is really setting in.  I'm going to do another post just for you.  It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...
Click to expand...


Motherfucker you are sitting here with a straight face saying coming into the US illegally is not a crime, if anyone is desperate its your dumb ass.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having worked in immigration law for six years and *HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.*
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving* improper entry* are civil cases and not crimes.  I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.
> 
> The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities.  BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.
> 
> Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him.  Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face.  So, tell me again, all about honesty.
> 
> Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.
> 
> Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.
> 
> The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.
> 
> BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest.  No big thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU.  Desperation is really setting in.  I'm going to do another post just for you.  It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...
Click to expand...



Yes.  Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.

And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.

So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.

This is your M.O.  None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.

In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004) 



> OPINION
> 
> T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:
> 
> The Government appeals the district court's sentencing of Defendant Elisa Rodriguez-Gonzales to two consecutive six-month terms for two illegal entries into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. The Government argues that the court was required to impose the statutory maximum term of twenty-four months' imprisonment for the second violation because it was a subsequent commission under § 1325. The district court held that it could not impose the statutory maximum because the Government failed to charge the second entry specifically as a second violation. The district court held that it had to treat the two violations independently and thus imposed two six-month sentences for two distinct violations. We affirm.



Oh Nozies!  An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.  



> I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
> 
> On or about May 29, 1988, and again on or about December 14, 1999, Rodriguez-Gonzales illegally entered the United States. On July 11, 2002, Rodriguez-Gonzales was found in San Bernardino County, California. The Government first charged
> 
> Page 1158
> 
> her with one count of illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the Government's promise to recommend a thirty-month sentence. However, when the court announced its intention to follow the presentence report's recommendation of between fifty-seven and seventy-one months, Rodriguez-Gonzales withdrew her guilty plea.
> 
> On October 9, 2002, the Government filed a second superseding information charging Rodriguez-Gonzales with two separate counts of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Rodriguez-Gonzales again entered into a plea agreement with the Government in which she admitted to the two illegal entries. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) imposes a maximum six-month sentence for a first illegal entry, and raises the penalty to a maximum of twenty-four months "for a subsequent commission of any such offense,"1 both parties believed that, as in the previous agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales' plea would subject her to a maximum thirty-month prison term.
> 
> On October 10, 2002, pursuant to the parties' plea agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty before the district court to the two-count second superseding information. The district court noted that the information did not state that the second count was a subsequent entry. At sentencing on October 16, 2002, the district court explained its belief that, for the twenty-four-month statutory maximum to apply to the second count, the Government had to specifically plead that the second count was a second entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Because the Government hadn't done so, the district court held that Rodriguez-Gonzales had pleaded guilty to two distinct illegal entries in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and sentenced her to two consecutive six-month sentences. The Government filed this timely appeal.





> B. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) a Prior Conviction Must be Charged
> 
> The existence of a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony. A prior conviction is therefore more than a sentencing factor, and we conclude that it must be charged explicitly. In Apprendi,13 the Supreme Court held that a jury must find all facts that increase the prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.14 Apprendi specifically noted that Almendarez-Torres stands as a narrow exception to this rule.15 The Government argues that the Almendarez-Torres exception instructs this court to hold that any prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement and therefore need not be charged. However, we hold that because a subsequent commission under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) changes the nature of the crime, the prior commission must be charged.
> 
> In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was charged with illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Any violation of § 1326 constitutes a felony. However, if a defendant has been previously convicted of certain other offenses, the maximum sentence increases.16 The defendant in Almendarez-Torres had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony but claimed he could not be subject to the increased prison term because his prior felony conviction was not charged in his indictment. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 "simply authorizes an enhanced sentence" and is therefore not subject to Apprendi and need not be charged in the indictment.17
> 
> We note that Almendarez-Torres does not conflict with our holding in this case. Almendarez-Torres stated that an indictment "need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime."18 The case did not address the precise situation here, in which not merely the sentence, but the nature of the crime changes. Moreover, Almendarez-Torres specifically recognized that "[a]n indictment must set forth each element of the crime it charges."19 We have previously held, and the Government has conceded, that a "previous conviction for illegal entry is an element of the felony offense [of § 1325]."20 Further, this court has stated that "[a]bsent proof of a former `conviction,' the [defendant should not be given] a felony sentence."21 Accordingly, our conclusion that the Government had to charge Rodriguez-Gonzales' prior illegal entry in violation of § 1325 in the indictment's second count follows Ninth Circuit law and does not conflict with Almendarez-Torres.
> 
> A felony versus a misdemeanor conviction has serious ramifications for a defendant. For example, felons, but not misdemeanants, are denied the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and may have significant difficulty in finding gainful employment.22 Due to the ramifications of a felony
> 
> Page 1161
> 
> conviction, this court will not expand Almendarez-Torres, which the Supreme Court has cautioned us to treat as a "narrow exception" to Apprendi's general rule.23 This conclusion comports with the long-standing law that each count charged against a defendant must stand on its own. It is also easily reconciled with Almendarez-Torres because a prior commission affects not merely the defendant's sentence, but the very nature of his crime.
> 
> Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Each count in an information must stand on its own, and Count Two did not incorporate Count One. Because the statute changes the substantive nature of a second illegal reentry from a misdemeanor to a felony, the fact of a previous entry is more than a sentencing factor and must be charged explicitly. The Government did not do so here, and therefore, the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and sentenced her accordingly. Thus, we affirm.
> 
> Conviction AFFIRMED.



There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing.  Criminal statute.  Criminal prosecution.  Criminal conviction.  Criminal SENTENCING.  Why?

Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability is tearing this clown a new asshole.


----------



## BuddyColt

*WHEN IS A CRIME NOT A CRIME?*

The legal community bandies about some words very freely.  Once we repeat a lie over and over, it becomes accepted as fact and sometimes some end up having repeated a lie so often, they don't know what the difference is.

For instance, the word prejudiced is used against anyone that expresses a negative comment about someone based upon race.  However, prejudice means you came to the conclusion _without thought, knowledge, or reason_.  If you apply thought, knowledge or reason to the situation, it is NOT prejudice.  Has that *fact* ever changed the way people use the word?

For over a hundred posts, I have endured hatemongers that would destroy our form of government in order to win a concession about their pet issue: immigration.  They would sacrifice the entire Constitution in order to win that battle, but for me to allow a false win would be to accept defeat for the Constitution.

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor be in the United States without papers.  All of the top immigration officials in the United States have said so and, in my experience, that is the way they have ruled.  But, why is there is such confusion?

Attorney General Michael Mukasey stated:

_Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,_ 

Mukasey:

In order for a _"crime_" to exist, you have to prove mens rea.  In Latin they use the phrase actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

When a neighbor crosses our borders, especially from Mexico, in most instances they are coming here to engage in lawful pursuits.  These are people that do not understand English and many of them lived in the most primitive conditions you could imagine.  So, crossing the border remains a _civil_ infraction of the law.  It does not rise to the level of a crime.

On the other hand, if someone were *eluding* the authorities, it's pretty cut and dried that the authorities saw this individual and the individual saw them.  If they did not *KNOW* it was wrong to cross the border, they would not run.  There you have a crime based upon an event involving immigration.  It is called* Eluding the authorities*.  If nobody *sees* an immigrant enter the United States, there is no way possible to determine their state of mind.  You cannot determine their state of mind.  No mens rea, no crime.  

Some offenses are* statutory crimes*.  For example, if a person enters the United States without papers it is a civil violation.  Do it repeatedly and it becomes a crime.  

The real problem we have in discussing immigration is that lawyers and judges in their general talk and writing inadvertently bandy about terms that simply are not accurate.  For example, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security talks about "illegal" immigration and then states as a matter of fact, _"crossing the border without papers is not a crime_".  A simple faux pas in modern language is all it has taken to confuse the hell out of people.  Even Michael Mukasey would talk about _"unlawful entry_" in the very ruling where he states that entry is not a criminal act.  *There is no statute for unlawful entry*.  The fact that Title 8 USC 1325 issues dealing with improper entry ought to be enough, but it's not for the xenophobes.  Luckily, you can learn the differences between civil law and criminal law and learn WHY it's imperative that you understand.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

Again, the importance of this aspect is made apparent within the first postings on this thread and the links contained therein.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.
> 
> Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.
> 
> The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.
> 
> BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest.  No big thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU.  Desperation is really setting in.  I'm going to do another post just for you.  It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.
> 
> And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.
> 
> So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.
> 
> This is your M.O.  None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.
> 
> In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:
> 
> U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Nozies!  An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
> 
> On or about May 29, 1988, and again on or about December 14, 1999, Rodriguez-Gonzales illegally entered the United States. On July 11, 2002, Rodriguez-Gonzales was found in San Bernardino County, California. The Government first charged
> 
> Page 1158
> 
> her with one count of illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the Government's promise to recommend a thirty-month sentence. However, when the court announced its intention to follow the presentence report's recommendation of between fifty-seven and seventy-one months, Rodriguez-Gonzales withdrew her guilty plea.
> 
> On October 9, 2002, the Government filed a second superseding information charging Rodriguez-Gonzales with two separate counts of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Rodriguez-Gonzales again entered into a plea agreement with the Government in which she admitted to the two illegal entries. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) imposes a maximum six-month sentence for a first illegal entry, and raises the penalty to a maximum of twenty-four months "for a subsequent commission of any such offense,"1 both parties believed that, as in the previous agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales' plea would subject her to a maximum thirty-month prison term.
> 
> On October 10, 2002, pursuant to the parties' plea agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty before the district court to the two-count second superseding information. The district court noted that the information did not state that the second count was a subsequent entry. At sentencing on October 16, 2002, the district court explained its belief that, for the twenty-four-month statutory maximum to apply to the second count, the Government had to specifically plead that the second count was a second entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Because the Government hadn't done so, the district court held that Rodriguez-Gonzales had pleaded guilty to two distinct illegal entries in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and sentenced her to two consecutive six-month sentences. The Government filed this timely appeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) a Prior Conviction Must be Charged
> 
> The existence of a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony. A prior conviction is therefore more than a sentencing factor, and we conclude that it must be charged explicitly. In Apprendi,13 the Supreme Court held that a jury must find all facts that increase the prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.14 Apprendi specifically noted that Almendarez-Torres stands as a narrow exception to this rule.15 The Government argues that the Almendarez-Torres exception instructs this court to hold that any prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement and therefore need not be charged. However, we hold that because a subsequent commission under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) changes the nature of the crime, the prior commission must be charged.
> 
> In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was charged with illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Any violation of § 1326 constitutes a felony. However, if a defendant has been previously convicted of certain other offenses, the maximum sentence increases.16 The defendant in Almendarez-Torres had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony but claimed he could not be subject to the increased prison term because his prior felony conviction was not charged in his indictment. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 "simply authorizes an enhanced sentence" and is therefore not subject to Apprendi and need not be charged in the indictment.17
> 
> We note that Almendarez-Torres does not conflict with our holding in this case. Almendarez-Torres stated that an indictment "need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime."18 The case did not address the precise situation here, in which not merely the sentence, but the nature of the crime changes. Moreover, Almendarez-Torres specifically recognized that "[a]n indictment must set forth each element of the crime it charges."19 We have previously held, and the Government has conceded, that a "previous conviction for illegal entry is an element of the felony offense [of § 1325]."20 Further, this court has stated that "[a]bsent proof of a former `conviction,' the [defendant should not be given] a felony sentence."21 Accordingly, our conclusion that the Government had to charge Rodriguez-Gonzales' prior illegal entry in violation of § 1325 in the indictment's second count follows Ninth Circuit law and does not conflict with Almendarez-Torres.
> 
> A felony versus a misdemeanor conviction has serious ramifications for a defendant. For example, felons, but not misdemeanants, are denied the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and may have significant difficulty in finding gainful employment.22 Due to the ramifications of a felony
> 
> Page 1161
> 
> conviction, this court will not expand Almendarez-Torres, which the Supreme Court has cautioned us to treat as a "narrow exception" to Apprendi's general rule.23 This conclusion comports with the long-standing law that each count charged against a defendant must stand on its own. It is also easily reconciled with Almendarez-Torres because a prior commission affects not merely the defendant's sentence, but the very nature of his crime.
> 
> Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Each count in an information must stand on its own, and Count Two did not incorporate Count One. Because the statute changes the substantive nature of a second illegal reentry from a misdemeanor to a felony, the fact of a previous entry is more than a sentencing factor and must be charged explicitly. The Government did not do so here, and therefore, the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and sentenced her accordingly. Thus, we affirm.
> 
> Conviction AFFIRMED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing.  Criminal statute.  Criminal prosecution.  Criminal conviction.  Criminal SENTENCING.  Why?
> 
> Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.
Click to expand...

 
All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one.  You tried to prove that *improper entry* was a crime using a case involving* eluding authorities*  and that case was* OVERTURNED*!  

But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with.  But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow.  And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do.  You should read the opening posts in this thread.  You should click on the links and read them.  You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.

The defendant admitted to *more than* an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> *WHEN IS A CRIME NOT A CRIME?*
> 
> The legal community bandies about some words very freely.  Once we repeat a lie over and over, it becomes accepted as fact and sometimes some end up having repeated a lie so often, they don't know what the difference is.
> 
> For instance, the word prejudiced is used against anyone that expresses a negative comment about someone based upon race.  However, prejudice means you came to the conclusion _without thought, knowledge, or reason_.  If you apply thought, knowledge or reason to the situation, it is NOT prejudice.  Has that *fact* ever changed the way people use the word?
> 
> For over a hundred posts, I have endured hatemongers that would destroy our form of government in order to win a concession about their pet issue: immigration.  They would sacrifice the entire Constitution in order to win that battle, but for me to allow a false win would be to accept defeat for the Constitution.
> 
> It is not a crime to enter the United States nor be in the United States without papers.  All of the top immigration officials in the United States have said so and, in my experience, that is the way they have ruled.  But, why is there is such confusion?
> 
> Attorney General Michael Mukasey stated:
> 
> _Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,_
> 
> Mukasey:
> 
> In order for a _"crime_" to exist, you have to prove mens rea.  In Latin they use the phrase actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".
> 
> When a neighbor crosses our borders, especially from Mexico, in most instances they are coming here to engage in lawful pursuits.  These are people that do not understand English and many of them lived in the most primitive conditions you could imagine.  So, crossing the border remains a _civil_ infraction of the law.  It does not rise to the level of a crime.
> 
> On the other hand, if someone were *eluding* the authorities, it's pretty cut and dried that the authorities saw this individual and the individual saw them.  If they did not *KNOW* it was wrong to cross the border, they would not run.  There you have a crime based upon an event involving immigration.  It is called* Eluding the authorities*.  If nobody *sees* an immigrant enter the United States, there is no way possible to determine their state of mind.  You cannot determine their state of mind.  No mens rea, no crime.
> 
> Some offenses are* statutory crimes*.  For example, if a person enters the United States without papers it is a civil violation.  Do it repeatedly and it becomes a crime.
> 
> The real problem we have in discussing immigration is that lawyers and judges in their general talk and writing inadvertently bandy about terms that simply are not accurate.  For example, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security talks about "illegal" immigration and then states as a matter of fact, _"crossing the border without papers is not a crime_".  A simple faux pas in modern language is all it has taken to confuse the hell out of people.  Even Michael Mukasey would talk about _"unlawful entry_" in the very ruling where he states that entry is not a criminal act.  *There is no statute for unlawful entry*.  The fact that Title 8 USC 1325 issues dealing with improper entry ought to be enough, but it's not for the xenophobes.  Luckily, you can learn the differences between civil law and criminal law and learn WHY it's imperative that you understand.
> 
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2
> 
> Again, the importance of this aspect is made apparent within the first postings on this thread and the links contained therein.



Holy crap.  Your dishonesty and abject ignorance is astounding.

It is TRUE that not every violation of law is a crime.

But it is FALSE that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 is not a crime.

The reason is clear.  The statute *itself* provides criminal penalties for the violation of that law.

Similarly, it is *not* true that all crimes have to have a "_mens rea_."  Most crimes do.  But some crimes are "_per se_" crimes.  

A _malum prohibitum_ offense is criminal because the law says so.  

So while many crimes specifically conjoin a prohibited act (the _actus reus_) with a criminal state of mind requirement (such as intent or knowledge, etc), the _mens rea_,  it is NOT always the case.  SOME crimes require no specific culpable mental state.

But that's besides the point anyway.

The QUESTION is whether illegal entry is a crime.

And it still is.  

And even a dolt like BuddyPeashooter OUGHT to be able to figure that much out.  It's clear:  the law which defines the offense specifies the criminal penalty for its violation.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU.  Desperation is really setting in.  I'm going to do another post just for you.  It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.
> 
> And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.
> 
> So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.
> 
> This is your M.O.  None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.
> 
> In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:
> 
> U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Nozies!  An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) a Prior Conviction Must be Charged
> 
> The existence of a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony. A prior conviction is therefore more than a sentencing factor, and we conclude that it must be charged explicitly. In Apprendi,13 the Supreme Court held that a jury must find all facts that increase the prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.14 Apprendi specifically noted that Almendarez-Torres stands as a narrow exception to this rule.15 The Government argues that the Almendarez-Torres exception instructs this court to hold that any prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement and therefore need not be charged. However, we hold that because a subsequent commission under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) changes the nature of the crime, the prior commission must be charged.
> 
> In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was charged with illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Any violation of § 1326 constitutes a felony. However, if a defendant has been previously convicted of certain other offenses, the maximum sentence increases.16 The defendant in Almendarez-Torres had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony but claimed he could not be subject to the increased prison term because his prior felony conviction was not charged in his indictment. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 "simply authorizes an enhanced sentence" and is therefore not subject to Apprendi and need not be charged in the indictment.17
> 
> We note that Almendarez-Torres does not conflict with our holding in this case. Almendarez-Torres stated that an indictment "need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime."18 The case did not address the precise situation here, in which not merely the sentence, but the nature of the crime changes. Moreover, Almendarez-Torres specifically recognized that "[a]n indictment must set forth each element of the crime it charges."19 We have previously held, and the Government has conceded, that a "previous conviction for illegal entry is an element of the felony offense [of § 1325]."20 Further, this court has stated that "[a]bsent proof of a former `conviction,' the [defendant should not be given] a felony sentence."21 Accordingly, our conclusion that the Government had to charge Rodriguez-Gonzales' prior illegal entry in violation of § 1325 in the indictment's second count follows Ninth Circuit law and does not conflict with Almendarez-Torres.
> 
> A felony versus a misdemeanor conviction has serious ramifications for a defendant. For example, felons, but not misdemeanants, are denied the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and may have significant difficulty in finding gainful employment.22 Due to the ramifications of a felony
> 
> Page 1161
> 
> conviction, this court will not expand Almendarez-Torres, which the Supreme Court has cautioned us to treat as a "narrow exception" to Apprendi's general rule.23 This conclusion comports with the long-standing law that each count charged against a defendant must stand on its own. It is also easily reconciled with Almendarez-Torres because a prior commission affects not merely the defendant's sentence, but the very nature of his crime.
> 
> Each count in an information must stand on its own, and Count Two did not incorporate Count One. Because the statute changes the substantive nature of a second illegal reentry from a misdemeanor to a felony, the fact of a previous entry is more than a sentencing factor and must be charged explicitly. The Government did not do so here, and therefore, the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and sentenced her accordingly. Thus, we affirm.
> 
> Conviction AFFIRMED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing.  Criminal statute.  Criminal prosecution.  Criminal conviction.  Criminal SENTENCING.  Why?
> 
> Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one.  You tried to prove that *improper entry* was a crime using a case involving* eluding authorities*  and that case was* OVERTURNED*!
> 
> But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with.  But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow.  And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do.  You should read the opening posts in this thread.  You should click on the links and read them.  You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.
> 
> The defendant admitted to *more than* an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)
Click to expand...


I cannot help that you cannot fathom what you read.  But I have given you several examples of the CRIME of improper entry.  

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 itself saw the accused accept a plea of GUILTY to 8 U.S.C §1325(a).  





> (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,



FROM the decision:  





> Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.
> 
> And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.
> 
> So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.
> 
> This is your M.O.  None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.
> 
> In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:
> 
> U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Nozies!  An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing.  Criminal statute.  Criminal prosecution.  Criminal conviction.  Criminal SENTENCING.  Why?
> 
> Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one.  You tried to prove that *improper entry* was a crime using a case involving* eluding authorities*  and that case was* OVERTURNED*!
> 
> But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with.  But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow.  And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do.  You should read the opening posts in this thread.  You should click on the links and read them.  You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.
> 
> The defendant admitted to *more than* an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot help that you cannot fathom what you read.  But I have given you several examples of the CRIME of improper entry.
> 
> U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 itself saw the accused accept a plea of GUILTY to 8 U.S.C §1325(a).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FROM the decision:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I cannot help what judges put into their court decisions regarding a statute.  The statute does not read unlawful entry.  Cases where people were tried and convicted have been overturned when challenged.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner tried to have improper entry* changed* to unlawful entry.  IF you were correct, and you are not, there would no need to change the law.

What is it that you don't understand about that?  What is your major malfunction?


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one.  You tried to prove that *improper entry* was a crime using a case involving* eluding authorities*  and that case was* OVERTURNED*!
> 
> But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with.  But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow.  And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do.  You should read the opening posts in this thread.  You should click on the links and read them.  You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.
> 
> The defendant admitted to *more than* an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot help that you cannot fathom what you read.  But I have given you several examples of the CRIME of improper entry.
> 
> U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 itself saw the accused accept a plea of GUILTY to 8 U.S.C §1325(a).
> 
> FROM the decision:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot help what judges put into their court decisions regarding a statute.  The statute does not read unlawful entry.  Cases where people were tried and convicted have been overturned when challenged.
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner tried to have improper entry* changed* to unlawful entry.  IF you were correct, and you are not, there would no need to change the law.
> 
> What is it that you don't understand about that?  What is your major malfunction?
Click to expand...


AGAIN with your incredibly petty quibble.

It SAYS improper entry.

We CALL it illegal entry.

It IS illegal even if it says "improper."

For it's a crime.

You are dim.  And you are entirely dishonest.


----------



## BuddyColt

In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:

They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl
Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.

No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.

The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.

These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.

In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:
> 
> They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when Ive challenged them to a public debate  one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:
> 
> http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl
> Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:
> 
> It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.
> 
> No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.
> 
> The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.
> 
> These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.
> 
> In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.



Nobody CARES what you say or when you previously said it.

They care about whether what you say is right or wrong.

And when you CLAIM that improper entry is not a crime, you are wrong and willfully dishonest.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:
> 
> They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I&#8217;ve challenged them to a public debate &#8211; one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:
> 
> http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl
> Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:
> 
> It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.
> 
> No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.
> 
> The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.
> 
> These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.
> 
> In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody CARES what you say or when you previously said it.
> 
> They care about whether what you say is right or wrong.
> 
> And when you CLAIM that improper entry is not a crime, you are wrong and willfully dishonest.
Click to expand...



You can talk shit all day long on the Internet.  It's stuff you would not say to a man's face.  If anybody is lying, it is you.  I've accurately quoted the top people in the field of immigration.  If I misquoted them, go back to the first four posts on this thread and produce them.

The only thing you've accomplished is to use irrelevant cases, over-turned cases and cases where the issue was *NOT* improper entry.

You sell your shit to the LEO community - they provided some of the information I have.  If you were right, you could make a bundle.  It would beat the shit out of arguing with me and competing with uneducated Hispanics for jobs at Mickey Ds.  

Apparently nobody cares about what you say.  You have a cheering section that is so small, they could fit into the back seat of a Volkswagen and they sport a collective IQ of _maybe_ your shoe size.  I came here with something others had not heard before.

The real issue is, with all your fake bravado; with all your supposed superior intelligence; with your infallible understanding of the immigration laws, how come it is you are on the losing end?  How come all those who are making the decisions are ruling against you?  How do you explain the many different views I produced from the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS in the United States that refute all you've claimed?  

How come people are on here, calling me a liberal, when all my life the position I'm presenting was a* CONSERVATIVE* one?   How come, in order to bolster your case, you have to ask the ACLU?  

Let's face it:  you're getting your ass kicked and you can't walk away.  I've looked at your posts and commented on them.  You've failed to answer the questions I've produced, over and over.  We both know why.  You're full of shit and you realize it.  So, instead of answering honest questions, you throw up a smoke screen.

You're a ball-less little shit that probably got kicked out of the K.K.K. and now you don't know where it is you belong.  Stay safe. Stay on this board and don't wander off where you might have to defend the crap you sling.  You wouldn't talk so big if you had to do it man to man... or in your case boy, man to boy.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone




Can you back up that idiotic claim?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can waltz into any country on this planet, set up camp, become a citizen by simple default, and instantaneously reap the benefits of that citizenship without in turn contributiing to society through some kind of productive effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My case is proven.  See how this dumbass tries to turn the topic into a freaking cartoon and then advocates turning America into a country equal to a socialist dictatorship.
Click to expand...



You thought you were being oh-so clever with this whole 'You're Nazis! Waaaa!' bullshit, didn't you? 



You failed. Grow the fuck up if you really want to discuss the issue.


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Are you one of those extremist idiots who would equate opposition to illegal immigration with racism, xenophobia, and (of course, because lefties get off on this one) Nazism?

Just so we're clear, are you one of those?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You can talk shit all day long on the Internet.  It's stuff you would not say to a man's face.  Stay safe. Stay on this board and don't wander off where you might have to defend the crap you sling.  You wouldn't talk so big if you had to do it man to man... or in your case boy, man to boy.





LOL! Are you a tough guy now, little lefty? LOL!


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
Click to expand...


It appears to me that most of you xenophobes want a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.  

Actually, the Republicans are only telling you what you want to hear.  Insofar as proving that this anti - immigrant horseshit is xenophobia, I've been proving it for a few days on this forum.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears to me that most of you xenophobes want a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.
> 
> Actually, the Republicans are only telling you what you want to hear.  Insofar as proving that this anti - immigrant horseshit is xenophobia, I've been proving it for a few days on this forum.
Click to expand...



Stop spamming and answer the fucking question (since you decided to stick your nose in and answer for someone else). While you're at it, go ahead and "prove" that opposition to illegal immigration necessarily equates to xenophobia if you really must make more of a fool of yourself.

Better yet, STFU, go back to school, and grow up a little before mouthing off further.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that most of you xenophobes want a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.
> 
> Actually, the Republicans are only telling you what you want to hear.  Insofar as proving that this anti - immigrant horseshit is xenophobia, I've been proving it for a few days on this forum.
> 
> I have an open invitation to a debate forum where we won't use the multi-colored threads with cartoons and other distractions... no name calling, no BS.  I can back it up.  Have you got the guts to bring it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop spamming and answer the fucking question (since you decided to stick your nose in and answer for someone else). While you're at it, go ahead and "prove" that opposition to illegal immigration necessarily equates to xenophobia if you really must make more of a fool of yourself.
> 
> Better yet, STFU, go back to school, and grow up a little before mouthing off further.
Click to expand...


I'm about to kick your ass in your own back yard.  New thread coming soon...  You just proved the first point.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I'm about to kick your ass in your own back yard.  New thread coming soon...  You just proved the first point.  You're too chickenshit to go to a Debate Forum where the circus atmosphere isn't welcome as a distraction.  But, you're no problem.  Stay tuned....





Not gonna spam up the url again and get your punk ass banned? Chickenshit indeed...


And if you think anything that happens on a discussion forum is 'ass kicking' then you are every bit the naive, mouthy little twerp I took you for.


----------



## hortysir

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/223564-buddycolt-militia.html


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
Click to expand...


Well considering GOPers basically say that the fact that illegals commit less crimes is irrelevant because the are illegal and that means they committed a crime yes i can support it


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that most of you xenophobes want a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.
> 
> Actually, the Republicans are only telling you what you want to hear.  Insofar as proving that this anti - immigrant horseshit is xenophobia, I've been proving it for a few days on this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop spamming and answer the fucking question (since you decided to stick your nose in and answer for someone else). While you're at it, go ahead and "prove" that opposition to illegal immigration necessarily equates to xenophobia if you really must make more of a fool of yourself.
> 
> Better yet, STFU, go back to school, and grow up a little before mouthing off further.
Click to expand...


Immigrants expand the economy and provide more benefits then they cost so they only reason to oppose immigration is because you hate brown people or you are a stupid idiot


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one of those extremist idiots who would equate opposition to illegal immigration with racism, xenophobia, and (of course, because lefties get off on this one) Nazism?
> 
> Just so we're clear, are you one of those?
Click to expand...


Opposing illegal immigration is opposing making yourself richer in order to benefit the lives of brown people; so if you oppose illegal immigration you are either a bigot/racists or a retard with an IQ lower then 70


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well considering GOPers _basically_ say that the fact that illegals commit less crimes is irrelevant because the are illegal and that means they committed a crime yes i can support it
Click to expand...



There is no logical connection between those two claims. I guess you can't back up that idiotic claim.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that most of you xenophobes want a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.
> 
> Actually, the Republicans are only telling you what you want to hear.  Insofar as proving that this anti - immigrant horseshit is xenophobia, I've been proving it for a few days on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop spamming and answer the fucking question (since you decided to stick your nose in and answer for someone else). While you're at it, go ahead and "prove" that opposition to illegal immigration necessarily equates to xenophobia if you really must make more of a fool of yourself.
> 
> Better yet, STFU, go back to school, and grow up a little before mouthing off further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants expand the economy and provide more benefits then they cost so they only reason to oppose immigration is because you hate brown people or you are a stupid idiot
Click to expand...


Another illogical conclusion. Grow up and get your head out of your ass, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. And ..no, it shouldn't be'
> 
> Are you a neonazi or a natural born racist or xenophobe?!?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of those extremist idiots who would equate opposition to illegal immigration with racism, xenophobia, and (of course, because lefties get off on this one) Nazism?
> 
> Just so we're clear, are you one of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opposing illegal immigration is opposing making yourself richer in order to benefit the lives of brown people; so if you oppose illegal immigration you are either a bigot/racists or a retard with an IQ lower then 70
Click to expand...




Again, entirely illogical. You are not helping your cause, dimwit.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back up that idiotic claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering GOPers _basically_ say that the fact that illegals commit less crimes is irrelevant because the are illegal and that means they committed a crime yes i can support it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no logical connection between those two claims. I guess you can't back up that idiotic claim.
Click to expand...


Well duh considering that you don't have a brain you cant know anythign about logical connections


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of those extremist idiots who would equate opposition to illegal immigration with racism, xenophobia, and (of course, because lefties get off on this one) Nazism?
> 
> Just so we're clear, are you one of those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposing illegal immigration is opposing making yourself richer in order to benefit the lives of brown people; so if you oppose illegal immigration you are either a bigot/racists or a retard with an IQ lower then 70
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, entirely illogical. You are not helping your cause, dimwit.
Click to expand...


Yes you being such a dumbass that you think reality is illogical and stupid means I am a dimwit


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop spamming and answer the fucking question (since you decided to stick your nose in and answer for someone else). While you're at it, go ahead and "prove" that opposition to illegal immigration necessarily equates to xenophobia if you really must make more of a fool of yourself.
> 
> Better yet, STFU, go back to school, and grow up a little before mouthing off further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrants expand the economy and provide more benefits then they cost so they only reason to oppose immigration is because you hate brown people or you are a stupid idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another illogical conclusion. Grow up and get your head out of your ass, kid.
Click to expand...


Yes you hating people because of their skin collor means I am illoical


----------



## LilOlLady

*Illegal Immigration is a Crime*

Under *Title 8 Section 1325 *of the U.S. Code, *"Improper Entry by Alien," *any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or 

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or 

*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; *has committed a federal crime*.

Violations are punishable by *criminal fines *and *imprisonment for up to six months*. *Repeat offenses* can bring up to *two years in prison*. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the *discretion of immigration judges*, but *civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions *or *nature of the offense.*
See: *Unlawful entry a crime since '29 *- Rocky Mountain News -- June 11, 2006 
Illegal Immigration IS A CRIME!

*Ilegal immigraiton is a crime and illegal aiens are criminals.......*


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering GOPers _basically_ say that the fact that illegals commit less crimes is irrelevant because the are illegal and that means they committed a crime yes i can support it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no logical connection between those two claims. I guess you can't back up that idiotic claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well duh considering that you don't have a brain you cant know anythign about logical connections
Click to expand...


I know more about them (and, apparently, spelling) than you ever will. The two claims above are NOT logically connected. Are you _trying_ to be stupid?


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrants expand the economy and provide more benefits then they cost so they only reason to oppose immigration is because you hate brown people or you are a stupid idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another illogical conclusion. Grow up and get your head out of your ass, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you hating people because of their skin collor[SIC] means I am illoical[SIC]
Click to expand...




Your own comments prove that you are illogical, and the above statement *proves* that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Show me where I have anywhere suggested I hate anyone based on their skin color, or apologize at once. Hurry it up, fool.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no logical connection between those two claims. I guess you can't back up that idiotic claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh considering that you don't have a brain you cant know anythign about logical connections
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know more about them (and, apparently, spelling) than you ever will. The two claims above are NOT logically connected. Are you _trying_ to be stupid?
Click to expand...


Yes stating that you think being stupid is good menas youi are stupid means i am trying to be stupid


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another illogical conclusion. Grow up and get your head out of your ass, kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you hating people because of their skin collor[SIC] means I am illoical[SIC]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own comments prove that you are illogical, and the above statement *proves* that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Show me where I have anywhere suggested I hate anyone based on their skin color, or apologize at once. Hurry it up, fool.
Click to expand...


Yes you hating people becaue they are brown menas i am illogical. So plz come back when you are not a retarded racists


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh considering that you don't have a brain you cant know anythign about logical connections
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more about them (and, apparently, spelling) than you ever will. The two claims above are NOT logically connected. Are you _trying_ to be stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes stating that you think being stupid is good menas youi are stupid means i am trying to be stupid
Click to expand...



Are you just drunk, or is this nonsense the product of something harder?


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you hating people because of their skin collor[SIC] means I am illoical[SIC]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own comments prove that you are illogical, and the above statement *proves* that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Show me where I have anywhere suggested I hate anyone based on their skin color, or apologize at once. Hurry it up, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you hating people becaue[SIC] they are brown menas[SIC] i[SIC] am illogical. So plz[SIC] come back when you are not a retarded racists[SIC]
Click to expand...



You are about two minutes from passing out, aren't you?


----------



## hortysir

starcraftzzz said:


> Yes you hating people becaue they are brown menas i am illogical. So plz come back when you are not a retarded racists



Accidentally look over this post, StarCrazy?
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv



LilOlLady said:


> *Illegal Immigration is a Crime*
> 
> Under *Title 8 Section 1325 *of the U.S. Code, *"Improper Entry by Alien," *any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
> 
> Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
> 
> Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
> 
> *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; *has committed a federal crime*.
> 
> Violations are punishable by *criminal fines *and *imprisonment for up to six months*. *Repeat offenses* can bring up to *two years in prison*. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the *discretion of immigration judges*, but *civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions *or *nature of the offense.*
> See: *Unlawful entry a crime since '29 *- Rocky Mountain News -- June 11, 2006
> Illegal Immigration IS A CRIME!
> 
> *Ilegal immigraiton is a crime and illegal aiens are criminals.......*


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your own comments prove that you are illogical, and the above statement *proves* that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Show me where I have anywhere suggested I hate anyone based on their skin color, or apologize at once. Hurry it up, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you hating people becaue[SIC] they are brown menas[SIC] i[SIC] am illogical. So plz[SIC] come back when you are not a retarded racists[SIC]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are about two minutes from passing out, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Well if you being a retard means i am 2 minutes frorm passing out then yes


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more about them (and, apparently, spelling) than you ever will. The two claims above are NOT logically connected. Are you _trying_ to be stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes stating that you think being stupid is good menas youi are stupid means i am trying to be stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just drunk, or is this nonsense the product of something harder?
Click to expand...


Plz explain how you being a racists makes me drunk


----------



## hortysir

That's a "No, I'm intentionally avoiding anything that distorts my slanted view"


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you hating people becaue[SIC] they are brown menas[SIC] i[SIC] am illogical. So plz[SIC] come back when you are not a retarded racists[SIC]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are about two minutes from passing out, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you being a retard means i am 2 minutes frorm passing out then yes
Click to expand...


 One minute...


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes stating that you think being stupid is good menas youi are stupid means i am trying to be stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just drunk, or is this nonsense the product of something harder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plz[SIC] explain how you being a racists[SIC] makes me drunk
Click to expand...



I am obviously NOT racist, and I guess whatever bathtub gin you mixed up earlier is making you drunk.


----------



## Unkotare

Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd...he's out.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just drunk, or is this nonsense the product of something harder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plz[SIC] explain how you being a racists[SIC] makes me drunk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am obviously NOT racist, and I guess whatever bathtub gin you mixed up earlier is making you drunk.
Click to expand...


K you are a retard then


----------



## High_Gravity

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plz[SIC] explain how you being a racists[SIC] makes me drunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am obviously NOT racist, and I guess whatever bathtub gin you mixed up earlier is making you drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K you are a retard then
Click to expand...


Um no, you are the retard her, not Unkotare.


----------



## Contumacious

*Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*

*4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force. 

Thomas Jefferson
Founding Father
3rd US President
*


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:
> 
> They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I&#8217;ve challenged them to a public debate &#8211; one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:
> 
> http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl
> Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:
> 
> It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.
> 
> No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.
> 
> The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.
> 
> These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.
> 
> In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody CARES what you say or when you previously said it.
> 
> They care about whether what you say is right or wrong.
> 
> And when you CLAIM that improper entry is not a crime, you are wrong and willfully dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk shit all day long on the Internet.  It's stuff you would not say to a man's face.  If anybody is lying, it is you.  I've accurately quoted the top people in the field of immigration.  If I misquoted them, go back to the first four posts on this thread and produce them.
> 
> The only thing you've accomplished is to use irrelevant cases, over-turned cases and cases where the issue was *NOT* improper entry.
> 
> You sell your shit to the LEO community - they provided some of the information I have.  If you were right, you could make a bundle.  It would beat the shit out of arguing with me and competing with uneducated Hispanics for jobs at Mickey Ds.
> 
> Apparently nobody cares about what you say.  You have a cheering section that is so small, they could fit into the back seat of a Volkswagen and they sport a collective IQ of _maybe_ your shoe size.  I came here with something others had not heard before.
> 
> The real issue is, with all your fake bravado; with all your supposed superior intelligence; with your infallible understanding of the immigration laws, how come it is you are on the losing end?  How come all those who are making the decisions are ruling against you?  How do you explain the many different views I produced from the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS in the United States that refute all you've claimed?
> 
> How come people are on here, calling me a liberal, when all my life the position I'm presenting was a* CONSERVATIVE* one?   How come, in order to bolster your case, you have to ask the ACLU?
> 
> Let's face it:  you're getting your ass kicked and you can't walk away.  I've looked at your posts and commented on them.  You've failed to answer the questions I've produced, over and over.  We both know why.  You're full of shit and you realize it.  So, instead of answering honest questions, you throw up a smoke screen.
> 
> You're a ball-less little shit that probably got kicked out of the K.K.K. and now you don't know where it is you belong.  Stay safe. Stay on this board and don't wander off where you might have to defend the crap you sling.  You wouldn't talk so big if you had to do it man to man... or in your case boy, man to boy.
Click to expand...


A.  You post a wall of words.  Not inclined to wade through your fields of manure.

B.  As between the two of us, you alone are the one talking shit.

C.  Quoting alleged authorities is merely a fallacy of an appeal to authority the invalidity of which is evident when you stop to think (if you ever do) that your quoted "authorities" are incorrect.

D.  You flop around and flail around in your endless pursuit of your fail.  But you cannot evade the law itself, you idiot.  8 U.S.C. Section 1325 CLEARLY and unambiguously criminalizes the behavior of entering the country outside the terms and conditions which the law provides. It is a criminal law.  YOUR petty quibble has been that the law talks about "improper" entry and does not use the term "illegal entry."  You hang on the pettiest of irrelevant quibbles.  It's still a crime.

E.  You are gutless pussy and a dishonest fuckwit hack.  Fact.

F.  Of all the points listed here, the most significant one is the one you try so haplessly and ineffectually to avoid:  the law makes it a crime.  And none of your dishonest pussy arguments has any impact on that.

Your fail is public and complete.


----------



## High_Gravity

If Buddycolt walked into the court room with this presentation he would get checked into an insane asylum.


----------



## Contumacious

Friends Of Liberty:

Points to Ponder

Did the Jews have a right to live in nazi Germany

yes, of course.

But was the nazi  hierarchy convinced? Fuck No.

Any argument presented that the Jews were humans beings who had  a right to life was summarily dismissed because the regimen was convinced that it had the right to criminalize Jewishness and execute its practitioners.

So bear that in mind while discussing the alien issue with neonazis, members of the Aryan Brotherhood and the Know-Nothings.

.

.


----------



## High_Gravity

Contumacious said:


> Friends Of Liberty:
> 
> Points to Ponder
> 
> Did the Jews have a right to live in nazi Germany
> 
> yes, of course.
> 
> But was the nazi  hierarchy convinced? Fuck No.
> 
> Any argument presented that the Jews were humans beings who had  a right to life was summarily dismissed because the regimen was convinced that it had the right to criminalize Jewishness and execute its practitioners.
> 
> .



If you walked into a court room and presented this the judge would just whip his dick out and shove it down your throat to shut you up.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friends Of Liberty:
> 
> Points to Ponder
> 
> Did the Jews have a right to live in nazi Germany
> 
> yes, of course.
> 
> But was the nazi  hierarchy convinced? Fuck No.
> 
> Any argument presented that the Jews were humans beings who had  a right to life was summarily dismissed because the regimen was convinced that it had the right to criminalize Jewishness and execute its practitioners.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked into a court room and presented this the judge would just whip his dick out and shove it down your throat to shut you up.
Click to expand...



Which would lead C to walk out of the courtroom then come back in a few minutes to give his presentation again, walk out and come back, walk out and come back...


----------



## Contumacious

Unkotare said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friends Of Liberty:
> 
> Points to Ponder
> 
> Did the Jews have a right to live in nazi Germany
> 
> yes, of course.
> 
> But was the nazi  hierarchy convinced? Fuck No.
> 
> Any argument presented that the Jews were humans beings who had  a right to life was summarily dismissed because the regimen was convinced that it had the right to criminalize Jewishness and execute its practitioners.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked into a court room and presented this the judge would just whip his dick out and shove it down your throat to shut you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which would lead C to walk out of the courtroom then come back in a few minutes to give his presentation again, walk out and come back, walk out and come back...
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed. When defending rights


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked into a court room and presented this the judge would just whip his dick out and shove it down your throat to shut you up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would lead C to walk out of the courtroom then come back in a few minutes to give his presentation again, walk out and come back, walk out and come back...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed. When defending rights
Click to expand...



NO, I figure you're just hungry for judgedick.


----------



## High_Gravity

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked into a court room and presented this the judge would just whip his dick out and shove it down your throat to shut you up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would lead C to walk out of the courtroom then come back in a few minutes to give his presentation again, walk out and come back, walk out and come back...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed. When defending rights
Click to expand...


So you just admitted you are a cock sucker?


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friends Of Liberty:
> 
> Points to Ponder
> 
> Did the Jews have a right to live in nazi Germany
> 
> yes, of course.
> 
> But was the nazi  hierarchy convinced? Fuck No.
> 
> Any argument presented that the Jews were humans beings who had  a right to life was summarily dismissed because the regimen was convinced that it had the right to criminalize Jewishness and execute its practitioners.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked into a court room and presented this the judge would just whip his dick out and shove it down your throat to shut you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which would lead C to walk out of the courtroom then come back in a few minutes to give his presentation again, walk out and come back, walk out and come back...
Click to expand...


----------



## hortysir

Contumacious said:


> *Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*
> 
> *4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> Founding Father
> 3rd US President
> *




1) Passed on 'which' day?

2) 1798???

3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????


----------



## Liability

hortysir said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*
> 
> *4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> Founding Father
> 3rd US President
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Passed on 'which' day?
> 
> 2) 1798???
> 
> 3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????
Click to expand...



Confusedatious is attempting to cite the Kentucky (and to a lesser degree, also the Virginia) Resolution.

Interesting shit.

In it, Thomas Jefferson was arguing that the Alien and Sedition Act was unconstitutional.

He may have had a point, too, but not necessarily for the reason HE cited.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusedatious kinda fucked up the quoting of Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution, by the way.  No surprise there.

Here is a snippet.  The full text can be read at the link:



> 1. _Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
> 
> 2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.
> 
> 3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:" thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> 4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> * * * *


Avalon Project - Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798


----------



## Contumacious

hortysir said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*
> 
> *4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> Founding Father
> 3rd US President
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Passed on 'which' day?
> 
> 2) 1798???
> 
> 3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????
Click to expand...


After James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the immigration laws congress allowed the same to expire in 1800.

Congress did not adopt another law until 1888. For 88 years there was no federal immigration law. 


The federal government has the authority to NATURALIZE citizens but has no authority to detain and deport those individuals who only have the citizenship of the state in which they reside.

SCOTUS has recognized the  fact that the states retained the authority to confer their citizenship on whomever they choose.

.

.


----------



## High_Gravity

Contumacious said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*
> 
> *4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> Founding Father
> 3rd US President
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Passed on 'which' day?
> 
> 2) 1798???
> 
> 3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the immigration laws congress allowed the same to expire in 1800.
> 
> Congress did not adopt another law until 1888. For 88 years there was no federal immigration law.
> 
> 
> The federal government has the authority to NATURALIZE citizens but has no authority to detain and deport those individuals who only have the citizenship of the state in which they reside.
> 
> SCOTUS has recognized the  fact that the states retained the authority to confer their citizenship on whomever they choose.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You make more sense slobbering with a dick pistoning in and out of your mouth.


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*
> 
> *4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> Founding Father
> 3rd US President
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Passed on 'which' day?
> 
> 2) 1798???
> 
> 3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the immigration laws congress allowed the same to expire in 1800.
> 
> Congress did not adopt another law until 1888. For 88 years there was no federal immigration law.
> 
> 
> The federal government has the authority to NATURALIZE citizens but has no authority to detain and deport those individuals who only have the citizenship of the state in which they reside.
> 
> SCOTUS has recognized the  fact that the states retained the authority to confer their citizenship on whomever they choose.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Historically muddled, as always. The  SCOTUS recogniz*ED* the fact that states retained authority as to the conferring of citizenship UNTIL the Federal Government assumed the power over such matters.  And it was RECOGNIZED as an incident of sovereignty.

It is unquestionably NO LONGER the case that the States can naturalize anybody or confer citizenship (and if Confusedatious thinks those are different matters, he's wrong).  ONLY the United States of America, the Federal government, can do that.

And there aren't any states clamoring to make any aliens citizens, anyway.

;

,


,


----------



## Contumacious

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Passed on 'which' day?
> 
> 2) 1798???
> 
> 3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the immigration laws congress allowed the same to expire in 1800.
> 
> Congress did not adopt another law until 1888. For 88 years there was no federal immigration law.
> 
> 
> The federal government has the authority to NATURALIZE citizens but has no authority to detain and deport those individuals who only have the citizenship of the state in which they reside.
> 
> SCOTUS has recognized the  fact that the states retained the authority to confer their citizenship on whomever they choose.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically muddled, as always. The  SCOTUS recogniz*ED* the fact that states retained authority as to the conferring of citizenship UNTIL the Federal *Government assumed the power over such matters.* *And it was RECOGNIZED as an incident of sovereignty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no LEGAL AUTHORITY to "assume the power". The Constitution must be amended first .
> 
> Bureaucrats now claim that  the federal government can just "assume" any powers : Obama seriously believe that the federal government can force us to buy health insurance;  presidents assume that they can invade any country whenever for whatever reason. The "conservatives" do it, the "liberals" do it. So who supports and defends the constitution against domestic enemies?
> 
> Why go through the hassle of writing a Constitution if the bureaucrats can claim at any time that their acts are recognized as "incident of sovereignty"?!?!?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically muddled, as always. The  SCOTUS recogniz*ED* the fact that states retained authority as to the conferring of citizenship UNTIL the Federal *Government assumed the power over such matters.* *And it was RECOGNIZED as an incident of sovereignty.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no LEGAL AUTHORITY to "assume the power". The Constitution must be amended first .
> 
> Bureaucrats now claim that  the federal government can just "assume" any powers : Obama seriously believe that the federal government can force us to buy health insurance;  presidents assume that they can invade any country whenever for whatever reason. The "conservatives" do it, the "liberals" do it. So who supports and defends the constitution against domestic enemies?
> 
> Why go through the hassle of writing a Constitution if the bureaucrats can claim at any time that their acts are recognized as "incident of sovereignty"?!?!?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What tools like you DON'T know about the Constitution could fill volumes.

The Constitution does not need to be amended to put in explicit terminology for EVERY conceivable contingency, stupid.

It more than suffices if it is interpreted to provide such powers as are necessary to give effect to the authority granted IN the Constitution.

It is an incident of sovereignty that a nation is entitled to monitor its own borders, grant or deny citizenship to immigrants, grant access or deny access to immigrants. etc.

Your ignorance is truly no excuse for the silly stuff you constantly spew.

The *naturalization* authority is explicitly granted to Congress.   Little more is needed to show the complete imbecility of your misbegotten failure of an argument, Confusedatious.

,

;


,


----------



## Contumacious

Liability said:


> The Constitution does not need to be amended to put in explicit terminology for EVERY conceivable contingency, stupid.



1. _Resolved_, That t*he several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government;* but that, by* a compact* under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- *delegated to that government certain definite powers, *reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; a*nd that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; *that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

.


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not need to be amended to put in explicit terminology for EVERY conceivable contingency, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. _Resolved_, That t*he several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government;* but that, by* a compact* under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- *delegated to that government certain definite powers, *reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; a*nd that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; *that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Yeah, you previously quoted that draft resolution which has no power of law and which isn't even especially persuasive.

Try to make a point sometime.  It's considered useful in a discussion.

,


;





,


----------



## MaryL

BuddyColt said:


> *Is it really &#8220;Illegal?&#8221;
> *
> Is coming into the United States really illegal?  Should it be illegal?  Are the anti &#8211; immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?
> 
> I&#8217;m going to do this in several parts because it is difficult and you should take your time, reading each post, thinking it over and responding only after meditating on the facts versus the myths widely believed.
> 
> I&#8217;m starting this thread and there is nothing new, but it if it all appears at the beginning of a thread, you can see the circus atmosphere that the National Socialists will start because they cannot prevail over the facts.  All you should do is concern yourself with is the facts.  *YOUR* Liberty depends upon it.
> 
> The first* FACT* is that there are no laws making it a crime to be in the United States without papers.  The National Socialists will try and dispute it, but we will present irrefutable facts.  The reason this is important is that if they are allowed to create bad precedents in interpreting the law, it will have a *net negative impact on YOUR Rights and Liberties.*  So, let&#8217;s get right to it.
> 
> The only statute the National Socialists can come up with is Title 8 USC 1325 to attempt to &#8220;_prove_&#8221; a supposed crime of illegal immigration (which absolutely does not exist.)  My commentary on the statute is in red.  It is fully quoted:
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
> 
> Notice that this is a civil section of the law.  It is not a criminal title.  It is talking about an improper action, not an illegal one.
> 
> (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.
> 
> Notice that under this section, several infractions / crimes are being discussed.  Title 8 (Eight) does not impose a criminal penalty, but defers the criminal consequences to Title 18
> 
> (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
> 
> Improper Entry is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, an immigrant cannot be charged with a crime for improper entry since none exists in Title 18 (Eighteen); however, there is the civil penalty of up to $250
> 
> 
> (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.
> 
> The civil penalties are different from the criminal charges and are treated separately.  For instance, the  criminal courts may fine a foreigner a total of one amount for lying to authorities and evasion (they may even suspend the criminal penalties) but that has no bearing on the civil penalties for improper entry (which consist of a fine of up to $250 and deportation)
> 
> (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. (End of Statute)
> 
> *YOUR Liberties depend upon a correct interpretation of the facts.
> *



I am not buying this, nice try though. I will spare you a counter argument because it would be silly. You accept them, and thought it worth making a thread about. There are many like you. You, and those like you, have no idea what harm these illegals  have and ARE doing. The second sentence in your original post , "Are the anti &#8211; immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?"...That tells me you are biased and you haven't any experience with illegal aliens, have you? That is OK. We all have to learn sometime. Actually and go out there in real time. Before you post again. When you do, until you do.    I guarantee you won't be so supportive.


----------



## Contumacious

MaryL said:


> . There are many like you. You, and those like you, have no idea what harm these illegals  have and ARE doing. .



Let's wait until there are 5 Hispanic Justices in SCOTUS. 

We shall see if they agree with you that all the brown skin folks are creating an "emergency" like the Chinese  allegedly  did in 1888.

Get ready for more mestizos in your midst.

*Census: Half of all newborns are minorities*






.
.


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are many like you. You, and those like you, have no idea what harm these illegals  have and ARE doing. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait until there are 5 Hispanic Justices in SCOTUS.
> 
> We shall see if they agree with you that all the brown skin folks are creating an "emergency" like the Chinese  allegedly  did in 1888.
> 
> Get ready for more mestizos in your midst..
Click to expand...




Why do you need to consider people by the color of their skin, racist?


----------



## Contumacious

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are many like you. You, and those like you, have no idea what harm these illegals  have and ARE doing. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait until there are 5 Hispanic Justices in SCOTUS.
> 
> We shall see if they agree with you that all the brown skin folks are creating an "emergency" like the Chinese  allegedly  did in 1888.
> 
> Get ready for more mestizos in your midst..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to consider people by the color of their skin, racist?
Click to expand...


Hummmmm

You are a little slow on the uptake

I have already  posted  the first federal immigration case in 1888 - where the SCOTUS admitted that it ***USURPED**** the authority to control immigration because the chinese race was irritating "our people".

.


----------



## MaryL

You really don't get this do you? I am sure you mean well, kiddo, but it's rather apparent you neither understand the issue and you have no experience with illegals, but you love telling the rest of us that DO what we should think. I eat this right up. Please. This is delicious. Tell US what else you don't know anything about. In scotus, That was posted by another well-meaning nice person that NEVER had a blamed thing to do with illegal aliens. Oh brother.


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait until there are 5 Hispanic Justices in SCOTUS.
> 
> We shall see if they agree with you that all the brown skin folks are creating an "emergency" like the Chinese  allegedly  did in 1888.
> 
> Get ready for more mestizos in your midst..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to consider people by the color of their skin, racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hummmmm
> 
> You are a little slow on the uptake
> 
> I have already  posted  the first federal immigration case in 1888 - where the SCOTUS admitted that it ***USURPED**** the authority to control immigration because the chinese race was irritating "our people".
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I asked about YOUR attitude, not the Supreme Court, racist.


----------



## Contumacious

MaryL said:


> You really don't get this do you? I am sure you mean well, kiddo, but it's rather apparent you neither understand the issue and you have no experience with illegals, but you love telling the rest of us that DO what we should think. I eat this right up. Please. This is delicious. Tell US what else you don't know anything about. In scotus, That was posted by another well-meaning nice person that NEVER had a blamed thing to do with illegal aliens. Oh brother.



I am 65 years old. Here in Houston we have a gazillion immigrants.  But the folks from DC are the ones who are really dangerous.

.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> You really don't get this do you? I am sure you mean well, kiddo, but it's rather apparent you neither understand the issue and you have no experience with illegals.




You seem really, really eager to say this (over and over). You realize it makes you look like an asshole, right?


----------



## MaryL

I don't have to wait.  People like you will hand over our country to THEM lock stock and and barrel no questions asked. Because you are soo nice, Just like the Vichy French. And you have no clue what you are doing. You will one day, too bad it isn't NOW. When you realize   the magnitude of what you are doing, it will be way to late. Think of me 30 years from now, I think you will.


----------



## Unkotare

Who the fuck are you talking to?


----------



## Ruiz

who in america isnt illegal, unless they are native american. it's hard for me to take a white person calling someone an illegal immigrant in a country that they have no right to be in, in the first place. america, australia, nz, were all stolen from the native population by force.


----------



## Unkotare

Ruiz said:


> who in america isnt illegal, unless they are native american. it's hard for me to take a white person calling someone an illegal immigrant in a country that they have no right to be in, in the first place. america, australia, nz, were all stolen from the native population by force.




Clearly, you are both stupid and racist.


----------



## BuddyColt

Ruiz said:


> who in america isnt illegal, unless they are native american. it's hard for me to take a white person calling someone an illegal immigrant in a country that they have no right to be in, in the first place. america, australia, nz, were all stolen from the native population by force.



People are not illegal in America because our system is predicated upon the concept of *unalienable Rights.*  Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.

People have an inherent Right to Travel, the Right to Life and the Right to Liberty.  There is quite a civics lesson be learned here and if you PM me I will leave you several links you can check out to see how erroneous the information you're getting really is.

What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.  It isn't going to happen.  What the U.S. *could do* is to regulate immigration in a way that people could exercise their* unalienable Rights* without having to become a citizen.  That, of course, makes too much sense, so our short term problems is having to fight against the hard core remnants of the National Socialist Party, K.K.K. and and socialists in general.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.




NO, what a lot of people on this board are opposed to is illegal immigration, you dishonest douchebag.


Your ignorant fantasies will not change reality no matter how badly you wish it.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> People are not illegal in America because our system is predicated upon the concept of *unalienable Rights.*  Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel.





Wow, you're even more of an idiot than I thought.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, what a lot of people on this board are opposed to is illegal immigration, you dishonest douchebag.
> 
> 
> Your ignorant fantasies will not change reality no matter how badly you wish it.
Click to expand...


ROTFL I see so people wanting to make immigraiton illegal
and then who dont want illegla immigrants in the country support immigration.
Soudns stupid huh.


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, what a lot of people on this board are opposed to is illegal immigration, you dishonest douchebag.
> 
> 
> Your ignorant fantasies will not change reality no matter how badly you wish it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFL I see so people wanting to make immigraiton illegal
> and then who dont want illegla immigrants in the country support immigration.
> Soudns stupid huh.
Click to expand...



There is STILL a difference, you dishonest hack twat, between illegal immigration and legal immigration.

I don't want ANY illegal immigrants to stay here (*unless* they have a *valid* claim to make for seeking asylum).  

But I DO want for there to be a solid immigration policy that allows in all the smart and industrious freedom lovers from other lands as we can get to apply.

Starrrjizzz is just too pathetically and tragically stupid to comprehend any of this.


----------



## BuddyColt

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, what a lot of people on this board are opposed to is illegal immigration, you dishonest douchebag.
> 
> 
> Your ignorant fantasies will not change reality no matter how badly you wish it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFL I see so people wanting to make immigraiton illegal
> and then who dont want illegla immigrants in the country support immigration.
> Soudns stupid huh.
Click to expand...


The real issue is not about illegal versus illegal immigrants / aliens.  The correct legal terminology is *proper* versus *improper.*

The anti - immigrant National Socialists like to cloud the issue, but the bottom line is that all people have *unalienable Rights*.  Those Rights predate the Constitution.  Some of your *unalienable Rights* are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  So, we cannot infringe upon the Liberties of another person.  The word Liberty has a meaning.  We cannot infringe upon a person's Right to Travel.  It too, is an *unalienable Right* that existed before the Constitution.

"_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 

(Source:  Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process)

The government *COULD* regulate immigration, but choose not to.  What the government cannot do is to prohibit immigration NOR can they require people to become a citizen (which is a privilege) in order to exercise a Natural Right.  

I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  They claim they don't mind if people come here _"legally_," knowing full well that such doesn't exist.  Then they tell you it's all about citizenship.  You don't have to be a citizen in order to exercise any *unalienable Right*.   We can regulate immigration and I've advocated doing so.  For the xenophobes to make the argument they do, is as starcraftzzz suspects, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, what a lot of people on this board are opposed to is illegal immigration, you dishonest douchebag.
> 
> 
> Your ignorant fantasies will not change reality no matter how badly you wish it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFL I see so people wanting to make immigraiton illegal
> and then who dont want illegla immigrants in the country support immigration.
> Soudns stupid huh.
Click to expand...


Is that how is "soudns"? 

People who really understand and value LEGAL immigration realize the harm that ILLEGAL immigration does to everyone involved.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> The real issue is not about illegal versus illegal immigrants / aliens.





Yes it is. That is exactly the issue.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> "_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 .





You utter moron, that case and others like it refer specifically to US citizens travelling on public roads within the country. They were not intended or applied to some fantasy of negating US national sovereignty. They haven't even been successfully cited as negating speed limits or drivers licenses, idiot. You're like some dim-witted little kid playing at things he doesn't understand.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  .





Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration does NOT equate to xenophobia (of course).




U.S.C. § 1325


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You utter moron, that case and others like it refer specifically to US citizens travelling on public roads within the country. They were not intended or applied to some fantasy of negating US national sovereignty. They haven't even been successfully cited as negating speed limits or drivers licenses, idiot. You're like some dim-witted little kid playing at things he doesn't understand.
Click to expand...


Asked and answered in the citing source


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You utter moron, that case and others like it refer specifically to US citizens travelling on public roads within the country. They were not intended or applied to some fantasy of negating US national sovereignty. They haven't even been successfully cited as negating speed limits or drivers licenses, idiot. You're like some dim-witted little kid playing at things he doesn't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered in the citing source
Click to expand...


The BuddyPopgun fail is endless.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, what a lot of people on this board are opposed to is illegal immigration, you dishonest douchebag.
> 
> 
> Your ignorant fantasies will not change reality no matter how badly you wish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFL I see so people wanting to make immigraiton illegal
> and then who dont want illegla immigrants in the country support immigration.
> Soudns stupid huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real issue is not about illegal versus illegal immigrants / aliens.  The correct legal terminology is *proper* versus *improper.*
> 
> The anti - immigrant National Socialists like to cloud the issue, but the bottom line is that all people have *unalienable Rights*.  Those Rights predate the Constitution.  Some of your *unalienable Rights* are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  So, we cannot infringe upon the Liberties of another person.  The word Liberty has a meaning.  We cannot infringe upon a person's Right to Travel.  It too, is an *unalienable Right* that existed before the Constitution.
> 
> "_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941
> 
> (Source:  Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process)
> 
> The government *COULD* regulate immigration, but choose not to.  What the government cannot do is to prohibit immigration NOR can they require people to become a citizen (which is a privilege) in order to exercise a Natural Right.
> 
> I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  They claim they don't mind if people come here _"legally_," knowing full well that such doesn't exist.  Then they tell you it's all about citizenship.  You don't have to be a citizen in order to exercise any *unalienable Right*.   We can regulate immigration and I've advocated doing so.  For the xenophobes to make the argument they do, is as starcraftzzz suspects, stupid.
Click to expand...


If one is an improper alien, then one is an illegal alien.  Same thing.  Exactly the same thing, since entry here without authority and permission IS a crime.

You get an F for your persistent dumb-assed refusal to learn, BuddyPopgun.

The rest of the class is dismissed.

Buddy.  Go clean the bathrooms.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFL I see so people wanting to make immigraiton illegal
> and then who dont want illegla immigrants in the country support immigration.
> Soudns stupid huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is not about illegal versus illegal immigrants / aliens.  The correct legal terminology is *proper* versus *improper.*
> 
> The anti - immigrant National Socialists like to cloud the issue, but the bottom line is that all people have *unalienable Rights*.  Those Rights predate the Constitution.  Some of your *unalienable Rights* are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  So, we cannot infringe upon the Liberties of another person.  The word Liberty has a meaning.  We cannot infringe upon a person's Right to Travel.  It too, is an *unalienable Right* that existed before the Constitution.
> 
> "_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941
> 
> (Source:  Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process)
> 
> The government *COULD* regulate immigration, but choose not to.  What the government cannot do is to prohibit immigration NOR can they require people to become a citizen (which is a privilege) in order to exercise a Natural Right.
> 
> I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  They claim they don't mind if people come here _"legally_," knowing full well that such doesn't exist.  Then they tell you it's all about citizenship.  You don't have to be a citizen in order to exercise any *unalienable Right*.   We can regulate immigration and I've advocated doing so.  For the xenophobes to make the argument they do, is as starcraftzzz suspects, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one is an improper alien, then one is an illegal alien.  Same thing.  Exactly the same thing, since entry here without authority and permission IS a crime.
> 
> You get an F for your persistent dumb-assed refusal to learn, BuddyPopgun.
> 
> The rest of the class is dismissed.
> 
> Buddy.  Go clean the bathrooms.
Click to expand...


Your stupid ass responses only teaches us that God had a sense of humor.  You're almost irritating, but just not quite smart enough so that I can honestly get mad.  You're like an aggravating bug, but they always end up being squashed.

For about the umpteenth time, the things that are wrong with your illogical response are, as follows:

1)  Improper is not a synonym for the word illegal

2)  Not every infraction of the law is a crime

3)  Individuals exercising unalienable Rights are not committing a crime

4)  If you can't understand that, you need to quit pretending to be something you can't be.  If you got a fact rather than an opinion, bring it.  I gave you a citing source that contains more than a hundred cited court cases within the article.  All you have is your usual banter.

You might impress the hell out of  a few people that flunked every subject in school, but that's about the extent of your influence.  Otherwise you would address me as a man.


----------



## Unkotare

Improper entry into the country by an alien is ILLEGAL.


None of the cases you cited (but couldn't understand) support your idiotic open borders fantasy, and were never even intended to.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You might impress the hell out of  a few people that flunked every subject in school.




You're saying he impresses the hell out of you? How nice.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> * * * *  *{I snipped a large portion of BuddyPopgun's irrelevant blather for the sake of brevity.}*
> 
> For about the umpteenth time, the things that are wrong with your illogical response are, as follows:
> 
> 1)  Improper is not a synonym for the word illegal



Wrong.  In this case, it absolutely is.  You are flatly wrong and stubbornly stupid.  That's all.



BuddyColt said:


> 2)  Not every infraction of the law is a crime



Good boy!  You have a minor ability to learn.  Now learn a bit more.  EVERY law that imposes jail time as is imposed for the violation of the improper entry provisions of the Immigration Law IS a "crime." *  And when the penalty is for more than a year, it's a FELONY.  Every FELONY is a crime, too!  True story!



BuddyColt said:


> 3)  Individuals exercising unalienable Rights are not committing a crime



That's true, but entirely  irrelevant to this discussion since no alien has any unalienable "right" to cross our borders without our permission and authority.  



BuddyColt said:


> 4)  If you can't understand that, you need to quit pretending to be something you can't be.  If you got a fact rather than an opinion, bring it.  I gave you a citing source that contains more than a hundred cited court cases within the article.  All you have is your usual banter.
> 
> You might impress the hell out of  a few people that flunked every subject in school, but that's about the extent of your influence.  Otherwise you would address me as a man.



The complete imbecility of your fourth "point" is obvious to all who see how ignorant, stupid and incorrect you are on those first three points.

I do address you as a man.  As a man you are foolish, ignorant, stubborn, irrational, illogical, childish, petulant and wrong.   

I have already provided you with cases proving that I am correct.  YOU, being a simple jackass, ignore them.  Ho hum.


______________
* I must, in fairness and in the interest of accuracy, qualify that a bit.  Sometimes a jail penalty can be imposed for an offense (a violation) that does not amount to a crime.  But there is no case where a possible TWO year sentence does not constitute a crime.  The first improper entry into the U.S. by an alien could land him or her 6 MONTHS in jail.   That is a misdemeanor, but not the kind of major crime that would necessarily require an indictment.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration does NOT equate to xenophobia (of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S.C. § 1325
Click to expand...

So opposition to other people taking actions to
make their lives better while simultaneously 
expanding our own economy is equal to what?
Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> Improper entry into the country by an alien is ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> None of the cases you cited (but couldn't understand) support your idiotic open borders fantasy, and were never even intended to.



And at one time it was illegal for a black person to be free.
So plz instead of just going "its illega" give us an actually arugment
with some content, but if that is to hard for you...

Also again you show that you are a two-face liar.
You claim that you dont dislike illiegal immigration
because your xenophgic but becaues it is illegal
then you sit there and say that people who want to make it lega
are horrible people. So clearly the real reason you ahte illegal immigration
is not because its illegal its because its brown people
moving in.
Furhtermore there is not idiotic about open borders because there is 
nothing idiotic about allowing people to move tow here they want to live
so that they can work for a living.
I exepct your one line response of, "you idiot. Why doy ou always bring up bigotry? You destroying country."


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration does NOT equate to xenophobia (of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S.C. § 1325
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So opposition to other people taking actions to
> make their lives better while simultaneously
> expanding our own economy is equal to what?
> Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.
Click to expand...



Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobes know and realize this, but are preying on the ignorance of others.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration does NOT equate to xenophobia (of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S.C. § 1325
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So opposition to other people taking actions to
> make their lives better while simultaneously
> expanding our own economy is equal to what?
> Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.
Click to expand...


Wrong and stupid, Starjizz.

I encourage aliens to make their lives better by coming here.  BUT, they MUST comply WITH our laws as a condition.  And our LAW says they may NOT simply wander in.

You don't like that?   Too bad.

YOU don't get to dictate your irrational and unworkable wishes upon the rest of the American people.  

It is hardly xenophobic to say we have a right -- even a duty -- to limit immigration on a yearly basis.  It remains common sense to do so in fact as well as an incident of our sovereignty.

YOUR ignorance and stupidity is boundless.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration does NOT equate to xenophobia (of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S.C. § 1325
> 
> 
> 
> So opposition to other people taking actions to
> make their lives better while simultaneously
> expanding our own economy is equal to what?
> Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.*
Click to expand...



Exactly.  And, it bears repetition.


*Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.*


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> And at one time it was illegal for a black person to be free.
> So plz instead of just going "its illega" give us an actually arugment
> with some content, but if that is to hard for you...





This topic has nothing to do with slavery (except to the degree that people like you who encourage the exploitation of illegal aliens also encourage the slave-like conditions that some of them suffer - thanks to people like you). You're not even good at being a dishonest interlocutor.

The key 'content' here is that ILLEGAL immigration is in fact ILLEGAL, and is harmful to everyone involved.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Also again you show that you are a two-face liar.
> You claim that you dont dislike illiegal immigration
> because your xenophgic but becaues it is illegal
> then you sit there and say that people who want to make it lega
> are horrible people. So clearly the real reason you ahte illegal immigration
> is not because its illegal its because its brown people
> moving in.




Try that again in English and without the stupid, baseless racial accusations, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Liability said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So opposition to other people taking actions to
> make their lives better while simultaneously
> expanding our own economy is equal to what?
> Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And, it bears repetition.
> 
> 
> *Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.*
Click to expand...



Indeed it does.


----------



## BuddyColt

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Improper entry into the country by an alien is ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> None of the cases you cited (but couldn't understand) support your idiotic open borders fantasy, and were never even intended to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at one time it was illegal for a black person to be free.
> So plz instead of just going "its illega" give us an actually arugment
> with some content, but if that is to hard for you...
> 
> Also again you show that you are a two-face liar.
> You claim that you dont dislike illiegal immigration
> because your xenophgic but becaues it is illegal
> then you sit there and say that people who want to make it lega
> are horrible people. So clearly the real reason you ahte illegal immigration
> is not because its illegal its because its brown people
> moving in.
> Furhtermore there is not idiotic about open borders because there is
> nothing idiotic about allowing people to move tow here they want to live
> so that they can work for a living.
> I exepct your one line response of, "you idiot. Why doy ou always bring up bigotry? You destroying country."
Click to expand...


star,

I started out being irritated by this mental midget that thinks he understands things.  He doesn't.  He hasn't shown you squat.  Remember: I quoted all the highest ranking immigration officials in the United States and* none* of them agreed with him.  

I proved to him over and over that Title 8 USC 1325 is civil law and provided court cases to document it.  What has that POS shown you?  NOTHING.  He has his own private interpretation of the matter and nobody that oversees immigration laws in this country agrees with him.

That POS calls you names because he cannot offer anything constructive to the discussion.  He cannot understand that the word improper and illegal are not synonymous.  Furthermore, he cannot tell you WHY, if improper entry were against the law and constituted a crime, WHY, WHY, WHY did Congress contemplate* CHANGING* the wording of  Title 8 USC 1325 to make it *unlawful entry* instead of improper entry?

If it were already illegal, there would be no need to change the wording of the law.  BTW, the bill failed and improper entry is still taken up in a civil forum because it's not a crime.  That is the RULING of the highest immigration official in the United States and it is irrefutable.  

So, we have a resident mental midget running around, claiming things that aren't so.  He is trying to fool the people, but the only ones he is bamboozling are a small cheering section that cannot discuss things on any level other than to show disrespect to their fellow man by calling them names.  

You saw how this guy beat a hasty retreat when offered the opportunity to talk trash to my face.  

So, don't take him seriously.  Ninety five percent of the posters here realize that, having tried to browbeat me and then being asked to put up or shut up, he climbed under that rock and screams obscenities from afar.  He's not worth getting upset over.  Just keep exposing his words, but ignore the little guy with the complex of feelings of inadequacy.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration does NOT equate to xenophobia (of course).
> .S.C. § 1325
> 
> 
> 
> So opposition to other people taking actions to
> make their lives better while simultaneously
> expanding our own economy is equal to what?
> Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.
Click to expand...


See again you didn't explain why it is a bad thing you
just through out a term that "sounds" bad (of which you do
not know the diefieniton of) and then made some illogical connection


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Improper entry into the country by an alien is ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> None of the cases you cited (but couldn't understand) support your idiotic open borders fantasy, and were never even intended to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at one time it was illegal for a black person to be free.
> So plz instead of just going "its illega" give us an actually arugment
> with some content, but if that is to hard for you...
> 
> Also again you show that you are a two-face liar.
> You claim that you dont dislike illiegal immigration
> because your xenophgic but becaues it is illegal
> then you sit there and say that people who want to make it lega
> are horrible people. So clearly the real reason you ahte illegal immigration
> is not because its illegal its because its brown people
> moving in.
> Furhtermore there is not idiotic about open borders because there is
> nothing idiotic about allowing people to move tow here they want to live
> so that they can work for a living.
> I exepct your one line response of, "you idiot. Why doy ou always bring up bigotry? You destroying country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> star,
> 
> I started out being irritated by this mental midget that thinks he understands things.  He doesn't.  He hasn't shown you squat.  Remember: I quoted all the highest ranking immigration officials in the United States and* none* of them agreed with him.
> 
> I proved to him over and over that Title 8 USC 1325 is civil law and provided court cases to document it.  What has that POS shown you?  NOTHING.  He has his own private interpretation of the matter and nobody that oversees immigration laws in this country agrees with him.
> 
> That POS calls you names because he cannot offer anything constructive to the discussion.  He cannot understand that the word improper and illegal are not synonymous.  Furthermore, he cannot tell you WHY, if improper entry were against the law and constituted a crime, WHY, WHY, WHY did Congress contemplate* CHANGING* the wording of  Title 8 USC 1325 to make it *unlawful entry* instead of improper entry?
> 
> If it were already illegal, there would be no need to change the wording of the law.  BTW, the bill failed and improper entry is still taken up in a civil forum because it's not a crime.  That is the RULING of the highest immigration official in the United States and it is irrefutable.
> 
> So, we have a resident mental midget running around, claiming things that aren't so.  He is trying to fool the people, but the only ones he is bamboozling are a small cheering section that cannot discuss things on any level other than to show disrespect to their fellow man by calling them names.
> 
> You saw how this guy beat a hasty retreat when offered the opportunity to talk trash to my face.
> 
> So, don't take him seriously.  Ninety five percent of the posters here realize that, having tried to browbeat me and then being asked to put up or shut up, he climbed under that rock and screams obscenities from afar.  He's not worth getting upset over.  Just keep exposing his words, but ignore the little guy with the complex of feelings of inadequacy.
Click to expand...


You can quote a moron like -- pick one -- Napolitano and guess what?  It's STILL just a fallacious "appeal to authority."  For when SHE says something idiotic and wrong, her position of "authority" doesn't convert her manure into gold.  Wrong is still wrong.

The bottom line remains.  The UNITED STATES, in its Constitution, gives explicit authority to Congress over matters of naturalization.   Thus, there is NO doubt that the Federal Government's say-so on who gets to become a citizen is firmly grounded.  It is also exclusive.

Further, it is also true that the United States HAS every bit of right to assert its SOVEREIGN authority over matters of immigration.  It is both an incidence of sovereignty AND inextricably interwoven with the authority it has over naturalization.  

Moreover, it is also a field in which the Federal Government has legally recognized preemption, which is also perfectly valid and legitimate as well as grounded in necessity.

Morons, like BuddyPopgun, don't like it.  Ho hum.  Their disagreement is not controlling.  Thankfully.


----------



## starcraftzzz

BuddyColt said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Improper entry into the country by an alien is ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> None of the cases you cited (but couldn't understand) support your idiotic open borders fantasy, and were never even intended to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at one time it was illegal for a black person to be free.
> So plz instead of just going "its illegal" give us an actually argument
> with some content, but if that is to hard for you...
> 
> Also again you show that you are a two-face liar.
> You claim that you dont dislike illegal immigration not
> because you're xenophgic but because it is illegal
> then you sit there and say that people who want to make it legal
> are horrible people. So clearly the real reason you hate illegal immigration
> is not because its illegal its because its brown peoplemoving in.
> Furthermore there is nothing idiotic about open borders because there is
> nothing idiotic about allowing people to move where they want to live
> so that they can work for a living.
> ."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, don't take him seriously.  Ninety five percent of the posters here realize that, having tried to browbeat me and then being asked to put up or shut up, he climbed under that rock and screams obscenities from afar.  He's not worth getting upset over.  Just keep exposing his words, but ignore the little guy with the complex of feelings of inadequacy.
Click to expand...


Jeuss you failed to address anything I stated. You just wend om some random red herring about what SOMEONE else said
But this si a good thing the fact that you avoided the topic
means that deep down you know I am right, so be the man and admit it.
I'll repost my post:

And at one time it was illegal for a black person to be free.
So plz instead of just going "its illegal" give us an actually argument
with some content, but if that is to hard for you...

Also again you show that you are a two-face liar.
You claim that you dont dislike illegal immigration not
because you're xenophgic but because it is illegal
then you sit there and say that people who want to make it legal
are horrible people. So clearly the real reason you hate illegal immigration
is not because its illegal its because its brown peoplemoving in.
Furthermore there is nothing idiotic about open borders because there is 
nothing idiotic about allowing people to move where they want to live
so that they can work for a living.
Plz actually supply an argument with some content instead of just ""illegal sovereignty, its bad I'm not racist""


----------



## hortysir

BuddyColt said:


> <snip>
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel<snip>



You're gonna have to show me that one, there, Skippy.

Quote/Source, Link?


----------



## Unkotare

U.S.C. Section 1325

"(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."


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You saw how this guy beat a hasty retreat when offered the opportunity to talk trash to my face.  .





How many times did I tell you to go ahead and say what you wanted to say, tough-guy? Every time you got shy and went away. Why is that, tough-guy? If you want work done on your face you'll have to be more specific. It sounds like you want to visit, maybe use your AARP frequent flyer miles? Stop beating around the bush, tough-guy.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So opposition to other people taking actions to
> make their lives better while simultaneously
> expanding our own economy is equal to what?
> Because it is either xenophobia or ignorance/stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See again you didn't explain why it is a bad thing you
> just through[SIC] out a term that "sounds" bad (of which you do
> not know the diefieniton[SIC] of) and then made some illogical connection
Click to expand...



Which word do you think I don't know the "diefieniton" rolleyes of? What "illogical connection" are you referring to? If you're still sober enough to answer, get to it.


----------



## BuddyColt

hortysir said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel<snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna have to show me that one, there, Skippy.
> 
> Quote/Source, Link?
Click to expand...



I've only put this link up ... uh enough times that people call it spamming, but here's your link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process


----------



## hortysir

BuddyColt said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel<snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna have to show me that one, there, Skippy.
> 
> Quote/Source, Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've only put this link up ... uh enough times that people call it spamming, but here's your link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
Click to expand...



Liberty is unbridled?


Cool.
Wait until my boss finds out


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> You claim that you dont dislike illegal immigration not
> because you're xenophgic but because it is illegal
> then you sit there and say that people who want to make it legal
> are horrible people.




Why is that so hard to understand, moron?


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> So clearly the real reason you hate illegal immigration
> is not because its illegal its because its brown peoplemoving in.





That is not only a completely illogical conclusion, but if it reveals anything it is your own inherent racism for trying to inject race where it does not belong and for attempting to define people by the color of their skin. You are a disgrace.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Furthermore there is nothing idiotic about open borders because there is
> nothing idiotic about allowing people to move where they want to live
> so that they can work for a living.





I'm sure you would be just fine with coming home to find dozens of people living in your house without your permission. After all, they have to live wherever they want so that they can work for a living.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> U.S.C. Section 1325
> 
> "(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
> misrepresentation and concealment of facts
> 
> This section describes THREE things:
> *  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."
> 
> *Section three gives the penalty for entry to the the United States by a WILLFULLY FALSE OR MISLEADING MISREPRESENTATION OR THE WILLFUL CONCEALMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT,  Section 3 incorporated Title 18 because Title 18 is the Criminal Code.  Section 3 of this statute does not apply to the improper entry for two reasons:  the first reason is that Title 8 is a Civil statute and the second reason is that improper entry is NOT a crime in Title 18.*



Let's help our resident Perry Mason out a little bit.  See my comments in red too.

When former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giulani explained it, his words are exactly the ones I've used throughout this entire debate.  I'm telling you the same thing you would learn if you took CLE courses in immigration law today:

Online CLE Credits - Continuing Legal Education Courses - Lawline.com

All this B.S. about Buddy Colt said this and Buddy Colt believes that are nonsense.  Listen to the words of a man who was a U.S. Attorney that worked at the highest levels of immigration law:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0]Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Not A Crime And Should Not Be - YouTube[/ame]

Congress tried to make improper entry an unlawful act.  It cannot be made into an illegal one.  That effort failed.  It is in Section 203 of HR 4437

Research it and you'll see that I told you the truth.


----------



## BuddyColt

hortysir said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna have to show me that one, there, Skippy.
> 
> Quote/Source, Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've only put this link up ... uh enough times that people call it spamming, but here's your link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is unbridled?
> 
> 
> Cool.
> Wait until my boss finds out
Click to expand...


Don't tell me you're going to start answering the facts before you have started researching them.  Look, read the first four postings of this thread (Is it Really Illegal?)

Follow the links.  Then, if you have a criticism; if you find a factual error; if you think I did not tell you the facts as they are presented by those in the highest levels of government, present the discrepancy and I can address it.

This B.S. of having me post a link and then you comment on it before reading it is leading you and me both nowhere.  So what's your point?


----------



## hortysir

BuddyColt said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've only put this link up ... uh enough times that people call it spamming, but here's your link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is unbridled?
> 
> 
> Cool.
> Wait until my boss finds out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you're going to start answering the facts before you have started researching them.  Look, read the first four postings of this thread (Is it Really Illegal?)
> 
> Follow the links.  Then, if you have a criticism; if you find a factual error; if you think I did not tell you the facts as they are presented by those in the highest levels of government, present the discrepancy and I can address it.
> 
> This B.S. of having me post a link and then you comment on it before reading it is leading you and me both nowhere.  So what's your point?
Click to expand...


According to this most recent link, nothing is illegal.

We have the unalienable right to unrestricted liberty.


----------



## Liability

BuggyDolt is not capable of arguing rationally.


----------



## BuddyColt

hortysir said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is unbridled?
> 
> 
> Cool.
> Wait until my boss finds out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you're going to start answering the facts before you have started researching them.  Look, read the first four postings of this thread (Is it Really Illegal?)
> 
> Follow the links.  Then, if you have a criticism; if you find a factual error; if you think I did not tell you the facts as they are presented by those in the highest levels of government, present the discrepancy and I can address it.
> 
> This B.S. of having me post a link and then you comment on it before reading it is leading you and me both nowhere.  So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to this most recent link, nothing is illegal.
> 
> We have the unalienable right to unrestricted liberty.
Click to expand...


I know, for a fact, that you did not read that link.  You did not have the time to read it and damn sure not the time to study the cases nor the internal links.

You're now lying to the readers of this board and for whatever reason, I do not know.

Not every action you take is a Liberty associated with an *unalienable Right*.  However, had you studied what an unalienable Right is, you would know that if you have an *unalienable Right*, nobody can take it from you.  The entire premise of the article explains the definitions of the different kinds of rights and privileges and then lets you decide which interpretation of the Constitution you had rather be bound by.  

Do us both a favor.  Don't misrepresent the topic.  Somebody might just read it and check the reference material only to figure that you just shot them a line of shit.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuggyDolt is not capable of arguing rationally.



You're too irrational to have a rational argument with.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuggyDolt is not capable of arguing rationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too irrational to have a rational argument with.
Click to expand...


BuggyDolt resorts to his famed "neener neener, not me; YOU" line of argument.


----------



## Liability

BuggyDolt imagines that any foreigner has an unalienable right to cross our border.  

Worse yet, the tool actually seems to believe that nonsense.


----------



## Unkotare

Too bad for BloodyDolt and the rest of the pro-illegal alien crowd that none of this parsing and semantics does a damn thing to make their little fantasy of open borders even one bit more of a reality.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> Too bad for BloodyDolt and the rest of the pro-illegal alien crowd that none of this parsing and semantics does a damn thing to make their little fantasy of open borders even one bit more of a reality.



Thank God.

Let me just rub the dopes' noses in it.

Our borders may NOT be LEGALLY crossed without our collective permission as spelled out in the FEDERAL LAW which has preempted the field entirely.

There is NO SUCH THING as an unalienable right to cross our national borders without OUR permission and authority.

Any alien who crosses our national border without approval as spelled out by the FEDERAL LAW has committed a CRIME.  An actual -- by God -- you can REALLY and TRULY go to jail or prison for it kind of crime.  And lots of illegal aliens HAVE.  Rightly so.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is equal to respecting the sovereignty of the United States. It also turns out to coincide with support for LEGAL immigration and a lack of support for the exploitation of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See again you didn't explain why it is a bad thing you
> just through[SIC] out a term that "sounds" bad (of which you do
> not know the diefieniton[SIC] of) and then made some illogical connection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word do you think I don't know the "diefieniton" rolleyes of? What "illogical connection" are you referring to? If you're still sober enough to answer, get to it.
Click to expand...


If you think people moving to America takes away Americas power you are crazy. So go on plz explain how America having more money makes us less powerful (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
I see you still cant exaplin how immigration is bad this is because you do not sit down and think, you didn't go what are the effects of immigration, "1) more people get to be in the greatest country on earth 2) People get to live where they want to and be happy 3) America has more tax payers/workers etc etc instead you went to Glen Beck heard him spout out a bunch of incoherent talking points and just regurgitate them back whit out even think (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of).
No plz try to respond with an actual rebuttal/argument something other then 
"your stupid immigrations bad LOLLOL" but I doubt that's possible because its beyond your mental abilities and I'm never wrong..


----------



## starcraftzzz

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuggyDolt is not capable of arguing rationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too irrational to have a rational argument with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BuggyDolt resorts to his famed "neener neener, not me; YOU" line of argument.
Click to expand...


The thing is is that he is right. All you ever say is "your a dumbass"
so possibly since thats all you can say you are the dumbass


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See again you didn't explain why it is a bad thing you
> just through[SIC] out a term that "sounds" bad (of which you do
> not know the diefieniton[SIC] of) and then made some illogical connection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which word do you think I don't know the "diefieniton" rolleyes of? What "illogical connection" are you referring to? If you're still sober enough to answer, get to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think people moving to America takes away Americas power you are crazy. So go on plz explain how America having more money makes us less powerful (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
> I see you still cant exaplin how immigration is bad this is because you do not sit down and think, you didn't go what are the effects of immigration, "1) more people get to be in the greatest country on earth 2) People get to live where they want to and be happy 3) America has more tax payers/workers etc etc instead you went to Glen Beck heard him spout out a bunch of incoherent talking points and just regurgitate them back whit out even think (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of).
> No plz try to respond with an actual rebuttal/argument something other then
> "your stupid immigrations bad LOLLOL" but I doubt that's possible because its beyond your mental abilities and I'm never wrong..
Click to expand...


^ Utter imbecility.  

People moving illegally to America *costs* all of us money.

"Having more people" is not always the rational goal of a sustainable society.

People do NOT get to live where they want.  They get to live where they are and where they can legally get to.

And don't dare lecture anybody about "sovereignty" when you re too fucking stupid to understand it your own pathetic ass self, ya jerk off.

Bottom line.  One can encourage and support LEGAL immigration while consistently, rationally and wisely opposing ILLEGAL immigration.


----------



## Unkotare

LEGAL immigration is one of America's greatest strengths. ILLEGAL immigration is harmful to everyone involved and we need to do more to stop it. If you can't distinguish between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration then don't bother asking questions because you are too stupid and dishonest to waste the time on. The same goes for your false and idiotic charges of racism. If you want to be taken seriously, then stop being an asshole. It's up to you.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of)...





Which word do you imagine that to be, idiot?


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're too irrational to have a rational argument with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuggyDolt resorts to his famed "neener neener, not me; YOU" line of argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is is that he is right. All you ever say is "your a dumbass"
> so possibly since thats all you can say you are the dumbass
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Dishonest of you, too.

But you certainly ARE A dumbass.  Like DummyDolt, you too are wrong.  

The only reason YOU can't have a rational argument is because you are *entirely* irrational.


----------



## Contumacious

Liability said:


> There is STILL a difference, you dishonest hack twat, between illegal immigration and legal immigration.



Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:







*The Know Nothing* was a movement by the nativist American political faction of the 1850s, characterized by political xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment, and occasional bouts of violence against the groups the nativists targeted. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to republican values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. 

How come your intellectual ancestors never referred to early immigrants as "illegal"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888. 

Please don't be a retard and purposely confuse NATURALIZATION with IMMIGRATION?



.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which word do you think I don't know the "diefieniton" rolleyes of? What "illogical connection" are you referring to? If you're still sober enough to answer, get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think people moving to America takes away Americas power you are crazy. So go on plz explain how America having more money makes us less powerful (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
> I see you still cant exaplin how immigration is bad this is because you do not sit down and think, you didn't go what are the effects of immigration, "1) more people get to be in the greatest country on earth 2) People get to live where they want to and be happy 3) America has more tax payers/workers etc etc instead you went to Glen Beck heard him spout out a bunch of incoherent talking points and just regurgitate them back whit out even think (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of).
> No plz try to respond with an actual rebuttal/argument something other then
> "your stupid immigrations bad LOLLOL" but I doubt that's possible because its beyond your mental abilities and I'm never wrong..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Utter imbecility.
> 
> People moving illegally to America *costs* all of us money.
> 
> "Having more people" is not always the rational goal of a sustainable society.
> 
> People do NOT get to live where they want.  They get to live where they are and where they can legally get to.
> 
> And don't dare lecture anybody about "sovereignty" when you re too fucking stupid to understand it your own pathetic ass self, ya jerk off.
> 
> Bottom line.  One can encourage and support LEGAL immigration while consistently, rationally and wisely opposing ILLEGAL immigration.
Click to expand...



Just for shits and giggles, we can play this silly ass game one more time:

When many of your ancestors came into the United States, all they did was check in with immigration officials.    I advocate returning to those days... the same ones that our forefathers lived under and I become the victim of cheap shots.

The reality has been (and the reason my threads become a circus rather than a place for intelligent discussion) is one thing: those criticizing me don't have a damn clue about the economics of their own country.

It is known fact that every study not underwritten by John Tanton's enterprises - whether government or private, concludes that the foreigners pay as much in taxes as they take in services.  So, from a taxpayer standpoint, it doesn't cost us anything

Then we go to jobs.  I've already discussed the* FACT* that foreigners *create* jobs.  But, the name calling squad on this board wouldn't know about that.  Even basic economics takes a bit more understanding than knowing how to flip a burger at Burger King.  Since they could not answer these questions the first time, no point in asking again.  We can look at the economic history of the United States and see that unemployment rates were at their lowest when the government was *not* obsessing about immigration.

The Draconian immigration policies that the anti - immigrant National Socialists are peddling have a far more  reaching negative effect than open immigration.  Those laws are most likely going to be used against the anti - immigrant before being employed against people that come to the United States in order to engage in lawful pursuits.

We look at the B.S. regarding immigration and realize that the name calling cheering squad here isn't leveling with you.  They claim it's all about "_legal_" immigration, yet they would oppose amnesty.  Yet an amnesty would let employers off as well.  IF we _"enforced_" the law the way the anti - immigrant want, then under Due Process, we'd have to go after employers.  Businesses would be shut down and there would still be no jobs to argue about.  The anti - immigrant B.S. is aimed at imposing a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.  The reality is, foreigners working here *create* jobs.  The cheering section on this board don't want that since all they qualify for is menial labor jobs they think are being "_stolen_" from Americans... as if we are already a socialist country.


----------



## Unkotare

The dishonest piece of shit who refuses to distinguish between LEGAL  and ILLEGAL immigration so that he can try to paint anyone opposed to those violating our national sovereignty as "anti-immigrant" does not deserve to be taken seriously.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> The dishonest piece of shit who refuses to distinguish between LEGAL  and ILLEGAL immigration so that he can try to paint anyone opposed to those violating our national sovereignty as "anti-immigrant" does not deserve to be taken seriously.



You are not being taken seriously when all people have to do is click on the links I provide and see that the opinions expressed are not my own, but those who actually DO the work.

You want it to be an issue where you can call people "_illegal_" something or the other, realizing that you are condemning people to a criminal status absent Due Process.  Then, even by YOUR standards, the alleged "_crime_" wouldn't amount to any more than a misdemeanor, but you demand anything short of the death penalty.  You aren't bitching about the employer that hires the foreigner because if you pursued them the same way, soon, companies would be shut down and there would be no jobs for anybody.

You don't want to extend Liberty to other human beings; you don't think that other Americans have the Right to invite others into the United States; you can't understand the fact that not all people that pass through America want or need to become citizens.

You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but there is one thing I want to make abundantly clear to you:  I don't care about your issue with the Hispanics.  I don't give a fuck.  Get that through your head.  I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing because it sets the precedent that you or I could be pursued as some kind of criminal without the constitutional guarantees of Due Process.  If you weren't a chickenshit and a bigot, you would have followed the many links I've given,

You would learn that I once had to endure being pursued as an enemy combatant absent any Due Process - all made available by YOUR brand of anti - immigrant legislation known as the _"Patriot Act_."  People I knew for years found themselves as victims of your racist and unconscionable laws.  Some are dead.  Some are in prison.  Some were forced to be snitches for Uncle Scam.  But, the government always can count on some backward thinking, Liberty hating, double talking back stabbing National Socialist like yourself.  

DUE PROCESS, what part of that do YOU not understand?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> you are condemning people to a criminal status absent Due Process.





You fail AGAIN in your attempt to play at legal expert. There is no "due process" involved in a citizen recognizing the illegitimate status of someone who came here by violating the borders of my country. You don't make yourself sound 'professional' when you try to play such games, you just make yourself sound like the wannabe poseur you obviously are.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> you demand anything short of the death penalty.





When have I said that? Do you have so little to say that you must resort to outright dishonesty, asshole?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You aren't bitching about the employer that hires the foreigner






Not "the foreigner," the illegal alien, you dishonest fuck. And don't presume to assign any positions to me, you fucking loser. If you have a legitimate question, ask it. If not, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You don't want to extend Liberty to other human beings; you don't think that other Americans have the Right to invite others into the United States; you can't understand the fact that not all people that pass through America want or need to become citizens.





Fuck you, and fuck all of your straw men.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I don't care about your issue with the Hispanics.




I don't have any such issue, so screw you and your assumptions, idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing




What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.
Click to expand...


Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.

Secondly, due to the fact that *unalienable Right*s trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.  That was settled in the discussions over HR 4437

Finally, the government demands people do an act properly, but provide no "proper" process as* you* define it.  There is no Guest Worker program and not everybody that passes through the U.S. need to become citizens.  

Your strategy puts even the politicians that agree with you between a rock and a hard place, absolutely guaranteeing amnesties that lead to citizenship OR taking the chance that the Supreme Court will rule on the whole issue and you would lose there... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court.  You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice.  You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it.  Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court.  THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.


----------



## Annie

California Girl said:


> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?



Coming in a week late, Who the hell are the 'National Socialists? LOL!


----------



## Annie

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.*
> 
> Secondly, due to the fact that *unalienable Right*s trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.  That was settled in the discussions over HR 4437
> 
> Finally, the government demands people do an act properly, but provide no "proper" process as* you* define it.  There is no Guest Worker program and not everybody that passes through the U.S. need to become citizens.
> 
> Your strategy puts even the politicians that agree with you between a rock and a hard place, absolutely guaranteeing amnesties that lead to citizenship OR taking the chance that the Supreme Court will rule on the whole issue and you would lose there... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court.  You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice.  You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it.  Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court.  THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.
Click to expand...


From what I've seen of your posts opinions, there are no crimes.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You would learn that I once had to endure being pursued as an enemy combatant





What makes you think I give any fraction of a shit what you had to endure? Who the fuck are you? You seem like a person of low character and it doesn't surprise me at all that you would find yourself on the wrong side of the law. Maybe you need to stop bitching so much and clean your shit up, fool.


----------



## BuddyColt

Annie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in a week late, Who the hell are the 'National Socialists? LOL!
Click to expand...


That's all explained within the first fours postings of this thread.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.
Click to expand...



Violating the US border is an illegal act. I've never met one illegal alien who wasn't fully aware that he or she had broken the law and understood the consequences even if they hoped to avoid them.

Your utterly juvenile latching on to the term "unalienable rights" has never worked for the drunk driver trying to get off his charges, and it sure as hell doesn't work for your dim-witted promotion of open borders, idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice. .




You have no "sound advice" to give anyone, you stupid hack.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would learn that I once had to endure being pursued as an enemy combatant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I give any fraction of a shit what you had to endure? Who the fuck are you? You seem like a person of low character and it doesn't surprise me at all that you would find yourself on the wrong side of the law. Maybe you need to stop bitching so much and clean your shit up, fool.
Click to expand...


Any time you don't care about what I have to say, stay the hell off my threads and leave me the hell alone.  We would get along fine then.

As far as being of low character, I resemble that remark.  Before I started working in immigration law, I'd have been your best friend.  Yet the more active I became, the more problems I had.  Effectiveness has a price.  When I learned what the guys making the decisions know, I was able to do more than bitch about the status quo.

But, then I found out that big money and people in high places were the problem, not the foreigners.  They are a distraction to hide the bigger issue.  So, advancing beyond where you are, I'm the enemy, but if I had not been an asshole like you, the powers that be would not have pursued in the manner they did back then.

I doubt you have much to worry about as long as you can sit on your office chair throne and rule the world on a single discussion board where people equally uninformed look up to you as their guru... while others know what you really stand for.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> ... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court.   You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it.  Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court.  THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.




Come back when you have something to say that doesn't require the repeated use of the Conditional form. Until then, shut the fuck up you wannabe loser.


----------



## Annie

BuddyColt said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in a week late, Who the hell are the 'National Socialists? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all explained within the first fours postings of this thread.
Click to expand...


No it's not, or if it is it's lost in the bellicosity. Which post, since you only need to ID one of four?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Any time you don't care about what I have to say, stay the hell off my threads and leave me the hell alone.  .




Oh, are they your threads? There's something else you don't understand, idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Before I started working in immigration law, I'd have been your best friend.  .




Guess again, asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I doubt you have much to worry about .




Not from the likes of you, pussy.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating the US border is an illegal act. I've never met one illegal alien who wasn't fully aware that he or she had broken the law and understood the consequences even if they hoped to avoid them.
> 
> Your utterly juvenile latching on to the term "unalienable rights" has never worked for the drunk driver trying to get off his charges, and it sure as hell doesn't work for your dim-witted promotion of open borders, idiot.
Click to expand...


You make the most uninformed and idiotic conclusions imaginable.  Drunk driving is an issue where your actions could jeopardize my rights.  The old maxim applies:  Your rights end where my nose begins.  You don't have an issue there.  Sorry.  You think you know things you really don't.

The Hispanics are given comic books and taught how to avoid the cops.  It's a game.  In Mexico, the cops pull you over.  There is no "law" that allows the local constabularies to do the shit they do, but they will charge you a "tax" on all you own just for passing through their village.  It's a power game; it's not about laws.  Most Hispanics understand police corruption and power plays, not your idea of legal and "illegal."  To them, it's a cat and mouse game and paying off the policia is merely the cost of doing business.

I AM opposed to people doing illegal things.  It's illegal to deny to people their *unalienable Rights*.  IF you knew how to read, you would click on that link and read that article.  If I weren't opposed to illegal things, I wouldn't bitch because the government refuses to create a class of Guest Workers and be done with this silly ass argument.

I'm against the illegal actions of people like you, advocating treason.  You want to destroy Liberty to promote your agenda of bigotry and injustice just because you are personally offended.  As you so aptly stated: you don't give a fuck about the Rights of others that disagree with you.  But, they have Rights too.  

The difference between you and I:  I may disagree with everything a man has to say and yet fight to the death for his right to say it... and BTW, that includes yours.  So, that is probably the fundamental difference between somebody that embraces Liberty whereas another longs for tyranny.


----------



## Annie

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violating the US border is an illegal act. I've never met one illegal alien who wasn't fully aware that he or she had broken the law and understood the consequences even if they hoped to avoid them.
> 
> Your utterly juvenile latching on to the term "unalienable rights" has never worked for the drunk driver trying to get off his charges, and it sure as hell doesn't work for your dim-witted promotion of open borders, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the most uninformed and idiotic conclusions imaginable.  Drunk driving is an issue where your actions could jeopardize my rights.  The old maxim applies:  Your rights end where my nose begins.  You don't have an issue there.  Sorry.  You think you know things you really don't.
> 
> The Hispanics are given comic books and taught how to avoid the cops.  It's a game.  In Mexico, the cops pull you over.  There is no "law" that allows the local constabularies to do the shit they do, but they will charge you a "tax" on all you own just for passing through their village.  It's a power game; it's not about laws.  Most Hispanics understand police corruption and power plays, not your idea of legal and "illegal."  To them, it's a cat and mouse game and paying off the policia is merely the cost of doing business.
> 
> I AM opposed to people doing illegal things.  It's illegal to deny to people their *unalienable Rights*.  IF you knew how to read, you would click on that link and read that article.  If I weren't opposed to illegal things, I wouldn't bitch because the government refuses to create a class of Guest Workers and be done with this silly ass argument.
> 
> I'm against the illegal actions of people like you, advocating treason.  You want to destroy Liberty to promote your agenda of bigotry and injustice just because you are personally offended.  As you so aptly stated: you don't give a fuck about the Rights of others that disagree with you.  But, they have Rights too.
> 
> The difference between you and I:  I may disagree with everything a man has to say and yet fight to the death for his right to say it... and BTW, that includes yours.  So, that is probably the fundamental difference between somebody that embraces Liberty whereas another longs for tyranny.
Click to expand...


While one continent, we're not one country. US rights are not extended to all other countries, even Europe wouldn't like that. For that matter, illegal immigrants aren't just Mexicans, not by a long shot.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Drunk driving is an issue where your actions could jeopardize my rights.  .





Yeah, yeah, apply it to speed limits, insurance, auto registration, etc. The point remains the same. Don't play games you are bad at, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I AM opposed to people doing illegal things. .




You're a fucking liar, and all your attempts at playing with words and concepts that are beyond you doesn't change that.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I'm against the illegal actions of people like you, advocating treason.  You want to destroy Liberty to promote your agenda of bigotry and injustice just because you are personally offended.  As you so aptly stated: you don't give a fuck about the Rights of others that disagree with you.  .




That's not what I said, you low-life fucking liar. Go find a UFO/Conspiracy forum to bore people on, fool.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> While one continent, we're not one country. US rights are not extended to all other countries, even Europe wouldn't like that. For that matter, illegal immigrants aren't just Mexicans, not by a long shot.



All persons in the United States are entitled to basic due process rights, including persons who entered the country without documentation. See: _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982). 

Read the explanation of the laws cited in the OP.

You may not like, understand, or accept the settled law on the issue, but these are the undisputed facts nonetheless.


----------



## Annie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> While one continent, we're not one country. US rights are not extended to all other countries, even Europe wouldn't like that. For that matter, illegal immigrants aren't just Mexicans, not by a long shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All persons in the United States are entitled to basic due process rights, including persons who entered the country without documentation. See: _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> Read the explanation of the laws cited in the OP.
> 
> You may not like, understand, or accept the settled law on the issue, but these are the undisputed facts nonetheless.
Click to expand...


I may have answered this seriously, if you'd have quoted seriously. 

Obviously you didn't mean seriously, or you are incapable of simple quote process. Either way, not worth the trouble.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you have much to worry about .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the likes of you, pussy.
Click to expand...


I told you once and I'll say it again for your non English understaning, non existent brain:

When challenged, you ran like a scalded dog.  Don't fuck around with real men, little boy.  Some day, somebody is going to put a real name with who you are and then expose you for what you are.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you have much to worry about .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the likes of you, pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you once and I'll say it again for your non English understaning, non existent brain:
> 
> When challenged, you ran like a scalded dog.  Don't fuck around with real men, little boy.  Some day, somebody is going to put a real name with who you are and then expose you for what you are.
Click to expand...



How many times do you need to be invited to say what you want to say, pussy? Go ahead, no one is stopping you. Maybe you can find a "real man" to help you instead of dropping these dramatic declarations and then retreating into silence again and again. Your little performance is getting pretty old, tough-guy.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk driving is an issue where your actions could jeopardize my rights.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, apply it to speed limits, insurance, auto registration, etc. The point remains the same. Don't play games you are bad at, fool.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't play games you're not worth a shit at.  It forces you to make multiple posts, calling people names while you hope to make yourself look big.  It isn't working.  The longer this thread lasts, the more people chime in and tell you that Rights are bestowed upon people at birth by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be.)  

Some are actually accessing the links I provided (while I suspect some already knew about a few of these cases.)  Repeatedly the courts have said that Rights predate the Constitution and Rights are, in no way dependent upon that instrument for their existence.

You can call me names all day long, but it won't change the facts.  Neither will calling me names negate the fact that I told you if you have a personal problem with me, you need to take it up offline, personally.


----------



## BuddyColt

Annie said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one continent, we're not one country. US rights are not extended to all other countries, even Europe wouldn't like that. For that matter, illegal immigrants aren't just Mexicans, not by a long shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All persons in the United States are entitled to basic due process rights, including persons who entered the country without documentation. See: _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> Read the explanation of the laws cited in the OP.
> 
> You may not like, understand, or accept the settled law on the issue, but these are the undisputed facts nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have answered this seriously, if you'd have quoted seriously.
> 
> Obviously you didn't mean seriously, or you are incapable of simple quote process. Either way, not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## Unkotare

And I told you (how many times now?) that if you have something to say you should go ahead and say it right here. You seem to get real shy everytime you have the chance to speak your 'mind' (such as it is), tough-guy. Say what you want to say or shut the fuck up once and for all, tough-guy. 

As for the rest of your nonsense, none of it will make one bit of a difference in any way in the real world. You're just like the drunk driver trying to make specious reference to "unalienable rights" to get out of a DUI. No one takes it seriously and it affects nothing. The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> The dishonest piece of shit who refuses to distinguish between LEGAL  and ILLEGAL immigration so that he can try to paint anyone opposed to those violating our national sovereignty as "anti-immigrant" does not deserve to be taken seriously.



Yes when the  Yes when the discussion moves to why illegals immigration is bad and beyond labels and still all you are able to say is &#8220;illegal/legal&#8221; it&#8217;s pretty clear you have no real reason to oppose immigration except that you hate foreigners . I mean shit you hate them so much that you want to spend hundreds of billions making their lives harder and worse despite it shrinking our economy lowering tax recipes and killing jobs.
Jesus your so pathetic youd rather be poor then live near more brown people


----------



## Unkotare

Do you honestly not realize how illogical and racist your comments are? Are you really this stupid?


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> And I told you (how many times now?) that if you have something to say you should go ahead and say it right here. You seem to get real shy everytime you have the chance to speak your 'mind' (such as it is), tough-guy. Say what you want to say or shut the fuck up once and for all, tough-guy.
> 
> As for the rest of your nonsense, none of it will make one bit of a difference in any way in the real world. You're just like the drunk driver trying to make specious reference to "unalienable rights" to get out of a DUI. No one takes it seriously and it affects nothing. The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.



Talk is cheap.  The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face.  

*FWIW*,  This is what I would say to you and we can end it there:

You have tried to mislead these people into thinking you know things you don't and then have the audacity to call me a liar.  You're the one telling the lies and when called on it, you resort to further name calling.

You bring bogus "facts" to the table.  For instance, I won't forget you quoting a case wherein a foreigner was being tried for *eluding authorities* and you tried to pawn that off as an improper entry case.

You are the most opportunistic,dishonest and uneducated individual on this board.  You like to peck your keyboard, calling people names because you don't have the balls nor the brains to talk trash to the face of real men.  When given the opportunity to have a face to face discussion, you slither away only to return and go through your predictable litany.

You obviously don't have a damn thing going for you and every time I think you might engage in productive conversation, you never cease to amaze me.  It goes right back to the personal shit because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to roll the dice and talk your shit to live, living individuals.  

I've entertained you for free.  But, one day you will reap what you've sown.  Then, I'll be that voice in your head that won't go away.  I told you so.  I told you so.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which word do you think I don't know the "diefieniton" rolleyes of? What "illogical connection" are you referring to? If you're still sober enough to answer, get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think people moving to America takes away Americas power you are crazy. So go on plz explain how America having more money makes us less powerful (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
> I see you still cant exaplin how immigration is bad this is because you do not sit down and think, you didn't go what are the effects of immigration, "1) more people get to be in the greatest country on earth 2) People get to live where they want to and be happy 3) America has more tax payers/workers etc etc instead you went to Glen Beck heard him spout out a bunch of incoherent talking points and just regurgitate them back whit out even think (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of).
> No plz try to respond with an actual rebuttal/argument something other then
> "your stupid immigrations bad LOLLOL" but I doubt that's possible because its beyond your mental abilities and I'm never wrong..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Utter imbecility.
> 
> People moving illegally to America *costs* all of us money.
Click to expand...

Plz explain how some one coming here working paying taxes and buy goods costs you money. Does it cost you money when they buy food from your store, when they buy rent from your land lord, when they produce food/other goods, or when they pay taxes. Seriously plz post a post that contains some content..

"Having more people" is not always the rational goal of a sustainable society.


Liability said:


> People do NOT get to live where they want.



  They get to live where they are and where they can legally get to.[/quote]
I see so according to you the government should have the power to tell us all where we live; meaning when the government kicks people out of their homes to build a road that is okay; that means that sending the Japs to internment camps wasnt wrong because according to you the govt can tell us where we can live. Sounds a bit like the USSR


Liability said:


> And don't dare lecture anybody about "sovereignty" when you re too fucking stupid to understand it your own pathetic ass self, ya jerk off.


A loss in sovereignty would be a loss of power for America; so plz explain why America habing more money means we have less power. Perhaps if instead of just regurgitating talking points you actually used your brain you wouldnt be so mad to find out that you used a word of which you did not know the definition


Liability said:


> Bottom line.  One can encourage and support LEGAL immigration while consistently, rationally and wisely opposing ILLEGAL immigration.


Yes however as youve all proven you oppose legal immigration you just simply hide behind illegal immigration and every time someone makes an argument you spout illegals arent legal
Perfect example the DREAM act makes it so some illegal immigration becomes legal and you all slam it like its the plague. Why? It cannot be because you do not want more doctors, or a reduced deficit or a bigger economy. What is it? The only logical conclusion is that you are either a brainwashed moron or a racist


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which word do you imagine that to be, idiot?
Click to expand...


Jesus when in the same post you quote I tell you which word and you ignore it and eliminate the rest of my post and you then ask me what Ive already answered it is pathetic .

Ill repost the same post you just quoted

If you think people moving to America takes away Americas power you are crazy. So go on plz explain how America having more money makes us less powerful (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
I see you still cant exaplin how immigration is bad this is because you do not sit down and think, you didn't go what are the effects of immigration, "1) more people get to be in the greatest country on earth 2) People get to live where they want to and be happy 3) America has more tax payers/workers etc etc instead you went to Glen Beck heard him spout out a bunch of incoherent talking points and just regurgitate them back whit out even think (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of).
No plz try to respond with an actual rebuttal/argument something other then
"your stupid immigrations bad LOLLOL" but I doubt that's possible because its beyond your mental abilities and I'm never wrong..

No plz come back when you can do something besides ignore reality/posts or say your stupid!!!


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Talk is cheap.  The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face. .




Ok, tough-guy, I believe I asked you before if you wanted to use your AARP frequent flyer miles and I believe you ran away AGAIN. 

Is this some little drama-club exercise for you? If so, it is getting pretty boring and repetitive. Do something with this or take your high heels off and shut the fuck up already.


----------



## Douger

Moving *TO* duh US(without force) should mandate a psychological examination.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).





What in your little pea brain gives you the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word "Sovereignty," idiot?


----------



## Unkotare

Douger said:


> Moving *TO* duh US(without force) should mandate a psychological examination.



You are more than welcome to stay the fuck away, loser.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I've entertained you for free.




Not very well, idiot, not very well.

Remember this part? 
*The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.*


That's the part you need to remember, missy.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk is cheap.  The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tough-guy, I believe I asked you before if you wanted to use your AARP frequent flyer miles and I believe you ran away AGAIN.
> 
> Is this some little drama-club exercise for you? If so, it is getting pretty boring and repetitive. Do something with this or take your high heels off and shut the fuck up already.
Click to expand...


I'm not that old.  Fact is, I'm going to do a two mile jog and when I return, you'll still be here with that litany of idiot this and liar that.  Know this:  you can taunt people from afar, but most sensible people that read this will figure you out for who and what you are.

You sit on your ass all day picking Internet fights with a host of people, trying to make each point they make a personal issue between them and yourself.  

I think that the people of this board should take up a collection until we get about fifty dollars.  We ought to buy you a dog and give it to you.  You could name it Life.  That way you could say you had one.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk is cheap.  The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tough-guy, I believe I asked you before if you wanted to use your AARP frequent flyer miles and I believe you ran away AGAIN.
> 
> Is this some little drama-club exercise for you? If so, it is getting pretty boring and repetitive. Do something with this or take your high heels off and shut the fuck up already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not that old.  Fact is, I'm going to do a two mile jog .
Click to expand...




LOL! Wow, a two mile jog! What a fucking hardass! You really are a tough-guy!  Stop humiliating yourself, gramps. Shut the fuck up and eat your pudding.


----------



## Contumacious

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is STILL a difference, you dishonest hack twat, between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Know Nothing* was a movement by the nativist American political faction of the 1850s, characterized by political xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment, and occasional bouts of violence against the groups the nativists targeted. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to republican values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.
> 
> How come your intellectual ancestors never referred to early immigrants as "illegal"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.
> 
> Please don't be a retard and purposely confuse NATURALIZATION with IMMIGRATION?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is STILL a difference, you dishonest hack twat, between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Know Nothing* was a movement by the nativist American political faction of the 1850s, characterized by political xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment, and occasional bouts of violence against the groups the nativists targeted. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to republican values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.
> 
> How come your intellectual ancestors never referred to early immigrants as "illegal"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.
> 
> Please don't be a retard and purposely confuse NATURALIZATION with IMMIGRATION?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.

If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.

That dopey ignorant dipshit dishonest twats such as you and your willfully ignorant "open border fantasy" cadre cannot see the obvious connection between naturalization and immigration is your problem -- entirely.

Meanwhile, no matter how often you evade it, the point is crystal clear and has been for a long time.  The Federal Government has the authority under both the incidents of sovereignty and as implied powers from the Constitution itself OVER immigration.  

I believe what you are attempting (however inarticulate you have been) to grunt out is that "naturalization" is not synonymous with "immigration."  And that's true enough.

An interesting article that explores (and disputes to a large extent -- thus consistent with YOUR view) the validity of the claim of Federal Preemeption over immigration may be found here:   http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/vanderbilt-law-review/download.aspx?id=2727

A more clear cut statement from SCOTUS is found here:



> . . . [O]ur cases have also been at pains to note the substantial limitations upon the authority of the States in making classifications based upon alienage. In Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, supra, we considered a California statute that precluded aliens who were "ineligible for citizenship under federal law" from obtaining commercial fishing licenses, even though they "met all other state requirements" and were lawful inhabitants of the State. 334 U.S. at 334 U. S. 414. [Footnote 15] In seeking to defend the statute, the State
> 
> Page 458 U. S. 11
> 
> argued that it had "simply followed the Federal Government's lead" in classifying certain persons as "ineligible for citizenship." Id. at 334 U. S. 418. We rejected the argument, stressing the delicate nature of the federal-state relationship in regulating aliens:
> 
> "*The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization.* Under the Constitution, *the states are granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states.* State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid."
> 
> Id. at 334 U. S. 419 (emphasis added) (citation and footnote omitted). [Footnote 16]


 -- Toll v. Moreno - 458 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1982). [My emphases are added.]  The case opinions may be read at:  Toll v. Moreno - 458 U.S. 1 (1982) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center  {As a side note, Justice Brennan's "footnote 16" is remarkably rude for language about a dissenting contention.}

As to the contention that *exclusion of aliens* is an incident of sovereignty, the SCOTUS has already said as much:



> . . . _t does not require war to bring the power of deportation into existence, or to authorize its exercise. Congressional apprehension of foreign or internal dangers short of war may lead to its use. *So long as the alien elects to continue the ambiguity of his allegiance, his domicile here is held by a precarious tenure.*
> 
> That aliens remain vulnerable to expulsion after long residence is a practice that bristles with severities. *But it is a weapon of defense and reprisal confirmed by international law as a power inherent in every sovereign*
> 
> Page 342 U. S. 588
> 
> *state.* [Footnote 14] Such is the traditional power of the Nation over the alien, and we leave the law on the subject as we find it.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> [Footnote 14]
> 
> ". . . n strict law, a State can expel even domiciled aliens without so much as giving the reasons, the refusal of the expelling State to supply the reasons for expulsion to the home State of the expelled alien does not constitute an illegal, but only a very unfriendly, act."
> 
> 1 Oppenheim, International Law (3d ed., Roxburgh, 1920), 498-502 at 499. But cf. 1 Oppenheim, International Law (7th ed., Lauterpacht, 1948), 630-634 at 631. See also 4 Moore, International Law Digest, 67-96, citing examples; Wheaton's International Law (6th ed., Keith, 1929) 210-211; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698._


_  -- Harisiades v. Shaughnessy - 342 U.S. 580, 587-588 (1952).  [Emphases added.]  Opinions (with footnotes) may be found at:  Harisiades v. Shaughnessy - 342 U.S. 580 (1952) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In short, whether guys like Confusedatious like it or not (or are willing to admit reality or not), *the FACT remains*:  *just as the explicit grant of power over naturalization is given to the Federal Government* in the very words of the Constitution itself, so too the *implicit* *authority* of the *Federal Government over immigration and removal is an incident of our nation's sovereignty* (a concept, as noted, which is rooted in international law) *and* is derived from the various grants of authority given to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Denying that will not make it go away.

,

;

,_


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in your little pea brain gives you the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word "Sovereignty," idiot?
Click to expand...


Because you think people moving to America, paying taxes and making the US government richer makes the US government less powerful. I already explained this 3 timers So perhaps you should get your mom to read it for you so she can tell you what it means


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've entertained you for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well, idiot, not very well.
> 
> Remember this part?
> *The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.*
> 
> 
> That's the part you need to remember, missy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps when ALL your posts are, you idiot its you whose the idiot


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've entertained you for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well, idiot, not very well.
> 
> Remember this part?
> *The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.*
> 
> 
> That's the part you need to remember, missy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps when ALL your posts are, you idiot its you *whose* the idiot
Click to expand...


Ironic post is ironic.

Starrjizz doesn't see why.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well, idiot, not very well.
> 
> Remember this part?
> *The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.*
> 
> 
> That's the part you need to remember, missy.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps when ALL your posts are, &#8220;you idiot&#8221; it&#8217;s you *whose* the idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> Starrjizz doesn't see why.
Click to expand...

Thx for proving my point.


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps when ALL your posts are, you idiot its you *whose* the idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> Starrjizz doesn't see why.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thx for proving my point.
Click to expand...


I didn't.  But you have conclusively proved that you don't know what you are attempting to talk about.


----------



## Contumacious

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is STILL a difference, you dishonest hack twat, between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Know Nothing* was a movement by the nativist American political faction of the 1850s, characterized by political xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment, and occasional bouts of violence against the groups the nativists targeted. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to republican values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.
> 
> *How come your intellectual ancestors never referred to early immigrants as "illegal"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.
> 
> Please don't be a retard and purposely confuse NATURALIZATION with IMMIGRATION?*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.
> 
> If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.
Click to expand...


Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:

Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:


"*Courts* have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. *The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);* 


Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution

*SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)*



But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations

.


----------



## Liability

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Know Nothing* was a movement by the nativist American political faction of the 1850s, characterized by political xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment, and occasional bouts of violence against the groups the nativists targeted. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to republican values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.
> 
> *How come your intellectual ancestors never referred to early immigrants as "illegal"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.
> 
> Please don't be a retard and purposely confuse NATURALIZATION with IMMIGRATION?*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.
> 
> If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:
> 
> Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:
> 
> 
> "*Courts* have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. *The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);*
> 
> 
> Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution
> 
> *SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)*
> 
> 
> 
> But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ass-muncher, first step.  Wipe the spittle off your chin.

Second step.  Take a Midol, bitch.

Third step.  TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).

Answer WHAT "questions?"

I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.  

You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.   

Stop thinking you're slick.  You're not.  You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.

IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once.  Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit.  Set it up like a coherent syllogism:  Premise.  Premise.  Logical contention.  Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention.  Conclusion.

Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."

I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before.  But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.

Word.

,

;



,


----------



## starcraftzzz

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.
> 
> If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:
> 
> Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:
> 
> 
> "*Courts* have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. *The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);*
> 
> 
> Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution
> 
> *SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)*
> 
> 
> 
> But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ass-muncher, first step.  Wipe the spittle off your chin.
> 
> Second step.  Take a Midol, bitch.
> 
> Third step.  TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).
> 
> Answer WHAT "questions?"
> 
> I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.
> 
> You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.
> 
> Stop thinking you're slick.  You're not.  You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.
> 
> IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once.  Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit.  Set it up like a coherent syllogism:  Premise.  Premise.  Logical contention.  Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention.  Conclusion.
> 
> Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."
> 
> I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before.  But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.
> 
> Word.
> 
> ,
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
Click to expand...

Ah the spoiled baby shit his pants again. Someone get a diaper so we can throw her spoiled pampers in the trash


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:
> 
> Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:
> 
> 
> "*Courts* have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. *The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);*
> 
> 
> Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution
> 
> *SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)*
> 
> 
> 
> But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ass-muncher, first step.  Wipe the spittle off your chin.
> 
> Second step.  Take a Midol, bitch.
> 
> Third step.  TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).
> 
> Answer WHAT "questions?"
> 
> I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.
> 
> You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.
> 
> Stop thinking you're slick.  You're not.  You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.
> 
> IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once.  Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit.  Set it up like a coherent syllogism:  Premise.  Premise.  Logical contention.  Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention.  Conclusion.
> 
> Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."
> 
> I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before.  But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.
> 
> Word.
> 
> ,
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the spoiled baby shit his pants again. Someone get a diaper so we can throw her spoiled pampers in the trash
Click to expand...


As always, starrjizz has nothing of any merit to contribute.

Check.


----------



## Contumacious

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:
> 
> Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:
> 
> 
> "*Courts* have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. *The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);*
> 
> 
> Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution
> 
> *SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)*
> 
> 
> 
> But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ass-muncher, first step.  Wipe the spittle off your chin.
> 
> Second step.  Take a Midol, bitch.
> 
> Third step.  TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).
> 
> Answer WHAT "questions?"
> 
> I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.
> 
> You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.
> 
> Stop thinking you're slick.  You're not.  You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.
> 
> IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once.  Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit.  Set it up like a coherent syllogism:  Premise.  Premise.  Logical contention.  Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention.  Conclusion.
> 
> Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."
> 
> I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before.  But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.
> 
> Word.
> 
> ,
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the spoiled baby shit his pants again. Someone get a diaper so we can throw her spoiled pampers in the trash
Click to expand...


It won't be long before he quotes nazi judges opinion that gassing/exterminating Jews was constitutional.

.


----------



## BuddyColt

Contumacious and starcraftzzz,

You guys may as well hang it up.  Liability can type in big, bold and colorful letters along with put pictures into his posts.  His comrade can call you all kinds of names as he hears them on Comedy Central.

There is no doubt that the federal government *CAN* do a lot of things that these guys claim relative to *naturalization*.  The fact is, they do not actually do it.  In most instances, you'd be hard pressed to find a law addressing the need and fact situations.   Between the three of us, we can understand the difference between naturalization and immigration - or more accurately just people being GUESTS.  Forget it guys, it's a concept that these NSM types cannot grasp.

The reality is, the xenophobes will argue against every ruling all the way to hell, knowing they are wrong.  Let's take one of their arguments:

"_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory._"

Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?

Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government? 

Liability and his bitch hate foreigners.  The only way they see for people to live is to sell their soul, wait twenty years standing in some *imaginary *line where they can become citizens.  In the process, if that situation creates a bad precedent that you and I will be judged by, they are content to destroy American Liberty to rid this country of the brown people.  

Yet, for all their bravado, neither of those men have ever volunteered to man the border.  Neither of them has shot one of these people they claim are criminals.  Neither of them has done anything except look for excuses to wage war at a cost to your Liberties and mine. Then they expect someone else to do their wet work.  The only reason we are obliged to waste time on them is the hopes that they will offend the wrong bureaucrat and be hauled in for treason.

I don't care one way or another about the people from south of the border.  I'm not related to them.  I fight for their rights because I believe in Liberty.  I am doing for them the things I would want them to do for me in a similar circumstance.  Further, I am protecting my Liberty.  As one of our founding fathers so aptly put it:

_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.
- Thomas Paine

The price we're paying is for protecting others from oppression.  The tyrants here will be held accountable at some point.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in your little pea brain gives you the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word "Sovereignty," idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you think people moving to America, paying taxes and making the US government richer makes the US government less powerful.
Click to expand...



Do you really imagine that there is anyone reading this who can't see your silly little straw men? Really? And it seems clear that YOU are the one who doesn't understand the word in question. Have you always been this stupid?


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've entertained you for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well, idiot, not very well.
> 
> Remember this part?
> *The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.*
> 
> 
> That's the part you need to remember, missy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps when ALL your posts are, you idiot its you whose the idiot
Click to expand...


LOL! I know you don't understand what you did there, but - LOL!


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Know Nothing* was a movement by the nativist American political faction of the 1850s, characterized by political xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment, and occasional bouts of violence against the groups the nativists targeted. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to republican values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.
> 
> *How come your intellectual ancestors never referred to early immigrants as "illegal"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.
> 
> Please don't be a retard and purposely confuse NATURALIZATION with IMMIGRATION?*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.
> 
> If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:
> 
> Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:
> 
> 
> "*Courts* have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. *The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);*
> 
> 
> Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution
> 
> *SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)*
> 
> 
> 
> But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Your personal racism has no bearing on Constitutional Law, idiot.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Contumacious and starcraftzzz,
> 
> You guys may as well hang it up.  Liability can type in big, bold and colorful letters along with put pictures into his posts.  His comrade can call you all kinds of names as he hears them on Comedy Central.
> 
> There is no doubt that the federal government *CAN* do a lot of things that these guys claim relative to *naturalization*.  The fact is, they do not actually do it.  In most instances, you'd be hard pressed to find a law addressing the need and fact situations.   Between the three of us, we can understand the difference between naturalization and immigration - or more accurately just people being GUESTS.  Forget it guys, it's a concept that these NSM types cannot grasp.
> 
> The reality is, the xenophobes will argue against every ruling all the way to hell, knowing they are wrong.  Let's take one of their arguments:
> 
> "_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory._"
> 
> Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?
> 
> Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government?
> 
> Liability and his bitch hate foreigners.  The only way they see for people to live is to sell their soul, wait twenty years standing in some *imaginary *line where they can become citizens.  In the process, if that situation creates a bad precedent that you and I will be judged by, they are content to destroy American Liberty to rid this country of the brown people.
> 
> Yet, for all their bravado, neither of those men have ever volunteered to man the border.  Neither of them has shot one of these people they claim are criminals.  Neither of them has done anything except look for excuses to wage war at a cost to your Liberties and mine. Then they expect someone else to do their wet work.  The only reason we are obliged to waste time on them is the hopes that they will offend the wrong bureaucrat and be hauled in for treason.
> 
> I don't care one way or another about the people from south of the border.  I'm not related to them.  I fight for their rights because I believe in Liberty.  I am doing for them the things I would want them to do for me in a similar circumstance.  Further, I am protecting my Liberty.  As one of our founding fathers so aptly put it:
> 
> _He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.
> - Thomas Paine
> 
> The price we're paying is for protecting others from oppression.  The tyrants here will be held accountable at some point.



I couldn't help but notice that DummyDolt is quite "selective" on his "criticism" of the use of large sized fonts and color.

In any event, substantively, he still brings nothing to the table.

Hey DummyDolt, are you permitted to just walk over the Mexican border from any neighboring country without the permission of Mexico?

Or Canada?  Can you just walk across the Canuck border without the permission and authority of the Canuck government?

Do other nations HAVE visas?

Or is it (in your fertile but always unsupported) imagination that only the United States which considers it lawful to control the entry/admission of foreigners into its own sovereign territory?  

Is it only the evil empire U.S. Government that tries to tell aliens how long they can stay or whether they even can stay?

Get back to us if you ever buy a clue.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> So I don't get to say who visits my house? .






Not if they are people the federal government has determined that should not be at loose in the country at all. Are you really this fucking stupid, or are you just becoming this desperate as your flimsy 'arguments' fall apart? It must be the latter, or you would not feel the need to cast false accusations about "hating foreigners" based on nothing at all. If you are feeling bitter and frustrated that your fantasy of open borders will NEVER become reality, that's too fucking bad.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Contumacious and starcraftzzz,
> 
> You guys may as well hang it up.  Liability can type in big, bold and colorful letters along with put pictures into his posts.  His comrade can call you all kinds of names as he hears them on Comedy Central.
> 
> There is no doubt that the federal government *CAN* do a lot of things that these guys claim relative to *naturalization*.  The fact is, they do not actually do it.  In most instances, you'd be hard pressed to find a law addressing the need and fact situations.   Between the three of us, we can understand the difference between naturalization and immigration - or more accurately just people being GUESTS.  Forget it guys, it's a concept that these NSM types cannot grasp.
> 
> The reality is, the xenophobes will argue against every ruling all the way to hell, knowing they are wrong.  Let's take one of their arguments:
> 
> "_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory._"
> 
> Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?
> 
> Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government?
> 
> Liability and his bitch hate foreigners.  The only way they see for people to live is to sell their soul, wait twenty years standing in some *imaginary *line where they can become citizens.  In the process, if that situation creates a bad precedent that you and I will be judged by, they are content to destroy American Liberty to rid this country of the brown people.
> 
> Yet, for all their bravado, neither of those men have ever volunteered to man the border.  Neither of them has shot one of these people they claim are criminals.  Neither of them has done anything except look for excuses to wage war at a cost to your Liberties and mine. Then they expect someone else to do their wet work.  The only reason we are obliged to waste time on them is the hopes that they will offend the wrong bureaucrat and be hauled in for treason.
> 
> I don't care one way or another about the people from south of the border.  I'm not related to them.  I fight for their rights because I believe in Liberty.  I am doing for them the things I would want them to do for me in a similar circumstance.  Further, I am protecting my Liberty.  As one of our founding fathers so aptly put it:
> 
> _He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.
> - Thomas Paine
> 
> The price we're paying is for protecting others from oppression.  The tyrants here will be held accountable at some point.



It is worth noting, as unkotare has already pointed out, that flaming losers like DuddlyDolt rely on baseless claims and outright lies.  

That's a "tell" that they realize they have no VALID argument to offer.

Claiming that I hate foreigners is baseless since it is (a) false and (b) not premised logically (nor derived logically) from ANYTHING I have said in this discussion.

I am ALL for legal immigration, in fact.

Furthermore, I deem SOME of the "laws" which Congress passed in prior times to be founded on bigotry and racism.  I have never supported an immigration law or quota founded upon such bigotry.

That said, there IS still a real world requirement that we manage the influx of folks desiring to come here to make their lives and their fortunes.  It is not my fault that they got shit upon by destiny based on the location of where they WERE born.  It is also not my fault that, as a practical matter, the United States cannot simply accept the massive numbers of would-be immigrants without placing SOME restrictions on those numbers.   Our system, our polity, our society, our government are under no actual obligation to permit themselves to be destabilized.  

For obvious example, we were never required (say in WWII) to admit any fucking Nazis.  In other times, we had a similar right to exclude devoted communists.  Today, we have every right to exclude adherents of Islamo-jihadist terrorist groups.    We are NOT required (nor should most of us pretend that we would WANT) to take in very ill people with dangerously communicable diseases.  We are not required to accept all folks who have a desire for a better life but who have no education, no job skills and no actual ability to contribute anything back to our society.  Since our hospitals are required by law to treat those who present themselves for medical care (even those who cannot pay for it), there is EVERY legitimate reason to CONDITION immigration on the verifiable prospect of the alien having or getting a job.  

NOT even ONE of those reasons is "racist."

But that doesn't stop lying sack of crap scum like DuddlyDolt from tossing out such dishonest claims.

This is an example of why DuddlyDolt 's "arguments" are generally just fraudulent and ultimately worthless.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slow kids at the back of the class appear to have missed that simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of the thread is absolutely true
> 
> The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And  -- secondly -- they  are not Aryans.
> 
> The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents  a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong and you are blathering stupidly.
> 
> They are aliens because they are not U.S. citizens.  They come from other lands.
> 
> They are here illegally because our LAW says what *legal* entry is, and when they come in by OTHER means they are breaking our law.
> 
> That YOU (being the pathetic fucking moron you are) do not CARE for the law or ascribe racist motivation to some or all of it is not illuminating -- except to underscore that you have silly opinions.  Because, whether YOU like a law or not has nothing to do with whether or not it IS the law.  And the law in question DOES impose CRIMINAL penalties for the violation thereof.  That makes it a "CRIMINAL" Law.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
Click to expand...


For all the back and forth, the only thing we glean from Liability is that he has the ability to lie.  Civil statutes are not crimes.  Rather than to argue it back and forth and Google the hell out of it, ask an attorney or law professor if a civil statute is a crime.

They would probably ask you if the defendant in a divorce action was an _illegal_ husband just because he was in the process of getting a divorce.  Liability, you deliberately misrepresent the truth.  In one article entitled *What is the difference between a civil offense and a crime?* the author states this:

"_Another example of a civil offense is contempt of court. This can arise in any civil matter, but is often used in family law matters. If one parent is ordered to pay child support, but fails to make any attempts to pay their obligation, the other parent can move for contempt sanctions. Sanctions can include awarding the other parent attorneys fees. In extreme cases, the *court can hold the non-paying parent in contempt and order them to remain in jail for a period of time. Even though jail time is a consequence, the difference is that the underlying action arose from a civil or administrative dispute, not from the violation of a criminal statute*_..."

What Is The Difference Between a Civil Offense and a Crime?

You can cover up the facts with endless posts and you will because you don't want others to see your view, the views of others and then make up their minds.  But you notice, the longer this thread goes on, the more your side loses to reason and the more united those who do not share your totalitarian views are becoming.

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.  You're wrong and you realize it.  Otherwise we could all make a closing post to sum up our points and let the rest of the posters decide.  You'd rather clutter the thread up with B.S. posts because you're insecure and scared.  It's okay.  We understand.  But, you're dangerous and you're wrong.


----------



## IndependntLogic

I don't really care about immigrants coming here - except the criminals. 
But people just coming here to work or whatever is fine by me.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very premise of the thread is absolutely true
> 
> The xenophobes call them illegal aliens because -- first -- they are aliens. And  -- secondly -- they  are not Aryans.
> 
> The Grand Wizards consider their skin color and accents  a criminal matter as well as a serious societal issue.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong and you are blathering stupidly.
> 
> They are aliens because they are not U.S. citizens.  They come from other lands.
> 
> They are here illegally because our LAW says what *legal* entry is, and when they come in by OTHER means they are breaking our law.
> 
> That YOU (being the pathetic fucking moron you are) do not CARE for the law or ascribe racist motivation to some or all of it is not illuminating -- except to underscore that you have silly opinions.  Because, whether YOU like a law or not has nothing to do with whether or not it IS the law.  And the law in question DOES impose CRIMINAL penalties for the violation thereof.  That makes it a "CRIMINAL" Law.
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the back and forth, the only thing we glean from Liability is that he has the ability to lie.  Civil statutes are not crimes.  Rather than to argue it back and forth and Google the hell out of it, ask an attorney or law professor if a civil statute is a crime.
> 
> They would probably ask you if the defendant in a divorce action was an _illegal_ husband just because he was in the process of getting a divorce.  Liability, you deliberately misrepresent the truth.  In one article entitled *What is the difference between a civil offense and a crime?* the author states this:
> 
> "_Another example of a civil offense is contempt of court. This can arise in any civil matter, but is often used in family law matters. If one parent is ordered to pay child support, but fails to make any attempts to pay their obligation, the other parent can move for contempt sanctions. Sanctions can include awarding the other parent attorney&#8217;s fees. In extreme cases, the *court can hold the non-paying parent in contempt and order them to remain in jail for a period of time. Even though jail time is a consequence, the difference is that the underlying action arose from a civil or administrative dispute, not from the violation of a criminal statute*_..."
> 
> What Is The Difference Between a Civil Offense and a Crime?
> 
> You can cover up the facts with endless posts and you will because you don't want others to see your view, the views of others and then make up their minds.  But you notice, the longer this thread goes on, the more your side loses to reason and the more united those who do not share your totalitarian views are becoming.
> 
> That which does not kill me makes me stronger.  You're wrong and you realize it.  Otherwise we could all make a closing post to sum up our points and let the rest of the posters decide.  You'd rather clutter the thread up with B.S. posts because you're insecure and scared.  It's okay.  We understand.  But, you're dangerous and you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Civil statutes are NOT criminal.  Dipshit deliberate liar, DummyDolt, finally says one thing correct.

HOWEVER, the law prohibiting aliens from entering the country EXCEPT as provided-for IN that very law is a *criminal *statute.

Denying it as he does, all the time, is simply DummyDolt being deliberately dishonest some more.

*It has been proved to be a criminal statute.*

That's all there is to it.

DummyDolt is an intentional liar.

Ho hum.


----------



## Liability

IndependntLogic said:


> I don't really care about immigrants coming here - except the criminals.
> But people just coming here to work or whatever is fine by me.



That's not the question.

The question is HOW they come here.

Legally or illegally.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Liability said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about immigrants coming here - except the criminals.
> But people just coming here to work or whatever is fine by me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is HOW they come here.
> 
> Legally or illegally.
Click to expand...


I don't care how they come here. Only why. If they coe here to work and make a better life for themselves, I'm good with it. If they come here to make a living on the drug trade or otherwise hurt people, I'm not good with it.


----------



## Unkotare

And the honest and honorable efforts of those who come here legally are made that much harder because some people can't be bothered or haven't the wherewithall to do things the right way, respecting our nation and its sovereignty. Legal immigrants are a great value to our country and should be welcomed. Instead, they STAND IN LINES, interminable lines, at great expense of money and time. They sometimes even face prejudice and suspicion from stupid people - like some of those on this thread - who can't or won't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Illegal aliens haven't the vested interest in really changing their lives, not just sneaking in to make a few bucks, and so may be expected on average to care less about integrating into existing communities and making a good life here rather than a temporary one they do not value in and of itself. This results in great cost (in many ways) to the US economically and socially. Dishonest apologists and idiots like BloodyDolt and StarSpazzzzz only make things worse for everyone. EVERYONE.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Unkotare said:


> And the honest and honorable efforts of those who come here legally are made that much harder because some people can't be bothered or haven't the wherewithall to do things the right way, respecting our nation and its sovereignty. Legal immigrants are a great value to our country and should be welcomed. Instead, they STAND IN LINES, interminable lines, at great expense of money and time. They sometimes even face prejudice and suspicion from stupid people - like some of those on this thread - who can't or won't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Illegal aliens haven't the vested interest in really changing their lives, not just sneaking in to make a few bucks, and so may be expected on average to care less about integrating into existing communities and making a good life here rather than a temporary one they do not value in and of itself. This results in great cost (in many ways) to the US economically and socially. Dishonest apologists and idiots like BloodyDolt and StarSpazzzzz only make things worse for everyone. EVERYONE.



Interesting. I just scolled up to BuddyColt's last thread to see if he in any way, insulted you. he did not. He disagreed but he made a case for his opinion and without petty name-calling.

I completely respect what you wrote in the first part of your post. If you weren't so prone to insult, you would garner much more consideration for your views, which are often quite insightful. 
have you ever considered the possibility that you can disagree with someone and still respect their opinion? People do that quite often. It's nice!


----------



## Unkotare

IndependntLogic said:


> If you weren't so prone to insult, you would garner much more consideration for your views, which are often quite insightful.





Eh, whatareyougonnado? We all have our crosses to bear.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Unkotare said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't so prone to insult, you would garner much more consideration for your views, which are often quite insightful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, whatareyougonnado? We all have our crosses to bear.
Click to expand...


LOL! True! And I am certainly quick to fire back when fired upon. I'd like to just be above it.


----------



## Unkotare

IndependntLogic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't so prone to insult, you would garner much more consideration for your views, which are often quite insightful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, whatareyougonnado? We all have our crosses to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! True! And I am certainly quick to fire back when fired upon. I'd like to just be above it.
Click to expand...



You can't transcend yourself until you embrace yourself.


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."_ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You utter moron, that case and others like it refer specifically to US citizens travelling on public roads within the country. They were not intended or applied to some fantasy of negating US national sovereignty. They haven't even been successfully cited as negating speed limits or drivers licenses, idiot. You're like some dim-witted little kid playing at things he doesn't understand.
Click to expand...


Tell me, why all the hostility?  Be nice, ok, we are just idiots here. I mean, except YOU of course. How does this issue effect you and why the negativity? That isn't going to help anyone. What do you KNOW about this issue? Can you at least TRY to be civil here?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical neonazi conservative.
> 
> Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are too stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are too racist.
> 
> Are you also a KKK imperial wizard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's a very nice picture of Senator Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Unkotare said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, whatareyougonnado? We all have our crosses to bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! True! And I am certainly quick to fire back when fired upon. I'd like to just be above it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't transcend yourself until you embrace yourself.
Click to expand...


Oh I've been embracing myself since I was twleve! Of course, now that I'm married I don't have to because... oh wait. 

In any case, I think anonymity does quite a bit to reveal character. It shows what we're like when there are no boundaries and no one will see what we have done.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Bud,
> 
> I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:
> 
> Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration*
> 
> For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American peopledescendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open bordersexude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?
> 
> .



*What do Americans have against open borders? *


Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.


----------



## Contumacious

IndependntLogic said:


> I just scolled up to BuddyColt's last thread to see if he in any way, insulted you. he did not. He disagreed but he made a case for his opinion and without petty name-calling.



Those folks have racist xenophobic agendas. Consequenly any view point which supports our alien friends is "insulting" to them.

We are no longer a Constitutional Republic . We are now an aristocracy of pull. The xenophobes have not, and can not demontrate how Juan's presence in the US affect their right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Can you at least TRY to be civil here?





No thank you.


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Those folks have racist xenophobic agendas. .




Idiotic and baseless accusations like that are why you are rightly called out for being a dim-witted asshole.


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you at least TRY to be civil here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.
Click to expand...


Thank you, that was a start. Why NOT? Tell me, why the hate? It dosen't matter what I think, but negativity blinds you.  You are lashing out here at friends. Nobody here is your enemy.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> What do you KNOW about this issue?




I have worked for years and years with people of every immigration status. I have taught thousands of people who were illegal aliens. That's how I know they are not evil monsters, but every one of them understood their status, what it meant, and how someone of similar status would be dealt with in their home countries. Most were really great people, but had no illusions about any "right" to be here. 

I have worked with thousands and thousands of people who came here for short stays of specific duration. They had to go through a lot of hassle just to get here for that, and they made the most of every day they were here.

I have worked with hundreds of people working toward naturalization. You'll find no one more appreciative of the United States and respectful of our laws. Our new fellow citizens are national treasures, for the most part.

I have worked with thousands of people here as refugees or asylum seekers. Again, truly appreciative of the opportunity presented and very rewarding to work with. Much more can be said about these, for the most part, deserving people starting a new life in the greatest country on earth (yes it is, just ask them).

I have personal experience with the immigration process and how the burden placed on the system by, among other things, people coming here illegally or fraudulently makes it ridiculously trying on those going to the considerable time, trouble, and expense to do things the right way.
















That good enough for ya?


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you at least TRY to be civil here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, that was a start. Why NOT? Tell me, why the hate? It dosen't matter what I think, but negativity blinds you.  You are lashing out here at friends. Nobody here is your enemy.
Click to expand...




Who said anything about "hate" or "enemies"? Stop being so sensitive.


----------



## Liability

IndependntLogic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about immigrants coming here - except the criminals.
> But people just coming here to work or whatever is fine by me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is HOW they come here.
> 
> Legally or illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how they come here. Only why. If they coe here to work and make a better life for themselves, I'm good with it. If they come here to make a living on the drug trade or otherwise hurt people, I'm not good with it.
Click to expand...


I care why they come here, too; but I definitely care that they come here legally.

If their purpose is to commit drug crimes, the legality of their entry doesn't trump the illegality of their behavior while here.

If they are simply working and violating no other laws, but entered without compliance with our Immigration Law, then their very first act here was a criminal act.  They get no brownie points just because they thereafter follow the law.  And they are not entitled to jump in front of the line OVER those who ARE complying with our Immigration Law.


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, that was a start. Why NOT? Tell me, why the hate? It dosen't matter what I think, but negativity blinds you.  You are lashing out here at friends. Nobody here is your enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about "hate" or "enemies"? Stop being so sensitive.
Click to expand...


Sensitivity, isn't that what this is all about? Did you condescend to all those "thousands" of illegal aliens the same way you  do here? Because, I have a feeling here you have a few unresolved issues that posting  nasty things  here won't help.  You didn't ask ME what I know about this issue. That tells me something right there. I won't call you kiddo anymore. Don't patronize me, either.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> You didn't ask ME what I know about this issue. .





That's because I don't care. You didn't pick up on that? You are entitled to your opinion anyway.


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask ME what I know about this issue. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I don't care. You didn't pick up on that? You are entitled to your opinion anyway.
Click to expand...


You don't care about...what?  Illegal aliens? American culture? Rationality? What? I am worrying about you, friend. Are you OK? I lived with illegal aliens,  and they weren't as nice as YOU, either. Thanks for asking. I notice when people are abusive, in case you didn't pick up on THAT. And there isn't any excuse for it. Nada. From ANYONE. Perhaps you think otherwise?


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask ME what I know about this issue. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I don't care. You didn't pick up on that? You are entitled to your opinion anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care about...what?
Click to expand...



I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigration is not a Federal a Crime*
> 
> *4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> Founding Father
> 3rd US President
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Passed on 'which' day?
> 
> 2) 1798???
> 
> 3) have there been no amendments or laws passed since July ??, 1798????
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the immigration laws congress allowed the same to expire in 1800.
> 
> Congress did not adopt another law until 1888. For 88 years there was no federal immigration law.
> 
> 
> The federal government has the authority to NATURALIZE citizens but has no authority to detain and deport those individuals who only have the citizenship of the state in which they reside.
> 
> SCOTUS has recognized the  fact that the states retained the authority to confer their citizenship on whomever they choose.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Section. 8. 
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Doesn't say anything about states naturalizing anyone.


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I don't care. You didn't pick up on that? You are entitled to your opinion anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about...what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?
Click to expand...


OK. You have proven how nasty, snide and flippant you can be. Isn't that better suited to the "flame zone" board? You don't want to do anything more than badmouth, bully and harass.  I will read your posts, but I stop responding to them. I wish the best for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Ruiz said:
> 
> 
> 
> who in america isnt illegal, unless they are native american. it's hard for me to take a white person calling someone an illegal immigrant in a country that they have no right to be in, in the first place. america, australia, nz, were all stolen from the native population by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are not illegal in America because our system is predicated upon the concept of *unalienable Rights.*  Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel, the Right to Life and the Right to Liberty.  There is quite a civics lesson be learned here and if you PM me I will leave you several links you can check out to see how erroneous the information you're getting really is.
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.  It isn't going to happen.  What the U.S. *could do* is to regulate immigration in a way that people could exercise their* unalienable Rights* without having to become a citizen.  That, of course, makes too much sense, so our short term problems is having to fight against the hard core remnants of the National Socialist Party, K.K.K. and and socialists in general.
Click to expand...


*Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.*

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.

*People have an inherent Right to Travel*

They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about...what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. You have proven how nasty, snide and flippant you can be. Isn't that better suited to the "flame zone" board? You don't want to do anything more than badmouth, bully and harass.  I will read your posts, but I stop responding to them. I wish the best for you.
Click to expand...



I don't think you do.


----------



## BuddyColt

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud,
> 
> I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:
> 
> Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration*
> 
> For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American peopledescendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open bordersexude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What do Americans have against open borders? *
> 
> 
> Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
> Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.
Click to expand...


Why address me?  Your mind is made up.  Welfare fraud is the least expensive item in the federal budget and every study concludes that the undocumented immigrant pays as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  But, this is a popularity contest, not a quest for the truth.

BTW, your quote is a bastardized quote from Milton Friedman which, when he said it, means 180 degrees opposite of what you are trying to sell here.


----------



## Unkotare

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.*
> 
> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.
> 
> *People have an inherent Right to Travel*
> 
> They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.





You're right of course, and the cases that Professor Google is so proud of never addressed or were intended to have anything to do with crossing national boundaries.


----------



## BuddyColt

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruiz said:
> 
> 
> 
> who in america isnt illegal, unless they are native american. it's hard for me to take a white person calling someone an illegal immigrant in a country that they have no right to be in, in the first place. america, australia, nz, were all stolen from the native population by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are not illegal in America because our system is predicated upon the concept of *unalienable Rights.*  Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel, the Right to Life and the Right to Liberty.  There is quite a civics lesson be learned here and if you PM me I will leave you several links you can check out to see how erroneous the information you're getting really is.
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.  It isn't going to happen.  What the U.S. *could do* is to regulate immigration in a way that people could exercise their* unalienable Rights* without having to become a citizen.  That, of course, makes too much sense, so our short term problems is having to fight against the hard core remnants of the National Socialist Party, K.K.K. and and socialists in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.*
> 
> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.
> 
> *People have an inherent Right to Travel*
> 
> They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.
Click to expand...


Damn... another illiterate.  So, what is Liberty?  A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?

Here is my response:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process


----------



## Unkotare

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Section. 8.
> Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> 
> Doesn't say anything about states naturalizing anyone.




Bloody Dolt just has a fantasy about open borders that he can't let go of. He also imagines himself quite the tough-guy, so draw your own conclusions about his mental capacity.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I don't care. You didn't pick up on that? You are entitled to your opinion anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about...what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?
Click to expand...


BUT WHYYYYYY don't you CAAAAARE about what SHE "knows?"


----------



## Unkotare

Liability said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about...what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BUT WHYYYYYY don't you CAAAAARE about what SHE "knows?"
Click to expand...


How careless of me.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT WHYYYYYY don't you CAAAAARE about what SHE "knows?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How careless of me.
Click to expand...


It's not even carelessness -- unless -- hey! 

You wouldn't happen to mean  that you couldn't possibly *care less*?



Anyway, the point is -- ok.  There is no point.

But clearly MaryL feels all cheated out of satisfaction regarding her obvious DEMAND for your ATTENTION!


----------



## Liability

Oh.  And just to clarify:

*Is it really "illegal?" *

Yes.  Yes it is.


----------



## Unkotare

Yes, it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think people moving to America takes away Americas power you are crazy. So go on plz explain how America having more money makes us less powerful (and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).
> I see you still cant exaplin how immigration is bad this is because you do not sit down and think, you didn't go what are the effects of immigration, "1) more people get to be in the greatest country on earth 2) People get to live where they want to and be happy 3) America has more tax payers/workers etc etc instead you went to Glen Beck heard him spout out a bunch of incoherent talking points and just regurgitate them back whit out even think (which is the reason you use a word you dont know the definition of).
> No plz try to respond with an actual rebuttal/argument something other then
> "your stupid immigrations bad LOLLOL" but I doubt that's possible because its beyond your mental abilities and I'm never wrong..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Utter imbecility.
> 
> People moving illegally to America *costs* all of us money.
> 
> "Having more people" is not always the rational goal of a sustainable society.
> 
> People do NOT get to live where they want.  They get to live where they are and where they can legally get to.
> 
> And don't dare lecture anybody about "sovereignty" when you re too fucking stupid to understand it your own pathetic ass self, ya jerk off.
> 
> Bottom line.  One can encourage and support LEGAL immigration while consistently, rationally and wisely opposing ILLEGAL immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for shits and giggles, we can play this silly ass game one more time:
> 
> When many of your ancestors came into the United States, all they did was check in with immigration officials.    I advocate returning to those days... the same ones that our forefathers lived under and I become the victim of cheap shots.
> 
> The reality has been (and the reason my threads become a circus rather than a place for intelligent discussion) is one thing: those criticizing me don't have a damn clue about the economics of their own country.
> 
> It is known fact that every study not underwritten by John Tanton's enterprises - whether government or private, concludes that the foreigners pay as much in taxes as they take in services.  So, from a taxpayer standpoint, it doesn't cost us anything
> 
> Then we go to jobs.  I've already discussed the* FACT* that foreigners *create* jobs.  But, the name calling squad on this board wouldn't know about that.  Even basic economics takes a bit more understanding than knowing how to flip a burger at Burger King.  Since they could not answer these questions the first time, no point in asking again.  We can look at the economic history of the United States and see that unemployment rates were at their lowest when the government was *not* obsessing about immigration.
> 
> The Draconian immigration policies that the anti - immigrant National Socialists are peddling have a far more  reaching negative effect than open immigration.  Those laws are most likely going to be used against the anti - immigrant before being employed against people that come to the United States in order to engage in lawful pursuits.
> 
> We look at the B.S. regarding immigration and realize that the name calling cheering squad here isn't leveling with you.  They claim it's all about "_legal_" immigration, yet they would oppose amnesty.  Yet an amnesty would let employers off as well.  IF we _"enforced_" the law the way the anti - immigrant want, then under Due Process, we'd have to go after employers.  Businesses would be shut down and there would still be no jobs to argue about.  The anti - immigrant B.S. is aimed at imposing a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.  The reality is, foreigners working here *create* jobs.  The cheering section on this board don't want that since all they qualify for is menial labor jobs they think are being "_stolen_" from Americans... as if we are already a socialist country.
Click to expand...


*I've already discussed the FACT that foreigners create jobs.*

That's excellent! They should create them in their own country.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonest piece of shit who refuses to distinguish between LEGAL  and ILLEGAL immigration so that he can try to paint anyone opposed to those violating our national sovereignty as "anti-immigrant" does not deserve to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being taken seriously when all people have to do is click on the links I provide and see that the opinions expressed are not my own, but those who actually DO the work.
> 
> You want it to be an issue where you can call people "_illegal_" something or the other, realizing that you are condemning people to a criminal status absent Due Process.  Then, even by YOUR standards, the alleged "_crime_" wouldn't amount to any more than a misdemeanor, but you demand anything short of the death penalty.  You aren't bitching about the employer that hires the foreigner because if you pursued them the same way, soon, companies would be shut down and there would be no jobs for anybody.
> 
> You don't want to extend Liberty to other human beings; you don't think that other Americans have the Right to invite others into the United States; you can't understand the fact that not all people that pass through America want or need to become citizens.
> 
> You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but there is one thing I want to make abundantly clear to you:  I don't care about your issue with the Hispanics.  I don't give a fuck.  Get that through your head.  I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing because it sets the precedent that you or I could be pursued as some kind of criminal without the constitutional guarantees of Due Process.  If you weren't a chickenshit and a bigot, you would have followed the many links I've given,
> 
> You would learn that I once had to endure being pursued as an enemy combatant absent any Due Process - all made available by YOUR brand of anti - immigrant legislation known as the _"Patriot Act_."  People I knew for years found themselves as victims of your racist and unconscionable laws.  Some are dead.  Some are in prison.  Some were forced to be snitches for Uncle Scam.  But, the government always can count on some backward thinking, Liberty hating, double talking back stabbing National Socialist like yourself.
> 
> DUE PROCESS, what part of that do YOU not understand?
Click to expand...


* You aren't bitching about the employer that hires the foreigner because if you pursued them the same way, soon, companies would be shut down and there would be no jobs for anybody.*

I do bitch about the employer that hires illegals.
Companies should be required to use E-Verify. 
If they don't, and hire an illegal, they should be fined.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am opposed to calling anyone an "_illegal_" any damn thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.
> 
> Secondly, due to the fact that *unalienable Right*s trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.  That was settled in the discussions over HR 4437
> 
> Finally, the government demands people do an act properly, but provide no "proper" process as* you* define it.  There is no Guest Worker program and not everybody that passes through the U.S. need to become citizens.
> 
> Your strategy puts even the politicians that agree with you between a rock and a hard place, absolutely guaranteeing amnesties that lead to citizenship OR taking the chance that the Supreme Court will rule on the whole issue and you would lose there... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court.  You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice.  You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it.  Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court.  THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.
Click to expand...


*Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.*

There is an unalienable right to emigrate?


----------



## Liability

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be opposed to is people doing illegal things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.
> 
> Secondly, due to the fact that *unalienable Right*s trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.  That was settled in the discussions over HR 4437
> 
> Finally, the government demands people do an act properly, but provide no "proper" process as* you* define it.  There is no Guest Worker program and not everybody that passes through the U.S. need to become citizens.
> 
> Your strategy puts even the politicians that agree with you between a rock and a hard place, absolutely guaranteeing amnesties that lead to citizenship OR taking the chance that the Supreme Court will rule on the whole issue and you would lose there... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court.  You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice.  You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it.  Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court.  THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.*
> 
> There is an unalienable right to emigrate?
Click to expand...


There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.

In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."

In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.

Todd is right.  Dudley is lying.  That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud,
> 
> I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:
> 
> Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration*
> 
> For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American people&#8212;descendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open borders&#8212;exude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What do Americans have against open borders? *
> 
> 
> Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
> Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.
Click to expand...


Pure Bullshit

The Supreme Court USURPED the power to control immigration in 1889 not because the Chinese were a danger to society, or a burden on the public fisc, or using hospital emergencies rooms excessively, not because they were here "illegally"  - no sireee bob - it was because "our people" could not compete against them , they were too skillful, and the California mine owners preferred them.

"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation. 


*U.S. Supreme Court 

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889) *


.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Liability said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is HOW they come here.
> 
> Legally or illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how they come here. Only why. If they coe here to work and make a better life for themselves, I'm good with it. If they come here to make a living on the drug trade or otherwise hurt people, I'm not good with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care why they come here, too; but I definitely care that they come here legally.
> 
> If their purpose is to commit drug crimes, the legality of their entry doesn't trump the illegality of their behavior while here.
> 
> If they are simply working and violating no other laws, but entered without compliance with our Immigration Law, then their very first act here was a criminal act.  They get no brownie points just because they thereafter follow the law.  And they are not entitled to jump in front of the line OVER those who ARE complying with our Immigration Law.
Click to expand...


That's a perfectly reasonable view and probably the view of the majority. I just don't always agree with the majority.


----------



## BuddyColt

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Utter imbecility.
> 
> People moving illegally to America *costs* all of us money.
> 
> "Having more people" is not always the rational goal of a sustainable society.
> 
> People do NOT get to live where they want.  They get to live where they are and where they can legally get to.
> 
> And don't dare lecture anybody about "sovereignty" when you re too fucking stupid to understand it your own pathetic ass self, ya jerk off.
> 
> Bottom line.  One can encourage and support LEGAL immigration while consistently, rationally and wisely opposing ILLEGAL immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for shits and giggles, we can play this silly ass game one more time:
> 
> When many of your ancestors came into the United States, all they did was check in with immigration officials.    I advocate returning to those days... the same ones that our forefathers lived under and I become the victim of cheap shots.
> 
> The reality has been (and the reason my threads become a circus rather than a place for intelligent discussion) is one thing: those criticizing me don't have a damn clue about the economics of their own country.
> 
> It is known fact that every study not underwritten by John Tanton's enterprises - whether government or private, concludes that the foreigners pay as much in taxes as they take in services.  So, from a taxpayer standpoint, it doesn't cost us anything
> 
> Then we go to jobs.  I've already discussed the* FACT* that foreigners *create* jobs.  But, the name calling squad on this board wouldn't know about that.  Even basic economics takes a bit more understanding than knowing how to flip a burger at Burger King.  Since they could not answer these questions the first time, no point in asking again.  We can look at the economic history of the United States and see that unemployment rates were at their lowest when the government was *not* obsessing about immigration.
> 
> The Draconian immigration policies that the anti - immigrant National Socialists are peddling have a far more  reaching negative effect than open immigration.  Those laws are most likely going to be used against the anti - immigrant before being employed against people that come to the United States in order to engage in lawful pursuits.
> 
> We look at the B.S. regarding immigration and realize that the name calling cheering squad here isn't leveling with you.  They claim it's all about "_legal_" immigration, yet they would oppose amnesty.  Yet an amnesty would let employers off as well.  IF we _"enforced_" the law the way the anti - immigrant want, then under Due Process, we'd have to go after employers.  Businesses would be shut down and there would still be no jobs to argue about.  The anti - immigrant B.S. is aimed at imposing a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.  The reality is, foreigners working here *create* jobs.  The cheering section on this board don't want that since all they qualify for is menial labor jobs they think are being "_stolen_" from Americans... as if we are already a socialist country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've already discussed the FACT that foreigners create jobs.*
> 
> That's excellent! They should create them in their own country.
Click to expand...


They do.  Check this out:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E25UHyXMpSw]Ron Paul on Immigration, Communism, and Drugs (1988) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud,
> 
> I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:
> 
> Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration*
> 
> For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American peopledescendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open bordersexude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What do Americans have against open borders? *
> 
> 
> Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
> Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure Bullshit
> 
> The Supreme Court USURPED the power to control immigration in 1889 not because the Chinese were a danger to society, or a burden on the public fisc, or using hospital emergencies rooms excessively, not because they were here "illegally"  - no sireee bob - it was because "our people" could not compete against them , they were too skillful, and the California mine owners preferred them.
> 
> "The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..
> 
> The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> 
> CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889) *
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Aww, that's awful. So what? 
We're perfectly within our rights to close the border and evict the illegals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for shits and giggles, we can play this silly ass game one more time:
> 
> When many of your ancestors came into the United States, all they did was check in with immigration officials.    I advocate returning to those days... the same ones that our forefathers lived under and I become the victim of cheap shots.
> 
> The reality has been (and the reason my threads become a circus rather than a place for intelligent discussion) is one thing: those criticizing me don't have a damn clue about the economics of their own country.
> 
> It is known fact that every study not underwritten by John Tanton's enterprises - whether government or private, concludes that the foreigners pay as much in taxes as they take in services.  So, from a taxpayer standpoint, it doesn't cost us anything
> 
> Then we go to jobs.  I've already discussed the* FACT* that foreigners *create* jobs.  But, the name calling squad on this board wouldn't know about that.  Even basic economics takes a bit more understanding than knowing how to flip a burger at Burger King.  Since they could not answer these questions the first time, no point in asking again.  We can look at the economic history of the United States and see that unemployment rates were at their lowest when the government was *not* obsessing about immigration.
> 
> The Draconian immigration policies that the anti - immigrant National Socialists are peddling have a far more  reaching negative effect than open immigration.  Those laws are most likely going to be used against the anti - immigrant before being employed against people that come to the United States in order to engage in lawful pursuits.
> 
> We look at the B.S. regarding immigration and realize that the name calling cheering squad here isn't leveling with you.  They claim it's all about "_legal_" immigration, yet they would oppose amnesty.  Yet an amnesty would let employers off as well.  IF we _"enforced_" the law the way the anti - immigrant want, then under Due Process, we'd have to go after employers.  Businesses would be shut down and there would still be no jobs to argue about.  The anti - immigrant B.S. is aimed at imposing a felony criminal consequence for a civil infraction of the law.  The reality is, foreigners working here *create* jobs.  The cheering section on this board don't want that since all they qualify for is menial labor jobs they think are being "_stolen_" from Americans... as if we are already a socialist country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've already discussed the FACT that foreigners create jobs.*
> 
> That's excellent! They should create them in their own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do.  Check this out:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E25UHyXMpSw]Ron Paul on Immigration, Communism, and Drugs (1988) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


That's great, then they don't need to come here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud,
> 
> I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument.  Let me:
> 
> Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration*
> 
> For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American peopledescendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open bordersexude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What do Americans have against open borders? *
> 
> 
> Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
> Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why address me?  Your mind is made up.  Welfare fraud is the least expensive item in the federal budget and every study concludes that the undocumented immigrant pays as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  But, this is a popularity contest, not a quest for the truth.
> 
> BTW, your quote is a bastardized quote from Milton Friedman which, when he said it, means 180 degrees opposite of what you are trying to sell here.
Click to expand...


The welfare state includes free education and emergency room treatment.
Every study? That's funny.
Yeah, those low income, EITC illegals are paying lots of taxes. LOL!
No, Friedman's meaning was not 180 degrees opposite.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are not illegal in America because our system is predicated upon the concept of *unalienable Rights.*  Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.
> 
> People have an inherent Right to Travel, the Right to Life and the Right to Liberty.  There is quite a civics lesson be learned here and if you PM me I will leave you several links you can check out to see how erroneous the information you're getting really is.
> 
> What a lot of people on this board want to do is prohibit immigration.  It isn't going to happen.  What the U.S. *could do* is to regulate immigration in a way that people could exercise their* unalienable Rights* without having to become a citizen.  That, of course, makes too much sense, so our short term problems is having to fight against the hard core remnants of the National Socialist Party, K.K.K. and and socialists in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.*
> 
> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.
> 
> *People have an inherent Right to Travel*
> 
> They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn... another illiterate.  So, what is Liberty?  A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?
> 
> Here is my response:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
Click to expand...


Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea? 
You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!


----------



## Unkotare

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.*
> 
> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.
> 
> *People have an inherent Right to Travel*
> 
> They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn... another illiterate.  So, what is Liberty?  A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?
> 
> Here is my response:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea?
> You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!
Click to expand...




The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn... another illiterate.  So, what is Liberty?  A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?
> 
> Here is my response:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea?
> You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.
Click to expand...


If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.


----------



## BuddyColt

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do Americans have against open borders? *
> 
> 
> Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
> Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why address me?  Your mind is made up.  Welfare fraud is the least expensive item in the federal budget and every study concludes that the undocumented immigrant pays as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  But, this is a popularity contest, not a quest for the truth.
> 
> BTW, your quote is a bastardized quote from Milton Friedman which, when he said it, means 180 degrees opposite of what you are trying to sell here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The welfare state includes free education and emergency room treatment.
> Every study? That's funny.
> Yeah, those low income, EITC illegals are paying lots of taxes. LOL!
> No, Friedman's meaning was not 180 degrees opposite.
Click to expand...


I've read your shit and you are an absolute and utter moron, about as unintelligent as LIE Ability.  You use a bastardized form of a quote that you didn't even know who made it and then tell us it means .... what??? You sure as Hell didn't know.  I listened to both sides and it was one of the few times the liberals got it right:

Classically Liberal: What Milton Friedman really said about immigration.

I know, after I do the work, you'll become an instant authority on the subject.  You dumb ass.  You didn't even know where the quote came from.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being accused of committing an illegal act and doing one are worlds apart.
> 
> Secondly, due to the fact that *unalienable Right*s trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.  That was settled in the discussions over HR 4437
> 
> Finally, the government demands people do an act properly, but provide no "proper" process as* you* define it.  There is no Guest Worker program and not everybody that passes through the U.S. need to become citizens.
> 
> Your strategy puts even the politicians that agree with you between a rock and a hard place, absolutely guaranteeing amnesties that lead to citizenship OR taking the chance that the Supreme Court will rule on the whole issue and you would lose there... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court.  You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice.  You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it.  Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court.  THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.*
> 
> There is an unalienable right to emigrate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.
> 
> In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."
> 
> In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.
> 
> Todd is right.  Dudley is lying.  That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true Nazi.  You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you.  Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.*
> 
> There is an unalienable right to emigrate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.
> 
> In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."
> 
> In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.
> 
> Todd is right.  Dudley is lying.  That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Nazi.  You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you.  Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.
Click to expand...


Improper entry is not a crime except in a National Socialist utopia led by Lie Ability and those with a low enough IQ to buy into his endless posts.  You can't do one post, make your points and STFU can you?  You know you're wrong, but telling the lie over and over might..... It won't Lie Ability.  You will lose in the end.  You will lose.


----------



## BuddyColt

After 360 posts this thread has gone nowhere beyond the first four postings .  If most of you notice, the National Socialists among us have spent hundreds of posts trying to win an argument via the repetition of a lie.

For those who might be here, watching this circus unfold, if you doubt what I said is true, pick up the phone and call any immigration lawyer.  Ask them if the disputed statute is civil law or criminal law and whether an* IMPROPER ENTRY* is a crime.

Despite the best efforts of my critics, they have *not come up with one, single, solitary case *wherein improper entry equals a crime.  Their cited cases were either overturned, were about eluding the authorities (a crime under Title 18) or something along those lines.  I have quoted the highest ranking immigration officials in the United States along with cases and proposed legislation testifying against them.

Finally note this:

The National Socialists here have no original ideas of their own.  They wait for people like me to present the research and then they suddenly become an expert on the topic, Googling words they find within our research.  In short, they don't have anything except an ability to keep repeating the same B.S. over and over.

The straw that broke the camel's back is when that dumb ass came here and misquoted an economist and gave someone else credit for it.  I corrected the quote and gave him the correct author  and suddenly this guy becomes an expert on Milton Friedman... someone this guy had obviously never heard of before.  I know because I study Friedman and apply a lot of his principles in my own life.

This place is a joke and the nazis here are DANGEROUS.  LIE Ability and his cheering squad though don't have the balls that the big boys have, but they may very well inspire the next J.T. Ready.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the first four postings on this thread.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea?
> You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.
Click to expand...




NO, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


You're the pot what calls the kettle black.  YOU are the liar.  You're a scumbag, nazi loving, dick licking, piece of scatalogical waste whose only claim to fame is being able to snow people of a low IQ that live on this discussion board.  

Well, I have a real client with a real problem, so I'm off to do the work you wish you knew how to do, but simply weren't smart enough to do.

You can feed the people here all the bullshit you want, but you would NEVER say to my face what you've put on this board.  The fact is, you beat your meat while sitting at the computer, fucking with people because that is how you receive your sexual gratification - knowing you can screw with people from afar.  

I trust in God enough that one day your luck will run out.  I'd love to be the one that found who you are and where you are.  I'd like to see you call people names to their face.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the pot what calls the kettle black.  YOU are the liar.  You're a scumbag, nazi loving, dick licking, piece of scatalogical waste whose only claim to fame is being able to snow people of a low IQ that live on this discussion board.
> 
> Well, I have a real client with a real problem, so I'm off to do the work you wish you knew how to do, but simply weren't smart enough to do.
> 
> You can feed the people here all the bullshit you want, but you would NEVER say to my face what you've put on this board.  The fact is, you beat your meat while sitting at the computer, fucking with people because that is how you receive your sexual gratification - knowing you can screw with people from afar.
> 
> I trust in God enough that one day your luck will run out.  I'd love to be the one that found who you are and where you are.  I'd like to see you call people names to their face.
Click to expand...


The only dishonest ass licking cock sucking faggot coward I see here is you, have fun cleaning the rest rooms at KFC you little biattch.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You can feed the people here all the bullshit you want, but you would NEVER say to my face what you've put on this board.  I trust in God enough that one day your luck will run out.  I'd love to be the one that found who you are and where you are.  I'd like to see you call people names to their face.





You gonna do all this again, tough-guy? This is where I tell you to say what you want to say, and even make whatever plans for your AARP frequent flier miles you want to make, and then you clam up and run away only to come back and repeat your empty performance all over again. Come on tough-guy, show some backbone or show some character.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> This place is a joke and the nazis here are DANGEROUS.





There's about all you need to know about this little fucking open borders drama queen...


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This place is a joke and the nazis here are DANGEROUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's about all you need to know about this little fucking open borders drama queen...
Click to expand...


I love it when that bitch buddycolt gets unraveled and starts threatening people, what a big man he is.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can feed the people here all the bullshit you want, but you would NEVER say to my face what you've put on this board.  I trust in God enough that one day your luck will run out.  I'd love to be the one that found who you are and where you are.  I'd like to see you call people names to their face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gonna do all this again, tough-guy? This is where I tell you to say what you want to say, and even make whatever plans for your AARP frequent flier miles you want to make, and then you clam up and run away only to come back and repeat your empty performance all over again. *Come on tough-guy, show some backbone or show some character*.
Click to expand...


You are asking too much from her.


----------



## Unkotare

I know, but she makes such a big show and then slinks away on her belly again and again...


----------



## hortysir

BuddyColt said:


> Spoken like a true Nazi.  You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you.  Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.



Improper entry is not a crime except in a National Socialist utopia led by Lie Ability and those with a low enough IQ to buy into his endless posts.  You can't do one post, make your points and STFU can you?  You know you're wrong, but telling the lie over and over might..... It won't Lie Ability.  You will lose in the end.  You will lose.[/QUOTE]


So Obama is King Poo-Pah of a National Socialist state?

Who knew?



> The  Obama administration deported a record number of illegal immigrants for  the third straight year, according to figures released Tuesday by U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
> Despite facing criticism  from both sides of the political spectrum, officials promised to  continue the White House policy of prioritizing for removal those  illegal immigrants with criminal convictions.


----------



## High_Gravity

hortysir said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Nazi.  You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you.  Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Improper entry is not a crime except in a National Socialist utopia led by Lie Ability and those with a low enough IQ to buy into his endless posts.  You can't do one post, make your points and STFU can you?  You know you're wrong, but telling the lie over and over might..... It won't Lie Ability.  You will lose in the end.  You will lose.
Click to expand...



So Obama is King Poo-Pah of a National Socialist state?

Who knew?



> The  Obama administration deported a record number of illegal immigrants for  the third straight year, according to figures released Tuesday by U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
> Despite facing criticism  from both sides of the political spectrum, officials promised to  continue the White House policy of prioritizing for removal those  illegal immigrants with criminal convictions.


[/QUOTE]

The Obama admin forgot to send bitchcolt back to his loved ones in Guatamala.


----------



## Katzndogz

It is only hisipanics, chiefly mexicans that don't consider coming here illegally a crime FOR THEM.  mexicans are quite vocal about illegal immigration by the Chinese or the Irish (believe it or not, we have lots of illegal aliens who are Irish).   mexicans don't want Russians here, or Asians or anyone from the middle east.  They know what illegal immigration is.  They just don't believe it applies to them and neither do liberals.  It's become a matter of race only as applied to hispanics.

mexicans particularly, but not exclusively as other central and south Americans feel the same way, feel that there should never have been a southern border.  It is still their country, the entire continent is one borderless region.  WIthout national borders, there are only racial and ethnic differences.  Libs have acquired this infection as well.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> It is only hisipanics, chiefly mexicans that don't consider coming here illegally a crime FOR THEM.  mexicans are quite vocal about illegal immigration by the Chinese or the Irish (believe it or not, we have lots of illegal aliens who are Irish).   mexicans don't want Russians here, or Asians or anyone from the middle east.  They know what illegal immigration is.  They just don't believe it applies to them and neither do liberals.  It's become a matter of race only as applied to hispanics.
> 
> mexicans particularly, but not exclusively as other central and south Americans feel the same way, feel that there should never have been a southern border.  It is still their country, the entire continent is one borderless region.  WIthout national borders, there are only racial and ethnic differences.  Libs have acquired this infection as well.



I believe you, you can see that bitch buddycolt making racist comments about Blacks, he only wants open borders because most of the illegals are Hispanic like him. If the illegals were mainly Black Africans or Haitians he would want them all rounded up in cattle carts and deported right away.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.
> 
> In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."
> 
> In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.
> 
> Todd is right.  Dudley is lying.  That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Nazi.  You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you.  Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Improper entry is not a crime except in a National Socialist utopia led by Lie Ability and those with a low enough IQ to buy into his endless posts.  You can't do one post, make your points and STFU can you?  You know you're wrong, but telling the lie over and over might..... It won't Lie Ability.  You will lose in the end.  You will lose.
Click to expand...


Except, of course, DummyDolt is simply lying.  It has already been proved --beyond any doubt -- that it is a crime. That's why so many folks have gotten criminally prosecuted for it and gotten the HALLMARK of a criminal statute -- a jail or prison sentence.

Everyone WITH a functioning brain and ANY honesty sees clearly that it IS a crime.

It is crystal clear.

Why DummyDolt and his cadre of open-borders fantasy _*playahs*_ want to claim otherwise is kind of amusing.   But still:  your lie is fully exposed, DummyDolt.



> III. DISCUSSION
> This case requires us to reconcile the well-established
> requirement that each count against a defendant in an information
> or indictment must sufficiently levy the charge in and
> of itself and thus stand on its own, with the Almendarez-Torres4
> 
> 2United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).
> 3United States v. Fleming, 215 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2000).
> 4Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
> 
> exception to Apprendi,5 which holds that a prior offense may
> be used to increase a defendant&#8217;s sentence even if the Government&#8217;s
> pleading omitted it. We conclude that *when, as in this
> case, the earlier offense operates not merely to increase a
> defendant&#8217;s sentence, but to transform his second offense
> from a misdemeanor to a felony, *Almendarez-Torres does not
> apply. * * * *


 UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-GONZALES, 

http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02D4AFF4C030C5EB88256E3E007A7ACC/$file/0250594.pdf?openelement

DummyDolt pretends he knows more about what is and isn't a crime than the government prosecutors and the federal judges who impose sentence.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt not all you dishonest because you are too stupid to know what the truth is


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Nazi.  You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you.  Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Improper entry is not a crime except in a National Socialist utopia led by Lie Ability and those with a low enough IQ to buy into his endless posts.  You can't do one post, make your points and STFU can you?  You know you're wrong, but telling the lie over and over might..... It won't Lie Ability.  You will lose in the end.  You will lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, of course, DummyDolt is simply lying.  It has already been proved --beyond any doubt -- that it is a crime. That's why so many folks have gotten criminally prosecuted for it and gotten the HALLMARK of a criminal statute -- a jail or prison sentence.
> 
> Everyone WITH a functioning brain and ANY honesty sees clearly that it IS a crime.
> 
> It is crystal clear.
> 
> Why DummyDolt and his cadre of open-borders fantasy _*playahs*_ want to claim otherwise is kind of amusing.   But still:  your lie is fully exposed, DummyDolt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> III. DISCUSSION
> This case requires us to reconcile the well-established
> requirement that each count against a defendant in an information
> or indictment must sufficiently levy the charge in and
> of itself and thus stand on its own, with the Almendarez-Torres4
> 
> 2United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).
> 3United States v. Fleming, 215 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2000).
> 4Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
> 
> exception to Apprendi,5 which holds that a prior offense may
> be used to increase a defendants sentence even if the Governments
> pleading omitted it. We conclude that *when, as in this
> case, the earlier offense operates not merely to increase a
> defendants sentence, but to transform his second offense
> from a misdemeanor to a felony, *Almendarez-Torres does not
> apply. * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-GONZALES,
> 
> http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02D4AFF4C030C5EB88256E3E007A7ACC/$file/0250594.pdf?openelement
> 
> DummyDolt pretends he knows more about what is and isn't a crime than the government prosecutors and hte federal judges who impose sentence.
Click to expand...


Anyone with an IQ level above a house plant knows it is illegal and it is a crime, period.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldnt not all you dishonest because you are too stupid to know what the truth is
Click to expand...



When you can manage to put together a coherent, grammatical sentence you can start calling anyone else stupid. Until then, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Catalist

Living in a State with some of the most porous borders in the nation we hear a lot of things.  Even Google does not seem to accurately reflect what is going on with illegal immigration.

It is my understanding that enforcement of immigration laws and the 14th Amendment are not as important to immigration as one might think.  I am informed that false citizenship documents are a felony, and offer law enforcement greater ease in incarcerating and deporting illegals.  Why get bogged down in red tape?  Squeeze granny out, and you get the whole family out.  That is what we see in the news down here.

I for one find the poking around of both political parties and Washington D. C. to be a complete waste of time.  We have all these people in airports taking off their shoes and belts to get on an airplane, when you could drive ten red semi trucks across the border into New Mexico and no one would even notice.  The corruption on both sides of the border, the drug problem, and the drug cartels make the whole thing a joke.


----------



## BuddyColt

Catalist said:


> Living in a State with some of the most porous borders in the nation we hear a lot of things.  Even Google does not seem to accurately reflect what is going on with illegal immigration.
> 
> It is my understanding that enforcement of immigration laws and the 14th Amendment are not as important to immigration as one might think.  I am informed that false citizenship documents are a felony, and offer law enforcement greater ease in incarcerating and deporting illegals.  Why get bogged down in red tape?  Squeeze granny out, and you get the whole family out.  That is what we see in the news down here.
> 
> I for one find the poking around of both political parties and Washington D. C. to be a complete waste of time.  We have all these people in airports taking off their shoes and belts to get on an airplane, when you could drive ten red semi trucks across the border into New Mexico and no one would even notice.  The corruption on both sides of the border, the drug problem, and the drug cartels make the whole thing a joke.



Once you understand the problem, you're closer to a solution.

According to the Chief Actuary for the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of the people in the U.S. get a Taxpayer Identification Number and enlist in the unconstitutional income tax scheme.  Well, now a lot of folks are bitching because the Hispanics claim a lot of dependents.  Then we find out half of AMERICANS don't pay income tax...  *Solution?*  Get rid of the income tax.

People are all over the border because of the drugs.  It's a supply and demand issue.  America will have to either resort to the death penalty for major suppliers and even a joint will have to net you a seven year stint in prison.  NWIH (NO Way In Hell)...

*Solution?*  Legalize and tax drugs.  When the Mexican cartels have to compete with the government of Mexico, the border patrols will double and, since people can buy legally, no more back door deals.  No more border problem over the drugs.

BTW, Entering and being in the United States is NOT a crime.  Yes, do it repeatedly and you end up with a felony charge... but DUI is a misdemeanor.  These dumb asses on this board may as well try and convince you a DUI is a felony.  It can be if you do it enough times.  What we're talking about are people that come here, get a TIN and do the same things that everybody else does.  

The crap about_ National Sovereignty_ does not apply.  National Sovereignty is power only to protect America.  It does not extend to the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  IF you did not have people in America willing to engage in legal business pursuits with the foreigners, you _might_ be able to make a case for invasion, etc.  But, you can't.  Our founding fathers never intended the government to prohibit immigration nor stifle free trade.  We have to focus on getting rid of GATT, NAFTA, the DHS, and cut all the welfare agencies in half.  You have to get rid of an over-sized government and stimulate growth.  You need a Guest Worker program with NO automatic path to citizenship and then begin lowering taxes.  

The race war will not stimulate growth.  All it's doing is giving the government a pretext for growing bigger and bigger, taking our Liberties with it as it devours us.


----------



## Unkotare

What "race war," idiot? Do you think a straw man will help you with your little lefty fantasy of open borders? It won't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

*Entering and being in the United States is NOT a crime. Yes, do it repeatedly and you end up with a felony charge*

How can an "unalienable right" be made into a felony?


----------



## Liability

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Entering and being in the United States is NOT a crime. Yes, do it repeatedly and you end up with a felony charge*
> 
> How can an "unalienable right" be made into a felony?



It can't.  BEING in the U.S. may not be a crime.  But ENTERING the U.S. outside the provisions of law IS a crime.

Liars like DuddlyDolt keep denying reality.  That's what lowlife liars do.

But their lies have no effect on reality.

Improper entry is a crime.  The law itself says so.


----------



## Zoom-boing

BuddyColt said:


> For those who might be here, watching this circus unfold, if you doubt what I said is true, pick up the phone and *call any immigration lawyer. * Ask them if the disputed statute is *civil law or criminal law and whether an IMPROPER ENTRY is a crime.*



*snipped because the rest of your post is just shit

I googled some instead.  It's a crime, you door hinge.  




> Removable Offenses - What Criminal Convictions can Result in Deportation?
> 
> *The law office of Steven P. Barsamian represents and defends clients who have been charged with or convicted of the following deportable criminal offenses:
> *
> DUI conviction
> Possession of drugs
> Conviction for assault
> Conviction for fraud
> * Illegal entry into the United States*
> Improper re-entry into the United States
> Expired visa
> Other criminal convictions and immigration offenses



Deportation Defense Lawyer Philadelphia Pennsylvania | Removal Proceedings Defense Attorney New Jersey | Immigration Court




> Illegal entry, marriage or establishing a business for evading immigration laws: *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.



Immigration Criminal Attorney, Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer, Houston, Throughout Texas and all Federal Courts

Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud




> *The federal crime of illegal immigration is the movement of foreign citizens into a country when these foreign citizens do not meet the legal requirements for being in that country.*
> 
> The crime of illegal immigration is governed by Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code. Title 8, Section 1325 provides that an alien has committed the federal crime of improper entry into the United States if that alien 1) enters the United States at any time or place other than that as designated by immigrations officers, or 2) evades examination by immigrations officers, or 3) attempts to enter the country by a willfully false or misleading representation of a material fact.
> 
> *Note:  ^  This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and yet, you insist that it is bunk.  You. Are. Wrong.
> 
> An alien convicted of the crime of illegal immigration faces deportation from the United States if that alien is present in the country without government permission, or, if that alien is a foreign citizen and has been convicted of certain crimes.



Immigration Attorney Orange County| Boxer Mc Laughlin


Buttercup, make sure you collect lots of dry wood for yer cave dwelling, mkay?


----------



## Liability

Zoom-boing said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who might be here, watching this circus unfold, if you doubt what I said is true, pick up the phone and *call any immigration lawyer. * Ask them if the disputed statute is *civil law or criminal law and whether an IMPROPER ENTRY is a crime.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *snipped because the rest of your post is just shit
> 
> I googled some instead.  It's a crime, you door hinge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Removable Offenses - What Criminal Convictions can Result in Deportation?
> 
> *The law office of Steven P. Barsamian represents and defends clients who have been charged with or convicted of the following deportable criminal offenses:
> *
> DUI conviction
> Possession of drugs
> Conviction for assault
> Conviction for fraud
> * Illegal entry into the United States*
> Improper re-entry into the United States
> Expired visa
> Other criminal convictions and immigration offenses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deportation Defense Lawyer Philadelphia Pennsylvania | Removal Proceedings Defense Attorney New Jersey | Immigration Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal entry, marriage or establishing a business for evading immigration laws: *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration Criminal Attorney, Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer, Houston, Throughout Texas and all Federal Courts
> 
> Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The federal crime of illegal immigration is the movement of foreign citizens into a country when these foreign citizens do not meet the legal requirements for being in that country.*
> 
> The crime of illegal immigration is governed by Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code. Title 8, Section 1325 provides that an alien has committed the federal crime of improper entry into the United States if that alien 1) enters the United States at any time or place other than that as designated by immigrations officers, or 2) evades examination by immigrations officers, or 3) attempts to enter the country by a willfully false or misleading representation of a material fact.
> 
> *Note:  ^  This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and yet, you insist that it is bunk.  You. Are. Wrong.
> 
> An alien convicted of the crime of illegal immigration faces deportation from the United States if that alien is present in the country without government permission, or, if that alien is a foreign citizen and has been convicted of certain crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration Attorney Orange County| Boxer Mc Laughlin
> 
> 
> Buttercup, make sure you collect lots of dry wood for yer cave dwelling, mkay?
Click to expand...


DudlyDolt makes two major mistakes in his fake analysis.

*First*, he persists in confusing the REMOVAL proceeding of an alien with a prosecution.  HE is, of course, painfully wrong and dull-witted.  A REMOVAL proceeding (what we used to call a "deportation proceeding") is civil/administrative in nature.  BUT, when the government arrests the illegal alien's ass and prosecutes him/her for *improper entry*, that is a CRIMINAL proceeding (and the law is a criminal statute) BECAUSE -- why?  Anybody?  Bueller?  Bueller?  That's RIGHT!  The DEFENDANT can get a jail term (misdemeanor) or even a prison sentence (felony).  

There is no doubt on Earth -- none -- that it's a criminal action. 

*Secondly*, he mistakenly assumes that BECAUSE _he_ has said something previously, that settles the matter.  But, of course, it doesn't.  He was WRONG the first time.  Repeating it merely makes him wrong AGAIN.


----------



## High_Gravity

Man Buddycolt must really want his illegal immigrant loved ones to stay here to make up all these damn lies.


----------



## MaryL

It IS illegal, title 8 section 1325 and all that. I love that you look to Regan and Bush in support of illegals. Regan killed American unions, and Bush invaded Iraq. But, that makes illegal aliens OK. Phony arguments, and false logic. Something isn't ringing true here. Like your reading of history, kiddo.


----------



## Catalist

BuddyColt said:


> Catalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Living in a State with some of the most porous borders in the nation we hear a lot of things.  Even Google does not seem to accurately reflect what is going on with illegal immigration.
> 
> It is my understanding that enforcement of immigration laws and the 14th Amendment are not as important to immigration as one might think.  I am informed that false citizenship documents are a felony, and offer law enforcement greater ease in incarcerating and deporting illegals.  Why get bogged down in red tape?  Squeeze granny out, and you get the whole family out.  That is what we see in the news down here.
> 
> I for one find the poking around of both political parties and Washington D. C. to be a complete waste of time.  We have all these people in airports taking off their shoes and belts to get on an airplane, when you could drive ten red semi trucks across the border into New Mexico and no one would even notice.  The corruption on both sides of the border, the drug problem, and the drug cartels make the whole thing a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you understand the problem, you're closer to a solution.
> 
> According to the Chief Actuary for the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of the people in the U.S. get a Taxpayer Identification Number and enlist in the unconstitutional income tax scheme.  Well, now a lot of folks are bitching because the Hispanics claim a lot of dependents.  Then we find out half of AMERICANS don't pay income tax...  *Solution?*  Get rid of the income tax.
> 
> People are all over the border because of the drugs.  It's a supply and demand issue.  America will have to either resort to the death penalty for major suppliers and even a joint will have to net you a seven year stint in prison.  NWIH (NO Way In Hell)...
> 
> *Solution?*  Legalize and tax drugs.  When the Mexican cartels have to compete with the government of Mexico, the border patrols will double and, since people can buy legally, no more back door deals.  No more border problem over the drugs.
> 
> BTW, Entering and being in the United States is NOT a crime.  Yes, do it repeatedly and you end up with a felony charge... but DUI is a misdemeanor.  These dumb asses on this board may as well try and convince you a DUI is a felony.  It can be if you do it enough times.  What we're talking about are people that come here, get a TIN and do the same things that everybody else does.
> 
> The crap about_ National Sovereignty_ does not apply.  National Sovereignty is power only to protect America.  It does not extend to the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  IF you did not have people in America willing to engage in legal business pursuits with the foreigners, you _might_ be able to make a case for invasion, etc.  But, you can't.  Our founding fathers never intended the government to prohibit immigration nor stifle free trade.  We have to focus on getting rid of GATT, NAFTA, the DHS, and cut all the welfare agencies in half.  You have to get rid of an over-sized government and stimulate growth.  You need a Guest Worker program with NO automatic path to citizenship and then begin lowering taxes.
> 
> The race war will not stimulate growth.  All it's doing is giving the government a pretext for growing bigger and bigger, taking our Liberties with it as it devours us.
Click to expand...


Well, I agree with you about legalizing drugs as a partial solution to the problems here on the southern border of the United States.  Legalize and tax.

Otherwise you are dancing around the realities of illegal immigration.  First, we have about 12,000,000 illegals who have already broken into the United States without proper documents.  We need to remove them.  We have done it before, and the president can do it with the stroke of a pen again.  There is no human rights issue here, only law enforcement, and deportation is the common answer around the planet.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Second, the idea of "cheap labor" from Mexico is pure fiction.  Illegal aliens and their anchor babies cost American taxpayers $113 BILLION a year.  http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-a-113-billion-a-year-drain-on-u-s-taxpayers/  We are lucky if we recoup $10 billion a year on taxes from illegals.  The American taxpayer is losing easily $100,000,000,000  a year on these freeloaders.  We need to deport them all.  They are not our problem.

We gave migrants an opportunity to work in our fields and send money home.  Then they decided they owned a piece of the American pie, and were entitle to welfare benefits.  We owe them nothing.  Deport them all with no consideration.


----------



## BuddyColt

Zoom-boing said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration Attorney Orange County| Boxer Mc Laughlin
> 
> 
> Buttercup, make sure you collect lots of dry wood for yer cave dwelling, mkay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your quote is _"an alien convicted of the crime of illegal immigration faces deportation_..."
> 
> You have not cited a single authoritative source.  Let me give you a *RULING*.  This *RULING* is from the* highest ranking immigration official in the United States*:
> 
> " _(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*_."
> 
> http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf
> 
> A foreigner sits before the highest ranking immigration official in the United States.  The statute in question is Title 8 USC 1325.  That official denies to the foreigner a taxpayer funded attorney on the basis that Title 8 USC 1325 is NOT a crime and deportation is a *CIVIL *matter.
> 
> You *cannot change* the ruling with an advertisement or penciling in the word crime where it is absolutely* NOT in the statute*.
> 
> Secondly, the legal community bandies the word _"illegal_" around and Michael Mukasey gave the American Bar Association the equivalent of a lecture on their application of the law relative to that point:
> 
> "_Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime_."
> 
> The liberal ABA has this habit of calling everything a crime if they can find any nuance in legal parlance that addresses it.  Again, here is proof that the legal community will say the word "illegal" and then explain to you that we are not talking about a crime.  Save yourself about 5000 keystrokes and listen to what the HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY SAYS:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqim4Se70k]Napolitano: Illegally Crossing Mexican Border's Not A Crime. All Terrorists Crossed Canadian Border - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Listen to the words: * CROSSING THE BORDER IS NOT A CRIME *
> 
> What part of that sentence do you not understand?  It's not my fault that the legal community bandies a word about and then it doesn't apply.
> 
> Next point:  You have this cheering section on this board that has raised holy hell trying to prove that entering the United States is a crime.  They have to insert the word crime in a statute that specifically reads* IMPROPER*.  The word is improper; it is not unlawful nor illegal.  *It is a civil offense of improper entry*.  Improper is NOT synonymous with the words unlawful and / or illegal... not in law and not in simple English.
> 
> Next point:  If Title 8 USC 1325 were about a criminal section of the law, it would NOT reference Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the United States Code, but simply state that an action is unlawful or illegal.  It don't; Title 8 USC does not impose a criminal penalty.  It is a* civil* section of the law that specifically draws upon Title 18 for the criminal penalties.   Anybody and everybody can use the word illegal all they want.  They are incorrect.  EVEN ADVOCATES ON YOUR OWN SIDE SAY SO:
> 
> For all the bitching and whining, moaning, groaning and complaining that the National Socialists do on this thread, they absolutely cannot reconcile the facts with their deliberate misinterpretation of the law.  Anti - immigrant activist lawyer and U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner proposed to change Title 8 USC 1325 to *strike the word IMPROPER and  change it to read unlawful entry*   For all that the National Socialists do on this thread, they have not, cannot and will not admit that if improper entry were a crime, there would have been no need to change the wording of the law  (see Section 203 of the House bill HR 4437)  HR 4437 FAILED and the facts remain and no matter how many posts you put on this board to the contrary you cannot change the truth.
> 
> *IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.  THE HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE RULED SO AND YOU HAVE THE CITE IN THIS POST.*
Click to expand...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

BuddyColt said:


> *Is it really &#8220;Illegal?&#8221;
> *
> Is coming into the United States really illegal?  Should it be illegal?  Are the anti &#8211; immigrant / National Socialists right or wrong?
> 
> I&#8217;m going to do this in several parts because it is difficult and you should take your time, reading each post, thinking it over and responding only after meditating on the facts versus the myths widely believed.
> 
> I&#8217;m starting this thread and there is nothing new, but it if it all appears at the beginning of a thread, you can see the circus atmosphere that the National Socialists will start because they cannot prevail over the facts.  All you should do is concern yourself with is the facts.  *YOUR* Liberty depends upon it.
> 
> The first* FACT* is that there are no laws making it a crime to be in the United States without papers.  The National Socialists will try and dispute it, but we will present irrefutable facts.  The reason this is important is that if they are allowed to create bad precedents in interpreting the law, it will have a *net negative impact on YOUR Rights and Liberties.*  So, let&#8217;s get right to it.
> 
> The only statute the National Socialists can come up with is Title 8 USC 1325 to attempt to &#8220;_prove_&#8221; a supposed crime of illegal immigration (which absolutely does not exist.)  My commentary on the statute is in red.  It is fully quoted:
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
> 
> Notice that this is a civil section of the law.  It is not a criminal title.  It is talking about an improper action, not an illegal one.
> 
> (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.
> 
> Notice that under this section, several infractions / crimes are being discussed.  Title 8 (Eight) does not impose a criminal penalty, but defers the criminal consequences to Title 18



If you can be imprisoned for it, its a crime.


Illegal entry is a criminal misdemeanor. It is not, however, considered an "ongoing crime" - once you enter the country, that is the crime right there, it doesn't continue past that. So an "illegal alien" isn't currently breaking any law by being here - but they had to comitt a crimnal misdemeanor to get here. If they are here 5 or more years though, the statute of limitations applies - and provided they have not comitted any other crimes, the only thing our government can do to them is send them home.


----------



## Unkotare

Be careful, pretty soon BloodyDolt will start calling you a Nazi or a KKK member or some combination of both. He's not all there.


----------



## BuddyColt

MaryL said:


> It IS illegal, title 8 section 1325 and all that. I love that you look to Regan and Bush in support of illegals. Regan killed American unions, and Bush invaded Iraq. But, that makes illegal aliens OK. Phony arguments, and false logic. Something isn't ringing true here. Like your reading of history, kiddo.



What does not ring true is your supposed cynicism of me.  I've told you what the law says.  Now, just for shits and giggles, let me tell you a few things YOUR side did not do... not once... ever IN TEN YEARS OF THIS DEBATE:

First,* NOBODY* bothered to ask me what *my opinion* of the law was.  Now, they will never know where I stood then nor where I stand today

Second, *NOBODY *ever considered the fact that you were being warned for your own good.  Something isn't ringing true?  You asked me about why I'm really in this fight, but you didn't check out the many links I provided.  Yes, I am exactly who I told you I was and yes, my life was in jeopardy because of the bad precedents YOUR side has created.  

Things don't ring true because you are not being true to yourself.  Some founding fathers advice:

"_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."
_
Thomas Paine

If something isn't ringing true, it's the lynch mob mentality that seeks to prove me wrong by lying about what a statute says (the fact that they pencil the word crime into Title 8 USC 1325 is evidence of that.)  If something rings false, it is the word of those who oppose what I'm saying.  Instead of debating the issue, they resorted to name calling, false allegations, and even attempting to attack possible family members.  

By contrast, I am giving you plenty of links and asking that you check them out.  It's not Buddy Colt said this and Buddy Colt believes that, I'm leaving you with the words of the people in charge of this clusterphuck we call immigration regulations.  Those people aren't arguing with me and if they were so cocksure that their position were correct, they were offered more money that anyone will offer them in their lifetimes to go to work and prove their case.  Things don't ring true because there are people here so insecure in their ideology that they have to resort to children's games in order to suppress the facts... FACTS that they and most likely you will choose to ignore.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> First,* NOBODY* bothered to ask me what *my opinion* of the law was.  Now, they will never know where I stood then nor where I stand today.






And it never occurred to you that nobody gives a fuck what your opinion is, you irrelevant fool?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> my life was in jeopardy because of the bad precedents YOUR side has created.
> .





This nutjob has to be ed spaceman/vampire's cousin or something.


----------



## Zoom-boing

BuddyColt said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> An alien convicted of the crime of illegal immigration faces deportation from the United States if that alien is present in the country without government permission, or, if that alien is a foreign citizen and has been convicted of certain crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration Attorney Orange County| Boxer Mc Laughlin
> 
> 
> Buttercup, make sure you collect lots of dry wood for yer cave dwelling, mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your quote is _"an alien convicted of the crime of illegal immigration faces deportation_..."
> 
> You have not cited a single authoritative source.  Let me give you a *RULING*.  This *RULING* is from the* highest ranking immigration official in the United States*:
> 
> " _(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*_."
> 
> http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf
> 
> A foreigner sits before the highest ranking immigration official in the United States.  The statute in question is Title 8 USC 1325.  That official denies to the foreigner a taxpayer funded attorney on the basis that Title 8 USC 1325 is NOT a crime and deportation is a *CIVIL *matter.
> 
> You *cannot change* the ruling with an advertisement or penciling in the word crime where it is absolutely* NOT in the statute*.
> 
> Secondly, the legal community bandies the word _"illegal_" around and Michael Mukasey gave the American Bar Association the equivalent of a lecture on their application of the law relative to that point:
> 
> "_Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime_."
> 
> The liberal ABA has this habit of calling everything a crime if they can find any nuance in legal parlance that addresses it.  Again, here is proof that the legal community will say the word "illegal" and then explain to you that we are not talking about a crime.  Save yourself about 5000 keystrokes and listen to what the HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY SAYS:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqim4Se70k]Napolitano: Illegally Crossing Mexican Border's Not A Crime. All Terrorists Crossed Canadian Border - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Listen to the words: * CROSSING THE BORDER IS NOT A CRIME *
> 
> What part of that sentence do you not understand?  It's not my fault that the legal community bandies a word about and then it doesn't apply.
> 
> Next point:  You have this cheering section on this board that has raised holy hell trying to prove that entering the United States is a crime.  They have to insert the word crime in a statute that specifically reads* IMPROPER*.  The word is improper; it is not unlawful nor illegal.  *It is a civil offense of improper entry*.  Improper is NOT synonymous with the words unlawful and / or illegal... not in law and not in simple English.
> 
> Next point:  If Title 8 USC 1325 were about a criminal section of the law, it would NOT reference Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the United States Code, but simply state that an action is unlawful or illegal.  It don't; Title 8 USC does not impose a criminal penalty.  It is a* civil* section of the law that specifically draws upon Title 18 for the criminal penalties.   Anybody and everybody can use the word illegal all they want.  They are incorrect.  EVEN ADVOCATES ON YOUR OWN SIDE SAY SO:
> 
> For all the bitching and whining, moaning, groaning and complaining that the National Socialists do on this thread, they absolutely cannot reconcile the facts with their deliberate misinterpretation of the law.  Anti - immigrant activist lawyer and U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner proposed to change Title 8 USC 1325 to *strike the word IMPROPER and  change it to read unlawful entry*   For all that the National Socialists do on this thread, they have not, cannot and will not admit that if improper entry were a crime, there would have been no need to change the wording of the law  (see Section 203 of the House bill HR 4437)  HR 4437 FAILED and the facts remain and no matter how many posts you put on this board to the contrary you cannot change the truth.
> 
> *IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.  THE HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE RULED SO AND YOU HAVE THE CITE IN THIS POST.*
Click to expand...


Napalitano stating it is not a crime doesn't make is so, buttercup.

Why didn't they change the wording from "improper" to "unlawful" if "improper" already means "unlawful"?.  Already answered earlier but I'll repeat it:  because if they changed the term to "unlawful" then dipshit politicians and those in charge, like Napolitano, couldn't manipulate and massage the meaning.  You know, like they're doing when they say that entering the U.S. in an improper manner isn't really a crime.  

Your question:



BuddyColt said:


> For those who might be here, watching this circus unfold, if you doubt what I said is true, pick up the phone and *call any immigration lawyer. * Ask them if the disputed statute is *civil law or criminal law and whether an IMPROPER ENTRY is a crime.*



I cited 3 lawyers who all state it is a crime to enter the U.S. in an improper/illegal manner. (hint: because entering the U.S. in an improper/illegal manner IS a crime).

I also cited the _Criminal _Resource Manual.



> Illegal entry, marriage or establishing a business for evading immigration laws: *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.



Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

You asked, were answered, didn't like the answer so you moved the goal post.  *yawn*

Stop blathering on again stating that because the proceedings to deport someone who has entered the U.S. improperly are civil that equals entering the U.S. in a manner not in accordance with the law is a civil offense, because it isn't.  IT IS A CRIME.

Once again, for the comprehension impaired:   Section 1325 sets forth* criminal offenses *relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, etc.

And, once again for the comprehension impaired, the above is from the CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL.  

Getting a little stuffy in that cave, buttercup?


----------



## Liability

OohPooPahDoo said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> If you can be imprisoned for it, its a crime.



Correct.



OohPooPahDoo said:


> Illegal entry is a criminal misdemeanor. It is not, however, considered an "ongoing crime" - once you enter the country, that is the crime right there, it doesn't continue past that. So an "illegal alien" isn't currently breaking any law by being here - but they had to comitt a crimnal misdemeanor to get here.



Also correct.  Although many people think it SHOULD be an ongoing crime, at present it simply isn't.  So, entering illegally (the crime known as "improper entry") is the crime.  Once in, the alien's presence is simply not authorized.  

IF the alien is not prosecuted for the initial illegal (improper) entry, he or she CAN, still, be detained and subject to a REMOVAL PROCEEDING which is not a criminal proceeding.  The latter is indeed a civil or administrative proceeding.



OohPooPahDoo said:


> If they are here 5 or more years though, the statute of limitations applies - and provided they have not comitted any other crimes, the only thing our government can do to them is send them home.



Correct.  Since it IS a criminal statute (improper entry), the criminal law provision called the statute of limitations DOES apply.

DuddlyDolt wants to have it both ways.  Application denied.  None of this is new.  It was all decided long before he started airing his ignorant beliefs as though they were facts.  Alas, his ignorant belief is not fact.  Never was.  

DuddlyDolt remains, simply, wrong.


----------



## BuddyColt

Zoom-boing,

It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.

What you just did was the equivalent of quoting a commercial for sugar based cereal with the slogan "it's good for you."  Game time is over.  If you cannot understand what I'm about to say, you don't have even a high school understanding of civics.

First, as stated, you buy into the sales literature of lawyers, but then claim they're stretching the truth about why they do or do not consider entry a crime.

Now you can call me names all day long.  You won't be the first dickless chickenshit to do it.  The real issue is what you would say to a man's face.  I won't waste time on you further if you think you can lure me into some kind of faggot ass relationship as been offered by your cheering section.  I'm heterosexual.  So, I'm showing you the same degree of respect you've shown me.

Next point:  It is a* FACT *that the highest ranking immigration official in the United States RULED that deportation proceedings were *civil*, not criminal.  In his RULING, Attorney General Mukasey cites many federal cases to uphold his ruling

Next:  It is a* FACT* that RULINGS by the Attorney General in cases governed by Title 8 USC 1325 *are the law;* it is well within their exclusive jurisdiction and until over-ruled in a federal district court or above, everything you say is conjecture

Next:  It is a* FACT* that the forum where improper entry cases are decided is NOT a criminal court, but a civil proceeding.  I cited the relevant RULING on that

Next:  It is* FACT* that Title 8 does not impose a criminal penalty, but references Title 18 for the criminal penalty.  You can't overcome that - even with calling me a hundred names and posting commercials or lies in the biggest type this board will hold

Next:  It is a *FACT* that _improper entry_ is NOT in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but making false / misleading statements, eluding authorities, etc. ARE in Title 18

Next:  It is a* FACT* that Congress debated changing the law to make improper entry a crime.  If it were a crime, there would be no need to change the law.


Finally, here is a free civics lesson.  If you argue your case beyond this point, the ONLY people you will have fooled are those who cannot produce anything except name calling and off point cases they dug up off of Google.  What I'm going to say is plain old common horse sense, so pay attention:

Title 8 USC 1325 is in a civil section of the law.  In the first four posts on this thread we examined virtually every point in the interpretation of the law save of two points - and I honestly wrote my opening posts with the idea that everyone reading it had a grade school knowledge of civics.

Not only is the law plain, but ANYBODY that took grade school civics knows that the most serious of criminal activities usually generates the most severe consequences.

Under this interpretation you claim that a *civil infraction* is a crime.  You absolutely cannot show me improper entry in Title 18 of the United States Code which is the CRIMINAL CODE.  But, I can show you where eluding the authorities IS in Title 18.  I can show you where making false / misleading statements are crimes in Title 18.  But you cannot show me where improper entry is a crime in Title 18.   But, here is your free civics lesson:

The FIFTH Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;* nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_"

Do you see that highlighted section?  *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE*.  The civil penalty for an improper entry is a maximum of *$250 CIVIL FINE*.  

Civil law is civil law; criminal law is criminal.  The statute makes it plain.  The $250 maximum* civil penalty* of improper entry cannot be used to offset a separate count of eluding authorities, for example.  AND, if a person is sentenced to $1000 fine for eluding authorities, that fine cannot be used to offset the improper entry.  Since you cannot try a person twice, a *civil fine is a civil fine*.  It is not a crime.  Remember that little ditty and you'll be doing fine.  So, to be consistent:

If eluding the authorities is a crime under Title 18 and making false / misleading statements is a crime under Title 18 AND if marriage fraud and entrepreneurship fraud are crimes under Title 18, then improper entry would have to be a crime under Title 18.  

Back to my original question:  If civil proceedings are crimes, then what criminal act do defendants in a divorce commit?  Does everybody that gets a divorce pay a criminal fine?  Does their criminal act keep them from getting a job due to their criminal record...

OR are you beginning to get the picture?


----------



## Liability

DuddlyDolt:
Evading, ducking, bobbing and weaving away form indisputable facts -- as you keep doing -- doesn't support your erroneous claims.

Your behavior serves only to confirm that you re a dishonest pussy.

Once again, the law called "improper entry" is a criminal law providing (as only a criminal law can) for criminal penalties like jail or prison.  It is a criminal statute no matter how much you piss, moan, groan, cry and lie.

A REMOVAL proceeding is not criminal.  It is civil or administrative in nature.  Thus, even if the alien is detained in a detention facility, that is not criminal in nature since the detention is simply to assure that the alien can ultimately be deported if that is the outcome of the proceeding.

Once again:  reality wins.  You lose.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Buttercup,

You've been given information from immigration lawyers that clearly state entering the U.S. illegally is a crime.  You didn't like that answer so you move the goal post (again) and say 'call them' and ramble on about sugar cereal and sales literature.  wtf?  Get a grip (hey Lia, I spelled it right this time!).  The lawyers aren't sugar-coating anything; they are stating that entering the U.S. illegally is a crime because entering the U.S. illegally is a crime.  Duh.  



> deportation proceedings were civil,



And?  No one is arguing that the deportation proceedings aren't civil; however, entering the U.S. illegally (improperly) is criminal punishable by "being 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."  

Title 18.  Criminal.  

If entering the U.S. illegally is a civil offense (as you incorrectly claim), then why is it listed in the Criminal Resource Manual?  The answer is simple:  because it is a crime.  Duh.

Section 1325 sets forth* criminal offenses *relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, etc.

And, once again for the comprehension impaired, the above is from the CRIMINAL Resource Manual, link below. 

Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud


Liability explains it (yet again).  See if you can comprehend, muchacho.



Liability said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> 
> If you can be imprisoned for it, its a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal entry is a criminal misdemeanor. It is not, however, considered an "ongoing crime" - once you enter the country, that is the crime right there, it doesn't continue past that. So an "illegal alien" isn't currently breaking any law by being here - but they had to comitt a crimnal misdemeanor to get here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also correct.  Although many people think it SHOULD be an ongoing crime, at present it simply isn't.  So, entering illegally (the crime known as "improper entry") is the crime.  Once in, the alien's presence is simply not authorized.
> 
> IF the alien is not prosecuted for the initial illegal (improper) entry, he or she CAN, still, be detained and subject to a REMOVAL PROCEEDING which is not a criminal proceeding.  The latter is indeed a civil or administrative proceeding.
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are here 5 or more years though, the statute of limitations applies - and provided they have not comitted any other crimes, the only thing our government can do to them is send them home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  Since it IS a criminal statute (improper entry), the criminal law provision called the statute of limitations DOES apply.
> 
> DuddlyDolt wants to have it both ways.  Application denied.  None of this is new.  It was all decided long before he started airing his ignorant beliefs as though they were facts.  Alas, his ignorant belief is not fact.  Never was.
> 
> DuddlyDolt remains, simply, wrong.
Click to expand...





> dickless chickenshit



I am dickless but am far from chickenshit.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> DuddlyDolt:
> Evading, ducking, bobbing and weaving away form indisputable facts -- as you keep doing -- doesn't support your erroneous claims.
> 
> Your behavior serves only to confirm that you re a dishonest pussy.
> 
> Once again, the law called "improper entry" is a criminal law providing (as only a criminal law can) for criminal penalties like jail or prison.  It is a criminal statute no matter how much you piss, moan, groan, cry and lie.
> 
> A REMOVAL proceeding is not criminal.  It is civil or administrative in nature.  Thus, even if the alien is detained in a detention facility, that is not criminal in nature since the detention is simply to assure that the alien can ultimately be deported if that is the outcome of the proceeding.
> 
> Once again:  reality wins.  You lose.



I'll tell you like I told someone on this board what I thought of them.  You talk a lot of trash, but you FAIL.  That's why you need the name calling and the fancy avatar and all the pics, fancy and colorful type.

Your problem is, you are keyboard commando that has never held a full time job; you have relatively little education and no respect for your fellow man.  I'm not going to get into your pissing match.  

I would tell anyone that has a question about this thread, rather than try to explain it, go to an attorney OR maybe a local college that has a law library.  Show this to someone that has a law degree (lawyer, judge or even law librarian.)  Ask them to show you *any fact *that I have misrepresented in the course of this thread.

LIE Ability has presented his view that civil laws are crimes, but the fact is they most assuredly are not.  He's been asked and answered... he has not reciprocated.  Telling people things that ARE NOT true, LIE Ability won't make them come true no matter what size font you use, no matter what you call me, and no matter how many times you say it.  

I'll tell you the same thing I told your boy toy.  You've written things on this board that you would not say to my face.  Had I said them to you, I'd be wanting a fight.  So, if you are bucking to see if I will or won't, I have a PM here.  I'm not a hard man to find.  Win, lose or draw I will not take a step backward from you.  

You've shown that you cannot engage in civil discourse without the name calling and the bullshit.  You've proven not to be worthy of my time or my interest, so now you've been told and I don't have to respond to you further.  If you want something from me, PM me.  Other than that, you are not worth my time and if people rely on you for legal advice, they will be bankrupt before the end of that business day.  

So, the people reading and not commenting can make their decision based upon the research they do relative to the links provided.


----------



## Zoom-boing

BuddyColt said:


> You talk a lot of trash, but you FAIL. That's why you need the name calling and the fancy avatar and all the pics, fancy and colorful type.
> 
> You've shown that you cannot engage in civil discourse without the name calling and the bullshit



*snipped because the rest of your post is bullshit

You were nothing but rude, condescending, an utter ass to me in this thread, from your first response to me.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...t-says-illegal-immigrants-cant-have-guns.html  (and if you note, I remained civil and polite to you despite your name calling and insults).

So you fail because of your name calling and fancy, colorful type.

Adios, muchacho.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> DuddlyDolt:
> Evading, ducking, bobbing and weaving away form indisputable facts -- as you keep doing -- doesn't support your erroneous claims.
> 
> Your behavior serves only to confirm that you re a dishonest pussy.
> 
> Once again, the law called "improper entry" is a criminal law providing (as only a criminal law can) for criminal penalties like jail or prison.  It is a criminal statute no matter how much you piss, moan, groan, cry and lie.
> 
> A REMOVAL proceeding is not criminal.  It is civil or administrative in nature.  Thus, even if the alien is detained in a detention facility, that is not criminal in nature since the detention is simply to assure that the alien can ultimately be deported if that is the outcome of the proceeding.
> 
> Once again:  reality wins.  You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you like I told someone on this board what I thought of them.  You talk a lot of trash, but you FAIL.  That's why you need the name calling and the fancy avatar and all the pics, fancy and colorful type.
> 
> Your problem is, you are keyboard commando that has never held a full time job; you have relatively little education and no respect for your fellow man.  I'm not going to get into your pissing match.
> 
> I would tell anyone that has a question about this thread, rather than try to explain it, go to an attorney OR maybe a local college that has a law library.  Show this to someone that has a law degree (lawyer, judge or even law librarian.)  Ask them to show you *any fact *that I have misrepresented in the course of this thread.
> 
> LIE Ability has presented his view that civil laws are crimes, but the fact is they most assuredly are not.  He's been asked and answered... he has not reciprocated.  Telling people things that ARE NOT true, LIE Ability won't make them come true no matter what size font you use, no matter what you call me, and no matter how many times you say it.
> 
> I'll tell you the same thing I told your boy toy.  You've written things on this board that you would not say to my face.  Had I said them to you, I'd be wanting a fight.  So, if you are bucking to see if I will or won't, I have a PM here.  I'm not a hard man to find.  Win, lose or draw I will not take a step backward from you.
> 
> You've shown that you cannot engage in civil discourse without the name calling and the bullshit.  You've proven not to be worthy of my time or my interest, so now you've been told and I don't have to respond to you further.  If you want something from me, PM me.  Other than that, you are not worth my time and if people rely on you for legal advice, they will be bankrupt before the end of that business day.
> 
> So, the people reading and not commenting can make their decision based upon the research they do relative to the links provided.
Click to expand...


You can say all such shit you wish.  

But facts remain facts regardless of your preferences.

You remain entirely wrong.  Being stubborn and adamant in your ignorance and stupidity is bad enough.  Being a liar is another matter.  Shame on you.

I do not say that a law is both civil and criminal.

That's just you lying again.

I say the law (improper entry) is criminal because -- well -- it simply is.

I say the deportation laws are civil/administrative in nature because -- well -- they are

Asshole liars like you like to conflate the laws.  But *your* bullshit convinces nobody that you are right because you remain wrong.  Your behavior only confirms yet again that you are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Zoom-boing,
> 
> It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.
> 
> What you just did was the equivalent of quoting a commercial for sugar based cereal with the slogan "it's good for you."  Game time is over.  If you cannot understand what I'm about to say, you don't have even a high school understanding of civics.
> 
> First, as stated, you buy into the sales literature of lawyers, but then claim they're stretching the truth about why they do or do not consider entry a crime.
> 
> Now you can call me names all day long.  You won't be the first dickless chickenshit to do it.  The real issue is what you would say to a man's face.  I won't waste time on you further if you think you can lure me into some kind of faggot ass relationship as been offered by your cheering section.  I'm heterosexual.  So, I'm showing you the same degree of respect you've shown me.
> 
> Next point:  It is a* FACT *that the highest ranking immigration official in the United States RULED that deportation proceedings were *civil*, not criminal.  In his RULING, Attorney General Mukasey cites many federal cases to uphold his ruling
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that RULINGS by the Attorney General in cases governed by Title 8 USC 1325 *are the law;* it is well within their exclusive jurisdiction and until over-ruled in a federal district court or above, everything you say is conjecture
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that the forum where improper entry cases are decided is NOT a criminal court, but a civil proceeding.  I cited the relevant RULING on that
> 
> Next:  It is* FACT* that Title 8 does not impose a criminal penalty, but references Title 18 for the criminal penalty.  You can't overcome that - even with calling me a hundred names and posting commercials or lies in the biggest type this board will hold
> 
> Next:  It is a *FACT* that _improper entry_ is NOT in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but making false / misleading statements, eluding authorities, etc. ARE in Title 18
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that Congress debated changing the law to make improper entry a crime.  If it were a crime, there would be no need to change the law.
> 
> 
> Finally, here is a free civics lesson.  If you argue your case beyond this point, the ONLY people you will have fooled are those who cannot produce anything except name calling and off point cases they dug up off of Google.  What I'm going to say is plain old common horse sense, so pay attention:
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 is in a civil section of the law.  In the first four posts on this thread we examined virtually every point in the interpretation of the law save of two points - and I honestly wrote my opening posts with the idea that everyone reading it had a grade school knowledge of civics.
> 
> Not only is the law plain, but ANYBODY that took grade school civics knows that the most serious of criminal activities usually generates the most severe consequences.
> 
> Under this interpretation you claim that a *civil infraction* is a crime.  You absolutely cannot show me improper entry in Title 18 of the United States Code which is the CRIMINAL CODE.  But, I can show you where eluding the authorities IS in Title 18.  I can show you where making false / misleading statements are crimes in Title 18.  But you cannot show me where improper entry is a crime in Title 18.   But, here is your free civics lesson:
> 
> The FIFTH Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;* nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_"
> 
> Do you see that highlighted section?  *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE*.  The civil penalty for an improper entry is a maximum of *$250 CIVIL FINE*.
> 
> Civil law is civil law; criminal law is criminal.  The statute makes it plain.  The $250 maximum* civil penalty* of improper entry cannot be used to offset a separate count of eluding authorities, for example.  AND, if a person is sentenced to $1000 fine for eluding authorities, that fine cannot be used to offset the improper entry.  Since you cannot try a person twice, a *civil fine is a civil fine*.  It is not a crime.  Remember that little ditty and you'll be doing fine.  So, to be consistent:
> 
> If eluding the authorities is a crime under Title 18 and making false / misleading statements is a crime under Title 18 AND if marriage fraud and entrepreneurship fraud are crimes under Title 18, then improper entry would have to be a crime under Title 18.
> 
> Back to my original question:  If civil proceedings are crimes, then what criminal act do defendants in a divorce commit?  Does everybody that gets a divorce pay a criminal fine?  Does their criminal act keep them from getting a job due to their criminal record...
> 
> OR are you beginning to get the picture?



*You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE.*

You cannot try a person for the same crime TWICE.

If you commit a crime multiple times, your misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment won't protect you.


----------



## Liability

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing,
> 
> It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.
> 
> What you just did was the equivalent of quoting a commercial for sugar based cereal with the slogan "it's good for you."  Game time is over.  If you cannot understand what I'm about to say, you don't have even a high school understanding of civics.
> 
> First, as stated, you buy into the sales literature of lawyers, but then claim they're stretching the truth about why they do or do not consider entry a crime.
> 
> Now you can call me names all day long.  You won't be the first dickless chickenshit to do it.  The real issue is what you would say to a man's face.  I won't waste time on you further if you think you can lure me into some kind of faggot ass relationship as been offered by your cheering section.  I'm heterosexual.  So, I'm showing you the same degree of respect you've shown me.
> 
> Next point:  It is a* FACT *that the highest ranking immigration official in the United States RULED that deportation proceedings were *civil*, not criminal.  In his RULING, Attorney General Mukasey cites many federal cases to uphold his ruling
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that RULINGS by the Attorney General in cases governed by Title 8 USC 1325 *are the law;* it is well within their exclusive jurisdiction and until over-ruled in a federal district court or above, everything you say is conjecture
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that the forum where improper entry cases are decided is NOT a criminal court, but a civil proceeding.  I cited the relevant RULING on that
> 
> Next:  It is* FACT* that Title 8 does not impose a criminal penalty, but references Title 18 for the criminal penalty.  You can't overcome that - even with calling me a hundred names and posting commercials or lies in the biggest type this board will hold
> 
> Next:  It is a *FACT* that _improper entry_ is NOT in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but making false / misleading statements, eluding authorities, etc. ARE in Title 18
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that Congress debated changing the law to make improper entry a crime.  If it were a crime, there would be no need to change the law.
> 
> 
> Finally, here is a free civics lesson.  If you argue your case beyond this point, the ONLY people you will have fooled are those who cannot produce anything except name calling and off point cases they dug up off of Google.  What I'm going to say is plain old common horse sense, so pay attention:
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 is in a civil section of the law.  In the first four posts on this thread we examined virtually every point in the interpretation of the law save of two points - and I honestly wrote my opening posts with the idea that everyone reading it had a grade school knowledge of civics.
> 
> Not only is the law plain, but ANYBODY that took grade school civics knows that the most serious of criminal activities usually generates the most severe consequences.
> 
> Under this interpretation you claim that a *civil infraction* is a crime.  You absolutely cannot show me improper entry in Title 18 of the United States Code which is the CRIMINAL CODE.  But, I can show you where eluding the authorities IS in Title 18.  I can show you where making false / misleading statements are crimes in Title 18.  But you cannot show me where improper entry is a crime in Title 18.   But, here is your free civics lesson:
> 
> The FIFTH Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;* nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_"
> 
> Do you see that highlighted section?  *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE*.  The civil penalty for an improper entry is a maximum of *$250 CIVIL FINE*.
> 
> Civil law is civil law; criminal law is criminal.  The statute makes it plain.  The $250 maximum* civil penalty* of improper entry cannot be used to offset a separate count of eluding authorities, for example.  AND, if a person is sentenced to $1000 fine for eluding authorities, that fine cannot be used to offset the improper entry.  Since you cannot try a person twice, a *civil fine is a civil fine*.  It is not a crime.  Remember that little ditty and you'll be doing fine.  So, to be consistent:
> 
> If eluding the authorities is a crime under Title 18 and making false / misleading statements is a crime under Title 18 AND if marriage fraud and entrepreneurship fraud are crimes under Title 18, then improper entry would have to be a crime under Title 18.
> 
> Back to my original question:  If civil proceedings are crimes, then what criminal act do defendants in a divorce commit?  Does everybody that gets a divorce pay a criminal fine?  Does their criminal act keep them from getting a job due to their criminal record...
> 
> OR are you beginning to get the picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE.*
> 
> You cannot try a person for the same crime TWICE.
> 
> If you commit a crime multiple times, your misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment won't protect you.
Click to expand...


Correct!

Like if you commit the crime of improper entry once, that's a crime for which you can be punished.

If you do it twice, you cannot get punished AGAIN for the first improper entry but you CAN get punished MORE for the second improper entry.

And one can only get punished for crimes, not for mere civil violations.  Those can yield penalties, like fines.  But not jail or prison.

There CAN be civil penalties also for improper entry.  Like, for example, you can be sent to an immigration court for a removal proceeding and get your illegal alien ass deported.  The latter is purely civil/administrative.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Zoom-boing,
> 
> It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.



How about you? You said you "practised law" for some years. Are you a lawyer, or were you merely misrepresenting yourself, idiot?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing,
> 
> It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you? You said you "practised law" for some years. Are you a lawyer, or were you merely misrepresenting yourself, idiot?
Click to expand...


There is no misrepresentation, he is an idiot.


----------



## BuddyColt

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing,
> 
> It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you? You said you "practised law" for some years. Are you a lawyer, or were you merely misrepresenting yourself, idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no misrepresentation, he is an idiot.
Click to expand...


I'd tell you the same thing I tell these other pansy ass motherfuckers.  Call me names on this board, but if I did it, I'd be bucking for a fight.  I have a PM and damn sure won't back down.

You cannot change the facts.  Improper Entry is a civil infraction NOT a crime.


----------



## Flopper

All of our immigration laws and regulations need a redo.  Reality and the INS are miles apart.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing,
> 
> It's about time to end this B.S. right here and right now.  Repeating the advertising literature of lawyers is not the same as picking up the phone and asking one to end this argument by telling you whether we're talking crime or civil action.
> 
> What you just did was the equivalent of quoting a commercial for sugar based cereal with the slogan "it's good for you."  Game time is over.  If you cannot understand what I'm about to say, you don't have even a high school understanding of civics.
> 
> First, as stated, you buy into the sales literature of lawyers, but then claim they're stretching the truth about why they do or do not consider entry a crime.
> 
> Now you can call me names all day long.  You won't be the first dickless chickenshit to do it.  The real issue is what you would say to a man's face.  I won't waste time on you further if you think you can lure me into some kind of faggot ass relationship as been offered by your cheering section.  I'm heterosexual.  So, I'm showing you the same degree of respect you've shown me.
> 
> Next point:  It is a* FACT *that the highest ranking immigration official in the United States RULED that deportation proceedings were *civil*, not criminal.  In his RULING, Attorney General Mukasey cites many federal cases to uphold his ruling
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that RULINGS by the Attorney General in cases governed by Title 8 USC 1325 *are the law;* it is well within their exclusive jurisdiction and until over-ruled in a federal district court or above, everything you say is conjecture
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that the forum where improper entry cases are decided is NOT a criminal court, but a civil proceeding.  I cited the relevant RULING on that
> 
> Next:  It is* FACT* that Title 8 does not impose a criminal penalty, but references Title 18 for the criminal penalty.  You can't overcome that - even with calling me a hundred names and posting commercials or lies in the biggest type this board will hold
> 
> Next:  It is a *FACT* that _improper entry_ is NOT in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but making false / misleading statements, eluding authorities, etc. ARE in Title 18
> 
> Next:  It is a* FACT* that Congress debated changing the law to make improper entry a crime.  If it were a crime, there would be no need to change the law.
> 
> 
> Finally, here is a free civics lesson.  If you argue your case beyond this point, the ONLY people you will have fooled are those who cannot produce anything except name calling and off point cases they dug up off of Google.  What I'm going to say is plain old common horse sense, so pay attention:
> 
> Title 8 USC 1325 is in a civil section of the law.  In the first four posts on this thread we examined virtually every point in the interpretation of the law save of two points - and I honestly wrote my opening posts with the idea that everyone reading it had a grade school knowledge of civics.
> 
> Not only is the law plain, but ANYBODY that took grade school civics knows that the most serious of criminal activities usually generates the most severe consequences.
> 
> Under this interpretation you claim that a *civil infraction* is a crime.  You absolutely cannot show me improper entry in Title 18 of the United States Code which is the CRIMINAL CODE.  But, I can show you where eluding the authorities IS in Title 18.  I can show you where making false / misleading statements are crimes in Title 18.  But you cannot show me where improper entry is a crime in Title 18.   But, here is your free civics lesson:
> 
> The FIFTH Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;* nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;* nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_"
> 
> Do you see that highlighted section?  *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE*.  The civil penalty for an improper entry is a maximum of *$250 CIVIL FINE*.
> 
> Civil law is civil law; criminal law is criminal.  The statute makes it plain.  The $250 maximum* civil penalty* of improper entry cannot be used to offset a separate count of eluding authorities, for example.  AND, if a person is sentenced to $1000 fine for eluding authorities, that fine cannot be used to offset the improper entry.  Since you cannot try a person twice, a *civil fine is a civil fine*.  It is not a crime.  Remember that little ditty and you'll be doing fine.  So, to be consistent:
> 
> If eluding the authorities is a crime under Title 18 and making false / misleading statements is a crime under Title 18 AND if marriage fraud and entrepreneurship fraud are crimes under Title 18, then improper entry would have to be a crime under Title 18.
> 
> Back to my original question:  If civil proceedings are crimes, then what criminal act do defendants in a divorce commit?  Does everybody that gets a divorce pay a criminal fine?  Does their criminal act keep them from getting a job due to their criminal record...
> 
> OR are you beginning to get the picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE.*
> 
> You cannot try a person for the same crime TWICE.
> 
> If you commit a crime multiple times, your misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment won't protect you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct!
> 
> Like if you commit the crime of improper entry once, that's a crime for which you can be punished.
> 
> If you do it twice, you cannot get punished AGAIN for the first improper entry but you CAN get punished MORE for the second improper entry.
> 
> And one can only get punished for crimes, not for mere civil violations.  Those can yield penalties, like fines.  But not jail or prison.
> 
> There CAN be civil penalties also for improper entry.  Like, for example, you can be sent to an immigration court for a removal proceeding and get your illegal alien ass deported.  The latter is purely civil/administrative.
Click to expand...


If you had bothered to read the *CITE* that I provided, Compean was* NOT *tried in a criminal court on any kind of "_crime_" as per Title 8 USC 1325 .  

That case was tried in a civil forum and it is made clear to any person of average reading skills.  If you like getting your ass kicked by the facts, be my guest.  You are not changing the bottom line, which is pissing you off.  You'd like to drown me out, but as long as I stand my ground, this brings a few hatemongers out of the wood-work while educating a lot of other people.

You call me a liar when you cannot cite any lie I've told.  I have verbatim accounts from those in charge of what was said and done.  In my referenced case, the *RESPONDENT*  (Compean is not even called a defendant)  is being accused of improper entry, but the case is not criminal; Compean is not a defendant; theAttorney General denies Compean a court appointed attorney (you do realize such is required by virtue of having heard the Miranda Warning) which is required if a person is being tried on criminal charges.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you? You said you "practised law" for some years. Are you a lawyer, or were you merely misrepresenting yourself, idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no misrepresentation, he is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd tell you the same thing I tell these other pansy ass motherfuckers.  Call me names on this board, but if I did it, I'd be bucking for a fight.  I have a PM and damn sure won't back down.
> 
> You cannot change the facts.  Improper Entry is a civil infraction NOT a crime.
Click to expand...



LOL! Gonna try and play tough-guy again, BloodyDolt? Remember how badly you failed at it last time?


----------



## Unkotare

Flopper said:


> All of our immigration laws and regulations need a redo.  Reality and the INS are miles apart.



There is no INS.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> You call me a liar when you cannot cite any lie I've told.





Are you an attorney, BloodyDolt?


----------



## BuddyColt

In the course of this thread, the cheering section has accused me of dodging and ducking whatever it is they threw at me.  *THAT'S A LIE.*  I've answered each and every relevant question with the truth and the facts as they are practiced within our system of jurisprudence.

By contrast, I have posed *five different issues on this board* that have been conveniently and consistently ignored.  

The cheering section continues to demand that I accept their version of what the law is, but I deal in legal realities.  Anybody that thinks I'm wrong can roll the dice.  I have some immigration cases we can work with.  Prove your case by submitting your version of the law.  You could get paid AND get a big paycheck not to mention humiliate me.  I'll by hell eat the crow if you can put your opinions to the test.  

*NONE* of you will take the challenge because you know you're wrong.  

You realize that entering the United States is NOT a crime NOR should it ever be.  

If you have an issue with a foreigner, you would be better served to address the issue (s) instead of engaging in this hate-mongering petty class warfare argument.  

The free movement of people in general should never be a crime.  All of you jockeying for this to be a crime would not be comfortable in a society where you could be pulled over 24 / 7 / 365 for no apparent reason to have your papers searched.  NONE of you really wants to live in a POLICE STATE.  Many of you must realize that the trade off isn't worth it.

Some of you curse me with every breath, being tied down to your computers, afraid that I may say something that causes your cult following to look at the facts and quit engaging in the political jockeying.  When I go to work, some wonder if I ran away or simply gave up because they tried to make it uncomfortable for me.  

The reality is, I thrive on adversity.  I drain you for every possible argument you can give me and then research it until there is nothing left.  By contrast, I told the posters here to *ask a lawyer, based upon my postings here whether or not I'm telling you the truth*.

Somebody comes back with having looked at a website and never having presented what I said to the lawyer.  Now *THAT* is the epitome of dishonesty.  But, it also shows that you are on the ropes, wishing that the fight will end.  But the reality is, after nearly losing my life to your bad precedents and warped reasoning, none of you are as motivate as I am.  As one of our founding fathers once said:

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined_."

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 

It will be a cold day in hell before I take my attention off the threat to the* public Liberty* some of you pose on this board.  The best solution that can happen is to create a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship and be done with this B.S. argument.  Now, you're well informed as to what my limits are.  You are not going to beat me with repetitive lies banged into a computer; you're not going to intimidate me with false accusations - you should try them out face to face though.

If someone has some new material, present it.  Otherwise, we can just have a contest on this board and see who can post the same shit the most times.


----------



## Sunni Man

Enjoying your weekend pass Buddy Colt?

Remember now, you have to be back by 11:00 PM

Or else you won't get one next weekend.


----------



## Unkotare

BloodyDolt, are you an attorney?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BuddyColt said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you? You said you "practised law" for some years. Are you a lawyer, or were you merely misrepresenting yourself, idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no misrepresentation, he is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd tell you the same thing I tell these other pansy ass motherfuckers.  Call me names on this board, but if I did it, I'd be bucking for a fight.  I have a PM and damn sure won't back down.
> 
> You cannot change the facts.  Improper Entry is a civil infraction NOT a crime.
Click to expand...


You have a PM? What's that? A Panda Mother?


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You cannot try a person for a crime TWICE.*
> 
> You cannot try a person for the same crime TWICE.
> 
> If you commit a crime multiple times, your misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment won't protect you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct!
> 
> Like if you commit the crime of improper entry once, that's a crime for which you can be punished.
> 
> If you do it twice, you cannot get punished AGAIN for the first improper entry but you CAN get punished MORE for the second improper entry.
> 
> And one can only get punished for crimes, not for mere civil violations.  Those can yield penalties, like fines.  But not jail or prison.
> 
> There CAN be civil penalties also for improper entry.  Like, for example, you can be sent to an immigration court for a removal proceeding and get your illegal alien ass deported.  The latter is purely civil/administrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had bothered to read the *CITE* that I provided, Compean was* NOT *tried in a criminal court on any kind of "_crime_" as per Title 8 USC 1325 .
> 
> That case was tried in a civil forum and it is made clear to any person of average reading skills.  If you like getting your ass kicked by the facts, be my guest.  You are not changing the bottom line, which is pissing you off.  You'd like to drown me out, but as long as I stand my ground, this brings a few hatemongers out of the wood-work while educating a lot of other people.
> 
> You call me a liar when you cannot cite any lie I've told.  I have verbatim accounts from those in charge of what was said and done.  In my referenced case, the *RESPONDENT*  (Compean is not even called a defendant)  is being accused of improper entry, but the case is not criminal; Compean is not a defendant; theAttorney General denies Compean a court appointed attorney (you do realize such is required by virtue of having heard the Miranda Warning) which is required if a person is being tried on criminal charges.
Click to expand...


You have less than zero idea of what you are babbling about, and with each post you only make yourself look more and more idiotic.

The law is a criminal law.  That's why it includes jail provisions and prison provisions you ignorant twit.  Period.

Deportation is a civil/administrative matter.  

It's ok that you know exactly nothing at all on the topic about which you bloviate.   At this point, only mental midgets of your diminutive stature take anything you say seriously.  

8 U.S.C. §1325 is a CRIMINAL statute.  No OTHER statute can provide for a criminal punishment.  It even SAYS that it provides for civil penalties *ALSO*.  It's a double whammy.  But that doesn't change the fact that it *is* -- without any doubt at all -- a criminal statute.

What Compean case are you blathering about now?  (Do you imagine folks actually read your wall of words posts in their entirety?   )

If it's the case I think it is, you jack-off, you are terminally confused and stupid and possibly dishonest.  The one thing you are NOT is "right."


----------



## Liability

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no misrepresentation, he is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd tell you the same thing I tell these other pansy ass motherfuckers.  Call me names on this board, but if I did it, I'd be bucking for a fight.  I have a PM and damn sure won't back down.
> 
> You cannot change the facts.  Improper Entry is a civil infraction NOT a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a PM? What's that? A Panda Mother?
Click to expand...


He meant a *bad case of* PM*S*.  He is confused.  Poor little feller.


----------



## Unkotare

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no misrepresentation, he is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd tell you the same thing I tell these other pansy ass motherfuckers.  Call me names on this board, but if I did it, I'd be bucking for a fight.  I have a PM and damn sure won't back down.
> 
> You cannot change the facts.  Improper Entry is a civil infraction NOT a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a PM? What's that?
Click to expand...



He just forgot the 'S'


----------



## Liability

Justice provides training on the topic to U.S. Attorneys.



> US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1911
> prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
> 
> 1911
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
> *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.
> 
> Comment: Further discussion of these offenses is set forth in Chapter 4 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library.
> 
> [cited in USAM 9-73.200]


 -- Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

Apparently Justice has not yet figured out that they are mis-advising the U.S. Attorneys on this topic.

And before resident douche bag ignorant scum-sucker DuddleyDolt jumps on the "amendment" reference in that paragraph, he should contemplate (for once in his life, honestly contemplate) what the STATUTE SAYS:



> USC  Title 8  Chapter 12  Subchapter II  Part VIII  § 1325
> 
> prev
> next
> 
> 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> 
> (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.*


 -- 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## Unkotare

Oh that's it. You will definately be called a KKKNazi now and threatened in some very vague and noncommital way (maybe something about lions, who knows?)


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Justice provides training on the topic to U.S. Attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1911
> prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
> 
> 1911
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
> *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.
> 
> Comment: Further discussion of these offenses is set forth in Chapter 4 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library.
> 
> [cited in USAM 9-73.200]
> 
> 
> 
> -- Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
> 
> Apparently Justice has not yet figured out that they are mis-advising the U.S. Attorneys on this topic.
> 
> And before resident douche bag ignorant scum-sucker DuddleyDolt jumps on the "amendment" reference in that paragraph, he should contemplate (for once in his life, honestly contemplate) what the STATUTE SAYS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USC  Title 8  Chapter 12  Subchapter II  Part VIII  § 1325
> 
> prev
> next
> 
> 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> 
> (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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -- 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


For all the bullshit you put on this board trying to use name calling to fuck with me, your dumb ass cannot read NOR reason.

A "_Criminal Resource Manual_" is* NOT* authoritative law.  The* FACT* that the wording is different from the United States Code ought to tell your dumb ass that.

Maybe you missed this important part of this manual with its misquote of the law:

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses *relating to *

See that dumb ass, I can pull appropriate words out of the sentences as well.  Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses *relating to improper entry.  It does not say that section provides a criminal penalty FOR improper entry.  We've been over this 200 times already.  Open your eyes.

Let's see this dumb ass has tried:

Overturned cases
Cases not relating to improper entry
Misquotes of the statute outside the law
Advertisements from attorneys AND
this dumb mother fucker has even penciled in the word criminal to a statute that clearly does not say criminal in the United States Code.

You fail.  You're out.  You are the liar.  
*


----------



## Unkotare

BloodyDolt, are you an attorney?


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice provides training on the topic to U.S. Attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1911
> prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
> 
> 1911
> 
> 8 U.S.C. § 1325Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
> *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.
> 
> Comment: Further discussion of these offenses is set forth in Chapter 4 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library.
> 
> [cited in USAM 9-73.200]
> 
> 
> 
> -- Criminal Resource Manual 1911 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
> 
> Apparently Justice has not yet figured out that they are mis-advising the U.S. Attorneys on this topic.
> 
> And before resident douche bag ignorant scum-sucker DuddleyDolt jumps on the "amendment" reference in that paragraph, he should contemplate (for once in his life, honestly contemplate) what the STATUTE SAYS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USC  Title 8  Chapter 12  Subchapter II  Part VIII  § 1325
> 
> prev
> next
> 
> 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> 
> (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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -- 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the bullshit you put on this board trying to use name calling to fuck with me, your dumb ass cannot read NOR reason.
> 
> A "_Criminal Resource Manual_" is* NOT* authoritative law.  The* FACT* that the wording is different from the United States Code ought to tell your dumb ass that.
> 
> Maybe you missed this important part of this manual with its misquote of the law:
> 
> Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses *relating to *
> 
> See that dumb ass, I can pull appropriate words out of the sentences as well.  Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses *relating to improper entry.  It does not say that section provides a criminal penalty FOR improper entry.  We've been over this 200 times already.  Open your eyes.
> 
> Let's see this dumb ass has tried:
> 
> Overturned cases
> Cases not relating to improper entry
> Misquotes of the statute outside the law
> Advertisements from attorneys AND
> this dumb mother fucker has even penciled in the word criminal to a statute that clearly does not say criminal in the United States Code.
> 
> You fail.  You're out.  You are the liar.
> *
Click to expand...



You are an insufferable twit.

The resource manual is part of the materials made available* by the very government who made the law* *to* *those in the executive branch who enforce the law*, you dishonest scumbag.

And the fact that you made a complete assclown out of yourself by trying to parse the phrase "relating to" in your ignorant and erroneous manner only serves to underscore what a fucking useless used tampon you are.  

Now, to further embarrass yourself, point to ANY "overturned cases" I have relied upon.  You can't do it, and we all know it.  That's the price you pay for being nothing more than a lying twat.

Lying -- as you always do -- has also led you to falsely contend that I have discussed cases about improper entry that don't deal with improper entry.  Lying makes you look worse each time.  That's not easy to do.  But the only cases I cited concerning improper entry were ABOUT improper entry, you lying fuckwit scumbag.  Fact.   

I have not misquoted *any* statute, you lying menstrual pad.   I have copied and pasted THE LAW.  Law.  That is the material you are too stupid and dishonest to even comprehend or discuss intelligently.

I have not cited _*any*_ attorney advertisements at all, fuckwit.

And I have correctly NOTED that the words IN the statute provide for a criminal penalty thus making it a criminal statute, you clueless lying punk ass  bitch.  That's not penciling in anything.  

That you find it necessary to lie about EVERY one of your "points" reveals what a lowlife pussy you are.

Your fail is pretty much complete.

But hurry back.

You dickless piece of rat shit.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney?



He is a spineless, ball-less pussy scumbag who will not answer.

And let's get serious.  Even if he DID answer, he'd likely lie about  that, too, just as he lies  in almost every post.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a spineless, ball-less pussy scumbag who will not answer.
> 
> And let's get serious.  Even if he DID answer, he'd likely lie about  that, too, just as he lies  in almost every post.
Click to expand...



Most posters don't buy your crap.  You flat out lied about everything.  What are going to do when people look into it and see that the official version of the USC never mentions a criminal penalty for improper entry NOR does the USC (official legal version) have any crime called unlawful entry.

You talk big for a POS that hides behind a computer making his stand from the comfort of his keyboard.  

BTW, I don't answer to Uncle Liar and don't owe that dick licker the time of day.  He has a sufficient number of links to find out who I am and what I am if he studies the subject.  Like he said, he don't care what I think; you guys refuse to read my posts and criticizing me without a knowledge of the subject shows who the real idiots among us really are.

If I'm so spineless, how come you aren't offering a face to face via a PM?  Yap, Yap, Yap.  You sound like a barking chihuahua.  The problem is, anybody with an IQ above 50 isn't buying it.


----------



## BuddyColt

Regarding LIE Ability:

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses *relating to*

See that dumb ass, I can pull appropriate words out of the sentences as well. Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses* relating to* improper entry. It does not say that section provides a criminal penalty FOR improper entry. We've been over this 200 times already. Open your eyes.

Let's see this dumb ass has tried:

*Overturned cases
Cases not relating to improper entry
Misquotes of the statute outside the law
Advertisements from attorneys AND
this dumb mother fucker has even penciled in the word criminal to a statute that clearly does not say criminal in the United States Code.*

You fail. You're out. You are the liar. 

NOTHING that LIE ABILITY has said about me is true.  He is a pathological liar that needs to be rebuked in person.  Reading LIE ABILITY'S lies will lower your IQ.  One can only give him credit for repeating the same stuff over and over because he thinks you're too stupid to look into this and make up your own mind.

I'm done with him.  Calling him an idiot would not begin to cover it.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> If I'm so spineless, how come you aren't offering a face to face via a PM?




There he goes with the PMS again...


The untough guy strikes again!


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Regarding LIE Ability:
> 
> Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses *relating to*
> 
> See that dumb ass, I can pull appropriate words out of the sentences as well. Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses* relating to* improper entry. It does not say that section provides a criminal penalty FOR improper entry. We've been over this 200 times already. Open your eyes.
> 
> Let's see this dumb ass has tried:
> 
> *Overturned cases
> Cases not relating to improper entry
> Misquotes of the statute outside the law
> Advertisements from attorneys AND
> this dumb mother fucker has even penciled in the word criminal to a statute that clearly does not say criminal in the United States Code.*
> 
> You fail. You're out. You are the liar.
> 
> NOTHING that LIE ABILITY has said about me is true.  He is a pathological liar that needs to be rebuked in person.  Reading LIE ABILITY'S lies will lower your IQ.  One can only give him credit for repeating the same stuff over and over because he thinks you're too stupid to look into this and make up your own mind.
> 
> I'm done with him.  Calling him an idiot would not begin to cover it.



DuddlyDolt still has not the first clue about what the phrase "relating to" actually means.



Duddly, you stupid bitch:

It would have been easier and more manly of you to just admit that your ignorance had misled you.  Accept the education you have received.  Admit you were wrong.  Move on.

But you are such a quiff, you stick with it now despite the proof of how wrong you are being shoved under your dopey nose.   This thread is dedicated to rubbing your nose in your own shit, you fucking quiffy motherfucker. 

You are a pussy, but you also have zero integrity.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> He is a pathological liar that needs to be rebuked in person.




And you're going to talk about doing that but nothing more, right untough guy?


----------



## Unkotare

Liability said:


> DuddlyDolt still has not the first clue about what the phrase "relating to" actually means.





Well, it does include more than three letters, so...


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> DuddlyDolt still has not the first clue about what the phrase "relating to" actually means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it does include more than three letters, so...
Click to expand...


so ... DuddlyDolt's completely lost.

Check.


----------



## Catalist

BuddyColt said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration Attorney Orange County| Boxer Mc Laughlin
> 
> 
> Buttercup, make sure you collect lots of dry wood for yer cave dwelling, mkay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your quote is _"an alien convicted of the crime of illegal immigration faces deportation_..."
> 
> You have not cited a single authoritative source.  Let me give you a *RULING*.  This *RULING* is from the* highest ranking immigration official in the United States*:
> 
> " _(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*_."
> 
> http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf
> 
> A foreigner sits before the highest ranking immigration official in the United States.  The statute in question is Title 8 USC 1325.  That official denies to the foreigner a taxpayer funded attorney on the basis that Title 8 USC 1325 is NOT a crime and deportation is a *CIVIL *matter.
> 
> You *cannot change* the ruling with an advertisement or penciling in the word crime where it is absolutely* NOT in the statute*.
> 
> Secondly, the legal community bandies the word _"illegal_" around and Michael Mukasey gave the American Bar Association the equivalent of a lecture on their application of the law relative to that point:
> 
> "_Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime_."
> 
> The liberal ABA has this habit of calling everything a crime if they can find any nuance in legal parlance that addresses it.  Again, here is proof that the legal community will say the word "illegal" and then explain to you that we are not talking about a crime.  Save yourself about 5000 keystrokes and listen to what the HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY SAYS:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqim4Se70k]Napolitano: Illegally Crossing Mexican Border's Not A Crime. All Terrorists Crossed Canadian Border - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Listen to the words: * CROSSING THE BORDER IS NOT A CRIME *
> 
> What part of that sentence do you not understand?  It's not my fault that the legal community bandies a word about and then it doesn't apply.
> 
> Next point:  You have this cheering section on this board that has raised holy hell trying to prove that entering the United States is a crime.  They have to insert the word crime in a statute that specifically reads* IMPROPER*.  The word is improper; it is not unlawful nor illegal.  *It is a civil offense of improper entry*.  Improper is NOT synonymous with the words unlawful and / or illegal... not in law and not in simple English.
> 
> Next point:  If Title 8 USC 1325 were about a criminal section of the law, it would NOT reference Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the United States Code, but simply state that an action is unlawful or illegal.  It don't; Title 8 USC does not impose a criminal penalty.  It is a* civil* section of the law that specifically draws upon Title 18 for the criminal penalties.   Anybody and everybody can use the word illegal all they want.  They are incorrect.  EVEN ADVOCATES ON YOUR OWN SIDE SAY SO:
> 
> For all the bitching and whining, moaning, groaning and complaining that the National Socialists do on this thread, they absolutely cannot reconcile the facts with their deliberate misinterpretation of the law.  Anti - immigrant activist lawyer and U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner proposed to change Title 8 USC 1325 to *strike the word IMPROPER and  change it to read unlawful entry*   For all that the National Socialists do on this thread, they have not, cannot and will not admit that if improper entry were a crime, there would have been no need to change the wording of the law  (see Section 203 of the House bill HR 4437)  HR 4437 FAILED and the facts remain and no matter how many posts you put on this board to the contrary you cannot change the truth.
> 
> *IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.  THE HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE RULED SO AND YOU HAVE THE CITE IN THIS POST.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it would be easier to understand what you have to say if you would get your righty verbage out of you posts.  Clarity is the true skill of posting.  I don't care about your views on other issues outside this thread at this time.
> 
> So, I think I deciphered your message here, but there is something you miss.  While every Mexican in a cantina is telling their friends, "You can go to the USA, just remember to tell them about the 14th Amendment."  Think about it, if the 14th was the loophole for illegals, why didn't we plug it up long ago?
> 
> If you live in the border States you are going to listen to the talk of a Border Patrol officer down at your lodge over anything Eric Holder says on the record.  Neither political party knows what is going on down here, and they just keep vomiting their same old party lines.
> 
> Truth is it is a far more serious crime to falsify citizenship papers than it is enter the country illegally.  It is a nice clean deport too.
> 
> What is going on in our immigration prisons and hearings is probably not what you might think.  Here comes the biggy!  Barack Obama with all his rhetoric against immigration bills in Arizona, Mississippi, and Alabama has deported many, many more than George W. Bush!
> 
> While promising amnesty to illegals in his political speeches he added 1200 border personnel in 2010, increased the border budget by $600,000,000, and changed the priority from deportation to deportation of convicted felons.  The Obama policy is the same as that of George W. Bush only more so.  Look immigration is a bipartisan effort, that allows Mexicans to think they can play one party against another.
> 
> You can Google all you want, but you will only find fragments of this story.  It is a'dog and pony' show for a reason.  Some say the thrust of the United States border effort is actually on the south border of Mexico where we aide the Federales in deporting to Central and South Americans from Mexico.  We do not get all bogged down with human rights talk this way.  The dirty work is done in Mexico.
> 
> It has been reported that since President Fillip Calderon became president of Mexico 50,000 people have been killed by the Mexican drug cartels, mostly by American bought guns.  Believe what you will, but I am fairly convinced that the situation on America's southern border is the way the United States wants it, and the stories in the American media are set ups.
> 
> As I understand it America has been telling Mexico what to do since the Mexican American War in the 1840s.  Think about it, you have to take off your shoes to get on a plane at an airport for security because of terrorists, yet as many as 3,000 illegals a day may be crossing our southern  border.  Does this make sense to you or Homeland Security?  I believe there is some kind of "fix" going on here.  Most believe that if the United States wanted to end illegal immigration from Mexico, we would just start leveling heavy fines against those who employ them.  In some countries employers or those who aide illegals get serious prison time, why not in the United States?
Click to expand...


----------



## MaryL

Buddy, you are deluding yourself. Your initial question: are they ILLEGAL? : Yeah. Yes they are. It is that simple. But maybe it's more than THAT, maybe the sheer numbers of them that is the issue. Not only are they illegal, there are millions of them so bold as to ignore immigration laws.  That is really the problem, I think. Numbers. THEY  are abusing the system and are  making  a mockery of the very laws YOU defend. Now, why all this drama? Obviously, you have a axe to grind here. Yes?  Buddy, if an illegal alien shoots you in the back, they aren't going to care what law they are breaking. I have  seen that harm they do and only someone that NEVER experienced that would support illegal immigration. So, I know you are clueless as heck. It may be just a game to you, but many of US  that have been hurt  by these people don't find your act amusing. That may be why you have all those bad rep stars,  aren't YOU  listening!  Illegals  ruin neighborhoods they upset the current demographic and they are racist xenophobes. They sell drugs, murder, and they love to hate people like YOU, because you are a patsy for their cause.   Oh, they will  never acclimate. They hurt people.  They do physical harm. We don't need them here.  But other than THAT they are great. These folks  don't have any compunction  violating ANY laws, let alone immigration. Don't kid yourself minimizing this by calling it a civil infraction or whatever.  Most  respectful people that immigrate legally don't require  this level of obfuscation and artifice that you seem to love with illegals.  So why are you doing THIS?


----------



## Unkotare

Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.



True dat.

On the other hand, there are ways available to them to get here and stay here LEGALLY.

I know it's a wild concept, but perhaps that's the route they should "choose."


----------



## Catalist

Unkotare said:


> Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.



They are freeloaders who absorb $113,000,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for health care, education and welfare.  Illegal Immigration  The $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer | Illegal Immigration Statistics  They have not passed a physical or mental examination, nor a criminal background check, nor have they learned English.  All of this is required of legal immigrants.  Deportation is the only reasonable answer.

I don't know what you mean by *"Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country....."*  But this graphic is from La Raza the largest registered lobby of Mexicans for immigration to the United States.  They want to make the U. S. border States a province of Mexico known as Aztlan part by force.  The United States paid Mexico $18,000,000 after the Mexican American War and forgave Mexico its debts in the 1840s for our southern border as it now stands.  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this graphic look just a little bit treasonous to you?







We already have 12,000,000 foreign invaders on our soil.
I would call that a matter for concern wouldn't you?​


----------



## Unkotare

You seem to be looking for an argument that you won't get from me. I think I was pretty clear when I said that illegal aliens should not be here.


----------



## Unkotare

I also said that most of them are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. I said that because it is true. 

Also, despite the stereotype many go to great lengths to try and learn or improve their English while they are here.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> I also said that most of them are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. I said that because it is true.
> 
> Also, despite the stereotype many go to great lengths to try and learn or improve their English while they are here.



I agree.  The ones who enter illegally are (by and large) probably doing so for OTHERWISE commendable reasons.  BUT, even so, they ARE engaging in a criminal act as  their first order of business here.  Plus, they are jumping the line over others who are trying to comply with our immigration laws.

While here, MOST of them are pretty decent folks.  I have met many and like them for the most part, quite a bit.

None of that changes the fact that illegal entry is illegal.


----------



## Unkotare

Liability said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also said that most of them are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. I said that because it is true.
> 
> Also, despite the stereotype many go to great lengths to try and learn or improve their English while they are here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  The ones who enter illegally are (by and large) probably doing so for OTHERWISE commendable reasons.  BUT, even so, they ARE engaging in a criminal act as  their first order of business here.  Plus, they are jumping the line over others who are trying to comply with our immigration laws.
> 
> While here, MOST of them are pretty decent folks.  I have met many and like them for the most part, quite a bit.
> 
> None of that changes the fact that illegal entry is illegal.
Click to expand...



Exactly so.


----------



## BuddyColt

MaryL said:


> Buddy, you are deluding yourself. Your initial question: are they ILLEGAL? : Yeah. Yes they are. It is that simple. But maybe it's more than THAT, maybe the sheer numbers of them that is the issue. Not only are they illegal, there are millions of them so bold as to ignore immigration laws.  That is really the problem, I think. Numbers. THEY  are abusing the system and are  making  a mockery of the very laws YOU defend. Now, why all this drama? Obviously, you have a axe to grind here. Yes?  Buddy, if an illegal alien shoots you in the back, they aren't going to care what law they are breaking. I have  seen that harm they do and only someone that NEVER experienced that would support illegal immigration. So, I know you are clueless as heck. It may be just a game to you, but many of US  that have been hurt  by these people don't find your act amusing. That may be why you have all those bad rep stars,  aren't YOU  listening!  Illegals  ruin neighborhoods they upset the current demographic and they are racist xenophobes. They sell drugs, murder, and they love to hate people like YOU, because you are a patsy for their cause.   Oh, they will  never acclimate. They hurt people.  They do physical harm. We don't need them here.  But other than THAT they are great. These folks  don't have any compunction  violating ANY laws, let alone immigration. Don't kid yourself minimizing this by calling it a civil infraction or whatever.  Most  respectful people that immigrate legally don't require  this level of obfuscation and artifice that you seem to love with illegals.  So why are you doing THIS?



Why are you doing what you're doing?  You asked me a why question and I told you the truth.  People are dying because of your ignorance and stupidity... and it's not necessarily the undocumented foreigners you obsess over with that "illegal" language.

I have this feeling that only one of us has actual experience in this field.  Something tells me it isn't you with the experience.  You like being associated with the likes of Uncle Liar and LIE Ability?  That's what makes you proud to be an American?

I realize those people will not assimilate (you called it acclimate, but you have proven not to be able to understand a lot of English words like illegal and improper.)  It's not going to happen, but they are going to come here.  Build walls, they will dig tunnels.  And, constitutionally, you can't tell the employer who they can and cannot hire.  Soooo...  the best course of action is to create the proper mechanism by which those people can come, work and then leave.  It's called a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  It does away with birth citizenship and solves this issue without the National Socialist bullshit non-solutions you seem to gravitate toward.

While we're having this bitch fest, the issue is being ignored and the inevitable is happening... amnesty via the judicial branch looms on the horizon and one day you are going to wake up with some neighbors you didn't want... and they WILL be permanent!

You may not like what the law says.  You can call me all manner of names, but I took the time to work ALL sides of the issue and learn what the law says according to those that enforce and interpret it.  Nobody pays me to tell you the truth.  The only payment I get is the harassment from a couple of dipwads on this board that are so stupid that they have to wear a hat to the toilet in order to remember which end to wipe.

Why not accept the facts, learn how to work within the existing parameters and learn about some viable solutions that give everybody what they want?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> I took the time to work ALL sides of the issue and learn what the law says according to those that enforce and interpret it.




Are you an attorney? Why are you so afraid to answer this question? Not very 'tough' of you.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> And, constitutionally, you can't tell the employer who they can and cannot hire.




Sure you can. Happens all the time.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> It's called a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.  It does away with birth citizenship and solves this issue without the National Socialist bullshit non-solutions you seem to gravitate toward.




In no way does a guest worker program change the fact that anyone born here is a US citizen. Weren't you going on and on about your 'expert' knowledge of the law? Are you an attorney?


----------



## Unkotare

There must be some reason BloodyDolt won't answer a simple question.


----------



## BuddyColt

The following is a lot better explanation for this ongoing pissing match.  Although it is several months old, it appears it answered the issues raised throughout the last several hundred posts:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

In addition, this legal v. illegal cow manure does not address the fact that even 12000 broke ass Mexicans are no match for Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince that is a multi - billionaire, a Muslim and the second largest shareholder of FOX.

The facts are, the 9 / 11 hijackers were all Saudis.  When our Special Forces would catch Afghan terrorists, it was common to find the cell numbers of Saudi Princes on the Afghan terrorists.  Saudi Arabia is one of the major exporters of terrorism world wide, but they not only have one of those _"legal"_ methods of entry, but they are major stockholders in our news and entertainment industry.  

Many of this thread are watching a minor diversion while America is biting the dust.


----------



## Unkotare

Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?



No way this clown is anything more than a janitor in the INS office.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.



Thats it right there, best post in this thread.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> The following is a lot better explanation for this ongoing pissing match.  Although it is several months old, it appears it answered the issues raised throughout the last several hundred posts:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2
> 
> In addition, this legal v. illegal cow manure does not address the fact that even 12000 broke ass Mexicans are no match for Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince that is a multi - billionaire, a Muslim and the second largest shareholder of FOX.
> 
> The facts are, the 9 / 11 hijackers were all Saudis.  When our Special Forces would catch Afghan terrorists, it was common to find the cell numbers of Saudi Princes on the Afghan terrorists.  Saudi Arabia is one of the major exporters of terrorism world wide, but they not only have one of those _"legal"_ methods of entry, but they are major stockholders in our news and entertainment industry.
> 
> Many of this thread are watching a minor diversion while America is biting the dust.



DuddleyDolt:

Your entire post was a diversion.  You, you drooling fuckwit, BROUGHT up the topic of legal vs. illegal.

It has been proved beyond any rational doubt that the law making improper entry into this country a crime IS a criminal law.  But you, being a dishonest scumbag pussy shithead, deny it anyway without any basis in reason, fact, honesty or logic.

And then, being a completely duplicitous rancid diseased twat, you try to denigrate the very topic YOU brought up and were dead wrong about. 

Even your suppressed minor premises remain false, you cock gobbler.  Those who oppose illegal immigration do NOT necessarily oppose LEGAL immigration NOR is opposition to illegal immigration "racist," you lying sack of shit. 

To recap: 


*(1) you are a lying pussy motherfucker.*
*(2) 8 U.S.C. §1325 is a CRIMINAL Law, your denial of that FACT being just your ignorance and/or dishonesty on display.*
*(3)  There IS a very real, meaningful and important DISTINCTION -- which morons like you try to evade -- BETWEEN legal and ILLEGAL Immigration.*
*(4)  Opposition to ILLEGAL Immigration is not even slightly "racist."*

Hurry back with more of your stupid, ignorant, baseless, dishonest and muddled "thinking."  We could all use another good laugh.  Oh, and see point 1, above.


----------



## BuddyColt

The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.

In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.  

*Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.

IF *improper entry* were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> IF *improper entry* were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.



Blah blah blah, they are illegal aliens bitch, get over it.


----------



## Liability

Former AG Mukasey noted that "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime . . . "
From the first post in the link offered by DuddleyDolt.  

Mukasey was correct and nobody who understands any of these things would dispute him on that observation.

The AUTHOR of the first post in the linked site, however, goes on to personally claim the following: "Some violations of the law are civil. Other violations of the law are criminal. The natural reaction to a LOT of people is that if a violation of the law occurs, they want the abuser to face criminal charges, regardless of whether the violation was civil or criminal. "

That needs to be un-packaged.  For while it IS true that SOME laws are entirely civil (or administrative) and OTHER LAWS are entirely criminal, it is NOT TRUE that there is always an either/or CHOICE about whether the law is civil or criminal.

What assholes like DuddleyDolt seem unable (or perhaps just too dishonest and unwilling) to admit is that SOME LAWS are explicitly both criminal and  civil.

8 USC §1325, BY ITS OWN TERMS, is one of the latter.  It provides for civil penalties.   Cool.  BUT, and more importantly, it provides for CRIMINAL penalties.  

NO law which provides for CRIMINAL penalties is ever anything other than a criminal law.  It might also permit for civil sanctions, but as long as it provides for the prospect of jail or prison time, it *is* a criminal law.

But, DuddleyDolt doubles down on dumb.  That jackass either ignorantly or deliberately confuses the criminal law prohibiting improper entry with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act  which establish a mechanism for the deportation of aliens.  THOSE provisions of the I&NA happen to be civil/administrative.

This is all VERY complicated for dimwits like DuddleyDolt, evidently.  But for most folks, it's not all that difficult to segregate the concepts AND the various laws and provisions of law.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> *IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.*  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.



*IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.*

False.

It was attempted as a way of making sure dimwits like you wouldn't remain perpetually confused.  Sadly, some folks LIKE it better though when drooling dishonest pussy motherfuckers like you REMAIN addled.  So they left the somewhat confusing title of that "law" unchanged.  

But whether you call it "improper entry" or "illegal entry" or "border crossing which pisses us off," the title of the law doesn't inform anybody of whether or not it is a CRIMINAL Law.  What settles that question is the fact that it provides for jail and or for prison time.  It IS a criminal law.

Your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty do not control, DuddleyDolt.  The law remains a criminal law.


----------



## BuddyColt

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

_The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no right&#8212;constitutional or statutory&#8212;to Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding.* Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (&#8220;INA&#8221; or &#8220;Act&#8221,
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a &#8220;privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien&#8217;s
choosing&#8221, and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (&#8220;In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.&#8221, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963)_.

Case cite -  24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court.  There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.  

The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed.  AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!

The idiocy boggles the mind.  The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding.  They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported.  It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> _The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding.* Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963)_.
> 
> Case cite -  24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court.  There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed.  AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind.  The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding.  They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported.  It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.



The alien HAS no right to counsel *in a removal proceeding* which *is* administrative.

But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker?  An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.

Next.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> *IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.*  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.*
> 
> False.
> 
> It was attempted as a way of making sure dimwits like you wouldn't remain perpetually confused.  Sadly, some folks LIKE it better though when drooling dishonest pussy motherfuckers like you REMAIN addled.  So they left the somewhat confusing title of that "law" unchanged.
> 
> But whether you call it "improper entry" or "illegal entry" or "border crossing which pisses us off," the title of the law doesn't inform anybody of whether or not it is a CRIMINAL Law.  What settles that question is the fact that it provides for jail and or for prison time.  It IS a criminal law.
> 
> Your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty do not control, DuddleyDolt.  The law remains a criminal law.
Click to expand...



Okay Perry Mason, give us chapter and verse.  Prove your allegation.  I proved mine.  I gave you the quotes from ALL the top immigration officials stating that crossing the border was NOT a crime.  Sesensbrenner tried to change that fact.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> _The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding.* Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963)_.
> 
> Case cite -  24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court.  There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed.  AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind.  The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding.  They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported.  It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alien HAS no right to counsel *in a removal proceeding* which *is* administrative.
> 
> But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker?  An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.
> 
> Next.
Click to expand...



You totally lying, ignorant son of a mangy dog bitch, Title 8 USC 1325 does not provide a criminal penalty for a fucking thing.  THAT is why it references Title 18.  The crimes are Title 18 crimes you fucking idiot.  

You are the worst liar and the most ignorant bigot on the face of this earth.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> _The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding.* Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963)_.
> 
> Case cite -  24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court.  There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed.  AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind.  The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding.  They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported.  It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alien HAS no right to counsel *in a removal proceeding* which *is* administrative.
> 
> But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker?  An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You totally lying, ignorant son of a mangy dog bitch, Title 8 USC 1325 does not provide a criminal penalty for a fucking thing.  THAT is why it references Title 18.  The crimes are Title 18 crimes you fucking idiot.
> 
> You are the worst liar and the most ignorant bigot on the face of this earth.
Click to expand...


Calm down, you are such a hysterical little drama queen.


----------



## BuddyColt

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please


----------



## BuddyColt

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer.* In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding*. Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).

Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.

*The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!*

The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> *IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.*  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.*
> 
> False.
> 
> It was attempted as a way of making sure dimwits like you wouldn't remain perpetually confused.  Sadly, some folks LIKE it better though when drooling dishonest pussy motherfuckers like you REMAIN addled.  So they left the somewhat confusing title of that "law" unchanged.
> 
> But whether you call it "improper entry" or "illegal entry" or "border crossing which pisses us off," the title of the law doesn't inform anybody of whether or not it is a CRIMINAL Law.  What settles that question is the fact that it provides for jail and or for prison time.  It IS a criminal law.
> 
> Your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty do not control, DuddleyDolt.  The law remains a criminal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Perry Mason, give us chapter and verse.  Prove your allegation.  I proved mine.  I gave you the quotes from ALL the top immigration officials stating that crossing the border was NOT a crime.  Sesensbrenner tried to change that fact.
Click to expand...


You proved nothing, but you are too vastly ignorant to grasp that fact

You merely noted (even though you don't understand it) that the *removal proceeding* is *not a criminal law matter*.

And it is a FALSE claim (by you) that "ALL" top immigration officials "state" that illegal border crossing is NOT a crime.  It IS a crime.  I know of only *one* idiot U.S. Official who said (moronically) that it wasn't criminal.  She was wrong, as are you.

I have already repeatedly proved -- as have others -- that 8 USC § 1325 is a CRIMINAL Law.

Or maybe (since you are too fucking stupid to see what a fucking idiot you are) it is your "belief" that an IMMIGRATION "Court" is an Article III Court?  

Perhaps, in your overabundant supply of ignorance and misinformation, you imagine that an Immigration "Judge" could even POSSIBLY "sentence" an alien to the criminal sanctions of time in jail or prison?

Maybe, in fact, you think that one can get a summons to report for "jury duty" before an Immigration "Court?"

Perhaps, since you seem to be aware that an alien gets no entitlement to a lawyer in the *removal proceeding*, you think aliens COULD be convicted of a crime and get a jail or prison sentence without the benefit of an attorney and without a trial by jury?

The true nature of the problem with you is that you really ARE massively ignorant.  You seem to truly NOT know anything on the topic.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?
> 
> Bar number please



I am.

I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you.  By the way, in that regard,  you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.


----------



## BuddyColt

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. *Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).

Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.

*The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!*!

The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a* separate forum for the violation of improper entry.*


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?
> 
> Bar number please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you.  By the way, in that regard,  you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.
Click to expand...


What you are is a dick sucking liar.  IF you were an attorney, I would personally take the steps necessary to see to it that you were disbarred.  IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> _The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding.* Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963)_.
> 
> Case cite -  24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court.  There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed.  AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind.  The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding.  They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported.  It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alien HAS no right to counsel *in a removal proceeding* which *is* administrative.
> 
> But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker?  An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You totally lying, ignorant son of a mangy dog bitch, Title 8 USC 1325 does not provide a criminal penalty for a fucking thing.  THAT is why it references Title 18.  The crimes are Title 18 crimes you fucking idiot.
> 
> You are the worst liar and the most ignorant bigot on the face of this earth.
Click to expand...


Wrong, ya dishonest assmunch.  

ONCE AGAIN, HERE is the actual LAW you make reference to, but which you cannot fathom:



> 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> 
> (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. *


 -- 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | LII / Legal Information Institute

Your incredible ignorance is hard to get a handle on.

In NY, if one violates the criminal statute which prohibits the intentional taking of human life which is governed by Penal Law Section 125.25, the SENTENCES which the offender might receive are governed by *another* SECTION of the Penal Law, Section 70.

*Similarly*, in the FEDERAL System, *one gets sentenced under Title 18 for a crime defined by ANY other federal statute.  *

Oh, shit.  Here.  Let me QUOTE it for your ignorant benefit:



> 18 USC § 3551 - Authorized sentences
> 
> (a) In General. Except as otherwise specifically provided, *a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in any Federal statute,* including sections 13 and 1153 of this title, other than an Act of Congress applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, *shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter *so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3553 (a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the circumstances of the case.


  -- 18 USC § 3551 - Authorized sentences | LII / Legal Information Institute [Emphases added though it is doubtful it will help DuddleyDolt.]


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?
> 
> Bar number please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you.  By the way, in that regard,  you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are is a dick sucking liar.  IF you were an attorney, I would personally take the steps necessary to see to it that you were disbarred.  IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that.
Click to expand...


You have no ability to have anybody disbarred no matter what steps you take, you fucking idiot.  

I realize you are feeling humiliated by now.  Justifiable.  You have *proved* yourself to be a liar and a fucking pussy idiot.  Conclusively.

But still.  It's ok to simply acknowledge that you have been spouting off without the SLIGHTEST clue on the topic.

You should in fact.

THEN, feel free to skulk away.  It's what you pussies do.


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> IF *improper entry* were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.




Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer.* In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding*. Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963).
> 
> Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> *The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.



Reintroduced.  Nothing new was presented by the poseur known as Lie Ability.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> IF *improper entry* were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts
Click to expand...


You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.

At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.  

DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.

Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> IF *improper entry* were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.
> YOU, LIE ABILITY, HAVE BEEN THE ONE TOTALLY REFUTED
> At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.
> AT EVERY JUNCTURE YOUR LIES HAVE BEEN STUFFED DOWN LIE ABILITY'S THROAT
> DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.
> LIE ABILITY, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS 100 PERCENT WRONG.  YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A SINGLE, SOLITARY IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL TO AGREE WITH YOU.  I PRODUCED ALL OF THEM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT I PUT IN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS HERE.
> Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.
Click to expand...


EDITORIAL NOTE:  Lie Ability is a pathological liar.  All one has to do is read my words that he is responding to and see the dirtbag POS is lying.  He's also not telling you he's a coward.


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> _The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding.* Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963)_.
> 
> Case cite -  24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court.  There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed.  AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind.  The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding.  They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported.  It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.



Lie Ability keeps trying to deny that Immigration Court is an Administrative Court within the DOJ and does not try criminal court cases.  His attempts to deceive you mean all I have to do is keep repeating the truth and watch him squirm like the worm he is.


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability is tearing buddycolt a new asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way this clown is anything more than a janitor in the INS office.
Click to expand...


And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Hey duddley doorbell



*improper* 

Main Entry: 	amiss
Part of Speech: 	adjective
Definition: 	wrong; defective
*Synonyms: *	awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, *unlawful*, unsuitable, untoward
Antonyms: 	good, right 


*unlawful*

Main Entry: unlawful &#8194;[uhn-law-fuhl] 
Part of Speech: 	adjective
Definition: 	against the law
*Synonyms*: 	actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, *illegal*, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
Antonyms: 	authorized, lawful, legal, right 

Main Entry: 	*criminal*
Part of Speech: 	adjective
Definition: 	lawless, felonious
*Synonyms:* 	bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, *illegal,* illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
Antonyms: 	correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous 

Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


Moron.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?
> 
> Bar number please




Why are you asking others when you won't answer my question, fraud?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?
> 
> Bar number please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you.  By the way, in that regard,  you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are is a dick sucking liar.  IF you were an attorney, I would personally take the steps necessary to see to it that you were disbarred.  IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that.
Click to expand...



Why won't you answer my question?


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way this clown is anything more than a janitor in the INS office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?
Click to expand...


I thought she said she "practised" law?


----------



## BuddyColt

Zoom-boing said:


> Hey duddley doorbell
> 
> 
> 
> *improper*
> 
> Main Entry: 	amiss
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	wrong; defective
> *Synonyms: *	awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, *unlawful*, unsuitable, untoward
> Antonyms: 	good, right
> 
> 
> *unlawful*
> 
> Main Entry: unlawful &#8194;[uhn-law-fuhl]
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	against the law
> *Synonyms*: 	actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, *illegal*, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
> Antonyms: 	authorized, lawful, legal, right
> 
> Main Entry: 	*criminal*
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	lawless, felonious
> *Synonyms:* 	bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, *illegal,* illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
> Antonyms: 	correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous
> 
> Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> 
> Moron.




Thank you "Moron"  I didn't know that was your name, however.  Thank you for proving my point.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.


----------



## BuddyColt

Unkotare said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way this clown is anything more than a janitor in the INS office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?
Click to expand...


Cite your source.  Quotes needed.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way this clown is anything more than a janitor in the INS office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought she said she "practised" law?
Click to expand...


LOL. Right.


----------



## Zoom-boing

BuddyColt said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey duddley doorbell
> 
> 
> 
> *improper*
> 
> Main Entry: 	amiss
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	wrong; defective
> *Synonyms: *	awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, *unlawful*, unsuitable, untoward
> Antonyms: 	good, right
> 
> 
> *unlawful*
> 
> Main Entry: unlawful &#8194;[uhn-law-fuhl]
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	against the law
> *Synonyms*: 	actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, *illegal*, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
> Antonyms: 	authorized, lawful, legal, right
> 
> Main Entry: 	*criminal*
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	lawless, felonious
> *Synonyms:* 	bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, *illegal,* illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
> Antonyms: 	correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous
> 
> Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you "Moron"  I didn't know that was your name, however.  Thank you for proving my point.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.
Click to expand...




Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.

Improper = unlawful
Unlawful = illegal 
therefore:
Improper = illegal


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer. *In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. *Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963).
> 
> Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> *The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!*!
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a* separate forum for the violation of improper entry.*




The *ONLY* thing LIE Ability got right is that administrative courts and criminal courts are different. 

A foreigner cannot be tried for the* civil violation* of improper entry in a criminal court. It is not a Title 18 crime.  They can be tried for criminal activity and THEN have the case sent to Immigration Court to institute deportation proceedings based upon* improper entry*.

Example:  Hosea is arrested for having a phony driver's license.  He is run through the criminal justice system on that charge and THEN sent to Immigration Court for the removal proceeding... which is a civil forum.


----------



## High_Gravity

Zoom-boing said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey duddley doorbell
> 
> 
> 
> *improper*
> 
> Main Entry: 	amiss
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	wrong; defective
> *Synonyms: *	awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, *unlawful*, unsuitable, untoward
> Antonyms: 	good, right
> 
> 
> *unlawful*
> 
> Main Entry: unlawful &#8194;[uhn-law-fuhl]
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	against the law
> *Synonyms*: 	actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, *illegal*, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
> Antonyms: 	authorized, lawful, legal, right
> 
> Main Entry: 	*criminal*
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	lawless, felonious
> *Synonyms:* 	bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, *illegal,* illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
> Antonyms: 	correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous
> 
> Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you "Moron"  I didn't know that was your name, however.  Thank you for proving my point.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.
> 
> Improper = unlawful
> Unlawful = illegal
> therefore:
> Improper = illegal
Click to expand...


Be nice, illegal aliens don't speak English too well.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to* think* about what it is they are saying.
> 
> In referring to undocumented foreigners as "_illegal aliens_," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
> 
> *Improper entry* is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code.  The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal.  They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.
> 
> IF *improper entry* were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.  That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.
> 
> At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.
> 
> DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.
> 
> Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.
Click to expand...


No acutall you are a retard who got owned and is now crying because she has such a low ego that its imposable for you to accept you where wrong


----------



## High_Gravity

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.
> 
> At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.
> 
> DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.
> 
> Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No acutall you are a retard who got owned and is now crying because she has such a low ego that its imposable for you to accept you where wrong
Click to expand...


Ahh its so cute, you ran in here like Captain Save a Hoe trying to rescue your little girlfriend.


----------



## starcraftzzz

High_Gravity said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you "Moron"  I didn't know that was your name, however.  Thank you for proving my point.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.
> 
> Improper = unlawful
> Unlawful = illegal
> therefore:
> Improper = illegal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be nice, illegal aliens don't speak English too well.
Click to expand...


Neither do you


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.
> 
> At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.
> 
> DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.
> 
> Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No acutall you are a retard who got owned and is now crying because she has such a low ego that its imposable for you to accept you where wrong
Click to expand...


LOL

Listen sock.  You and your alter ego were wrong before.  You remain wrong.

If you can point to even ONE criminal conviction that has EVER taken place in an Immigration court, you might have a point.

And since you cannot do that inasmuch as it has NEVER happened, it might start to dawn even on a dimwit like you that the criminal penalties provided for by 8 USC §1325 can only have been handed down in criminal cases tried or adjudicated in an actual court of law.  

The Immigration Court is not even a Court of Law, you moron.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.
> 
> At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.
> 
> DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.
> 
> Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No acutall you are a retard who got owned and is now crying because she has such a low ego that its imposable for you to accept you where wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Listen sock.  You and your alter ego were wrong before.  You remain wrong.
> 
> If you can point to even ONE criminal conviction that has EVER taken place in an Immigration court, you might have a point.
> 
> And since you cannot do that inasmuch as it has NEVER happened, it might start to dawn even on a dimwit like you that the criminal penalties provided for by 8 USC §1325 can only have been handed down in criminal cases tried or adjudicated in an actual court of law.
> 
> The Immigration Court is not even a Court of Law, you moron.
Click to expand...


Yes you copy and pasting shit thats been debunked 5 times means others are wrong.
Seriously what is your problem? How is it that you have such a shitty ego that you can't even accept being wrong? Did your father beat you? Seriously go to therapy and get your issues dealt with


----------



## High_Gravity

starcraftzzz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.
> 
> Improper = unlawful
> Unlawful = illegal
> therefore:
> Improper = illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be nice, illegal aliens don't speak English too well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do you
Click to expand...


Yikes, that hurts.


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No acutall you are a retard who got owned and is now crying because she has such a low ego that its imposable for you to accept you where wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Listen sock.  You and your alter ego were wrong before.  You remain wrong.
> 
> If you can point to even ONE criminal conviction that has EVER taken place in an Immigration court, you might have a point.
> 
> And since you cannot do that inasmuch as it has NEVER happened, it might start to dawn even on a dimwit like you that the criminal penalties provided for by 8 USC §1325 can only have been handed down in criminal cases tried or adjudicated in an actual court of law.
> 
> The Immigration Court is not even a Court of Law, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you copy and pasting shit thats been debunked 5 times means others are wrong.
> Seriously what is your problem? How is it that you have such a shitty ego that you can't even accept being wrong? Did your father beat you? Seriously go to therapy and get your issues dealt with
Click to expand...




You can't answer the most basic and obvious questions.

There's a reason for that Starjizz. 

You know you area fraud.

Startle everyone by answering some questions honestly and accurately:

*Is* The Immigration Court an Article III Court?

If anybody is going to penalize an alien for improper entry (by a 6 month incarceration or a two year incarceration as the case may be), WHO is going to impose that sentence?  

Is it an Immigration Court?  CAN an Immigration Court impose ANY such sentence?  

IF you are bright enough to recognize that the answer to that prior question is "no" and therefore realize that the penalties (being criminal) can ONLY be imposed by a Court of Law (as opposed to an Immigration Court), which courts HAVE imposed such sentences?

When they did so, were the sentences preceded by a plea or a trial or did the Courts of Law simply ignore the Constitution in those instances?  If you suggest the latter is true, feel obligated to provide case citations.

This is just a quick and very easy test.  But since you haven't studied, you need a miracle to pass it.  Good luck.


----------



## Liability

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No acutall you are a retard who got owned and is now crying because she has such a low ego that its imposable for you to accept you where wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Listen sock.  You and your alter ego were wrong before.  You remain wrong.
> 
> If you can point to even ONE criminal conviction that has EVER taken place in an Immigration court, you might have a point.
> 
> And since you cannot do that inasmuch as it has NEVER happened, it might start to dawn even on a dimwit like you that the criminal penalties provided for by 8 USC §1325 can only have been handed down in criminal cases tried or adjudicated in an actual court of law.
> 
> The Immigration Court is not even a Court of Law, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you copy and pasting shit thats been debunked 5 times means others are wrong.
> Seriously what is your problem? How is it that you have such a shitty ego that you can't even accept being wrong? Did your father beat you? Seriously go to therapy and get your issues dealt with
Click to expand...


Neither you nor your boyfriend, DuddleyDolt, have debunked any of the facts I have provided.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Listen sock.  You and your alter ego were wrong before.  You remain wrong.
> 
> If you can point to even ONE criminal conviction that has EVER taken place in an Immigration court, you might have a point.
> 
> And since you cannot do that inasmuch as it has NEVER happened, it might start to dawn even on a dimwit like you that the criminal penalties provided for by 8 USC §1325 can only have been handed down in criminal cases tried or adjudicated in an actual court of law.
> 
> The Immigration Court is not even a Court of Law, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you copy and pasting shit thats been debunked 5 times means others are wrong.
> Seriously what is your problem? How is it that you have such a shitty ego that you can't even accept being wrong? Did your father beat you? Seriously go to therapy and get your issues dealt with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither you nor your boyfriend, DuddleyDolt, have debunked any of the facts I have provided.
Click to expand...



You know, you have a point.  We never have debunked any fact you have provided.  Then, again, you've never provided a fact.  The only thing you've provided is your opinion... and you don't prevail in immigration court with a convoluted notion that *EVERY immigration official in the United States* has declared to be in error.  

There's no point in beating a dead horse, or in Lie Ability's case, a dead faggot.  So, he FAILS.  He can have the last word.  He thinks that if you get the last word, you win, but I'll just wait until the next ruling is handed down and say I told you so.

To reiterate:  Immigration Court is very narrow in its scope.  It can look at issues like *improper entry,* overstaying a visa, etc. but it is not a criminal court. Therefore, *improper entry* is not a crime and anyone charged with such  does not face a criminal process.

Immigration court handles Title 8 USC 1325 *improper entry* violations.  These are administrative rulings.  It is a civil body that hears a Title 8 USC 1325 violation called *IMPROPER ENTRY*. 

*CRIMINAL COURT* cases are taken up in federal court by judges as contemplated in Article 3 of the Constitution.  

*IMPROPER ENTRY* is not a crime in Title 18 of the Criminal Code.  LIE ABILITY continues to attempt to mislead the people.  *IMPROPER ENTRY does not* result in jail time, or any other criminal penalty... unless it's done repeatedly and then a whole different set of statutes and cases apply.

If a foreigner lies to authorities, eludes authorities, etc. then the criminal  penalties apply by applying Title 18 criminal law.  

*IMPROPER ENTRY* is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, no judge acting under Article 3 of the Constitution has any criminal jurisdiction over a civil matter that is handled by employees of the Dept. of Justice.

*IMPROPER ENTRY* is a civil violation of the law, not a crime and there is no point in going over this again.

IF LIEABILITY can cite a case to the contrary, she may have something.  Until then, what we have is someone obsessed over the Internet and their ability to harass people that she has no courage to face.  I'm done with LIE ABILITY.


----------



## BuddyColt

Zoom-boing said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey duddley doorbell
> 
> 
> 
> *improper*
> 
> Main Entry: 	amiss
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	wrong; defective
> *Synonyms: *	awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, *unlawful*, unsuitable, untoward
> Antonyms: 	good, right
> 
> 
> *unlawful*
> 
> Main Entry: unlawful &#8194;[uhn-law-fuhl]
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	against the law
> *Synonyms*: 	actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, *illegal*, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
> Antonyms: 	authorized, lawful, legal, right
> 
> Main Entry: 	*criminal*
> Part of Speech: 	adjective
> Definition: 	lawless, felonious
> *Synonyms:* 	bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, *illegal,* illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
> Antonyms: 	correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous
> 
> Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you "Moron"  I didn't know that was your name, however.  Thank you for proving my point.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.
> 
> Improper = unlawful
> Unlawful = illegal
> therefore:
> Improper = illegal
Click to expand...


Do you do drugs by any chance?  Your own cites testify against your position.  

Improper NEVER means unlawful

There are legal differences between unlawful and illegal

Here is a better explanation:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

Cop lost a debate over the same, exact issue.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you "Moron"  I didn't know that was your name, however.  Thank you for proving my point.  Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.
> 
> Improper = unlawful
> Unlawful = illegal
> therefore:
> Improper = illegal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you do drugs by any chance?  Your own cites testify against your position.
> 
> Improper NEVER means unlawful
> 
> There are legal differences between unlawful and illegal
> 
> Here is a better explanation:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2
> 
> Cop lost a debate over the same, exact issue.
Click to expand...


DuddleyDolt, determined to prove that he's a fucking complete moron, is *still* "arguing" that the name the lawmakers gave to that section somehow reveals whether a criminal law is a criminal law.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you copy and pasting shit thats been debunked 5 times means others are wrong.
> Seriously what is your problem? How is it that you have such a shitty ego that you can't even accept being wrong? Did your father beat you? Seriously go to therapy and get your issues dealt with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor your boyfriend, DuddleyDolt, have debunked any of the facts I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you have a point.  We never have debunked any fact you have provided.  Then, again, you've never provided a fact.  The only thing you've provided is your opinion... and you don't prevail in immigration court with a convoluted notion that *EVERY immigration official in the United States* has declared to be in error.
> 
> There's no point in beating a dead horse, or in Lie Ability's case, a dead faggot.  So, he FAILS.  He can have the last word.  He thinks that if you get the last word, you win, but I'll just wait until the next ruling is handed down and say I told you so.
> 
> To reiterate:  Immigration Court is very narrow in its scope.  It can look at issues like *improper entry,* overstaying a visa, etc. but it is not a criminal court. Therefore, *improper entry* is not a crime and anyone charged with such  does not face a criminal process.
> 
> Immigration court handles Title 8 USC 1325 *improper entry* violations.  These are administrative rulings.  It is a civil body that hears a Title 8 USC 1325 violation called *IMPROPER ENTRY*.
> 
> *CRIMINAL COURT* cases are taken up in federal court by judges as contemplated in Article 3 of the Constitution.
> 
> *IMPROPER ENTRY* is not a crime in Title 18 of the Criminal Code.  LIE ABILITY continues to attempt to mislead the people.  *IMPROPER ENTRY does not* result in jail time, or any other criminal penalty... unless it's done repeatedly and then a whole different set of statutes and cases apply.
> 
> If a foreigner lies to authorities, eludes authorities, etc. then the criminal  penalties apply by applying Title 18 criminal law.
> 
> *IMPROPER ENTRY* is not a crime in Title 18; therefore, no judge acting under Article 3 of the Constitution has any criminal jurisdiction over a civil matter that is handled by employees of the Dept. of Justice.
> 
> *IMPROPER ENTRY* is a civil violation of the law, not a crime and there is no point in going over this again.
> 
> IF LIEABILITY can cite a case to the contrary, she may have something.  Until then, what we have is someone obsessed over the Internet and their ability to harass people that she has no courage to face.  I'm done with LIE ABILITY.
Click to expand...


As I noted before, DuddlyDildo, I already DID provide cases that prove that the law is a criminal statute.

You cannot address those cases or the law itself, so you resort to quoting some ignorant public official who was simply wrong.  (If you had a brain, you might perceive the problem in the fallacy of the appeal to authority in this process, but alas you have no brain).

Sorry little girl, but you have no hope of ever being anything other than what you are now:  Utterly pathetic, fully dishonest, dumber than a box of shit and completely lacking in the first speck of credibility.

Toddle off, bitch.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well, except in buttercup world.  You can't even read.
> 
> Improper = unlawful
> Unlawful = illegal
> therefore:
> Improper = illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do drugs by any chance?  Your own cites testify against your position.
> 
> Improper NEVER means unlawful
> 
> There are legal differences between unlawful and illegal
> 
> Here is a better explanation:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2
> 
> Cop lost a debate over the same, exact issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DuddleyDolt, determined to prove that he's a fucking complete moron, is *still* "arguing" that the name the lawmakers gave to that section somehow reveals whether a criminal law is a criminal law.
Click to expand...



If there is a fucking complete moron on this board, it is you LIE ABILITY.  You talk a lot of shit, but let's face it, you have never been one to back up your position nor that chickenshit keyboard commando attitude you try to present on this board.

Offline, you are a squeamish little fucking idiot, living in his mommy's basement, afraid of his own shadow.  The only way you feel important is to continue to fuck with people that you haven't the courage to face off with in person.  

You've had so much cum dumped up your ass that it seeps out your ears and you've gotten brain rot.  Without the name calling, you don't have anything except that infant sized dick in your hand (and you're so ashamed of that you live in fear of real people.)

Beat your keyboard asshole.  Talk shit.  But, at the end of the day, you are such a chickenshit that even cowards find you to be repulsive and embarrassing.


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer.* In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding*. Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963).
> 
> Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> *The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.




Will cite this each day for the benefit of people that may stumble across the thread.


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do drugs by any chance?  Your own cites testify against your position.
> 
> Improper NEVER means unlawful
> 
> There are legal differences between unlawful and illegal
> 
> Here is a better explanation:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2
> 
> Cop lost a debate over the same, exact issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DuddleyDolt, determined to prove that he's a fucking complete moron, is *still* "arguing" that the name the lawmakers gave to that section somehow reveals whether a criminal law is a criminal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a fucking complete moron on this board, it is you LIE ABILITY.  You talk a lot of shit, but let's face it, you have never been one to back up your position nor that chickenshit keyboard commando attitude you try to present on this board.
> 
> Offline, you are a squeamish little fucking idiot, living in his mommy's basement, afraid of his own shadow.  The only way you feel important is to continue to fuck with people that you haven't the courage to face off with in person.
> 
> You've had so much cum dumped up your ass that it seeps out your ears and you've gotten brain rot.  Without the name calling, you don't have anything except that infant sized dick in your hand (and you're so ashamed of that you live in fear of real people.)
> 
> Beat your keyboard asshole.  Talk shit.  But, at the end of the day, you are such a chickenshit that even cowards find you to be repulsive and embarrassing.
Click to expand...



BloodyDolt, you really need to let the whole 'tough-guy' thing go. Everyone can see by now that you are just a gas bag and your threats, promises, and fantasies will never be anything more than hot air. You are just humiliating yourself at this point, tough-guy.

By the way, are you an attorney?


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer.* In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding*. Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963).
> 
> Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> *The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will cite this each day for the benefit of people that may stumble across the thread.
Click to expand...



That's called 'Spam,' you idiot.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer.* In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding*. Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963).
> 
> Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> *The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will cite this each day for the benefit of people that may stumble across the thread.
Click to expand...


  Good.  Do that.  It's entertaining yet quite irrelevant. 

 It only proves that (a) a removal proceeding is civil/administrative -- a fact which was never in doubt.  (b) It doesn't address the FACT that a criminal proceeding under 8 USC § 1325 is not a proceeding that takes in a civil/administrative Article II "court".  (c)  It highlights the fact that DuddlyDildoDolt doesn't have the first fucking clue on the topics.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do drugs by any chance?  Your own cites testify against your position.
> 
> Improper NEVER means unlawful
> 
> There are legal differences between unlawful and illegal
> 
> Here is a better explanation:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2
> 
> Cop lost a debate over the same, exact issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DuddleyDolt, determined to prove that he's a fucking complete moron, is *still* "arguing" that the name the lawmakers gave to that section somehow reveals whether a criminal law is a criminal law.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a fucking complete moron on this board, it is you LIE ABILITY.  You talk a lot of shit, but let's face it, you have never been one to back up your position nor that chickenshit keyboard commando attitude you try to present on this board.
> 
> Offline, you are a squeamish little fucking idiot, living in his mommy's basement, afraid of his own shadow.  The only way you feel important is to continue to fuck with people that you haven't the courage to face off with in person.
> 
> You've had so much cum dumped up your ass that it seeps out your ears and you've gotten brain rot.  Without the name calling, you don't have anything except that infant sized dick in your hand (and you're so ashamed of that you live in fear of real people.)
> 
> Beat your keyboard asshole.  Talk shit.  But, at the end of the day, you are such a chickenshit that even cowards find you to be repulsive and embarrassing.
Click to expand...


No no. Sorry little miss punk ass bitch.  The lies and the imbecility remain entirely yours.


----------



## Catalist

Unkotare said:


> Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.



They are freeloaders who absorb $113,000,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for health care, education and welfare.  Illegal Immigration &#8211; The $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer | Illegal Immigration Statistics  They have not passed a physical or mental examination, nor a criminal background check, nor have they learned English.  All of this is required of legal immigrants.  Deportation is the only reasonable answer.

I don't know what you mean by *"Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country....."*  But this graphic is from La Raza the largest registered lobby of Mexicans for immigration to the United States.  They want to make the U. S. border States a province of Mexico known as Aztlan part by force.  The United States paid Mexico $18,000,000 after the Mexican American War and forgave Mexico its debts in the 1840s for our southern border as it now stands.  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this graphic look just a little bit treasonous to you?







We already have 12,000,000 foreign invaders on our soil.
I would call that a matter for concern wouldn't you?​


----------



## Unkotare

Why did you just repeat the exact same thing you posted yesterday? Do you think Spam will somehow make you 'right'? Take your beef to the couple of assholes here really defending illegal immigration. If you want to insist that all illegal aliens ARE some stereotypical boogeyman, you will only convince those who already share your prejudice. 

You know, come to think of it you are starting to remind me of a headcase who was banned some time ago. He also had an obsession with posting pics. Could it be...?


----------



## BuddyColt

Catalist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are freeloaders who absorb $113,000,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for health care, education and welfare.  Illegal Immigration  The $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer | Illegal Immigration Statistics  They have not passed a physical or mental examination, nor a criminal background check, nor have they learned English.  All of this is required of legal immigrants.  Deportation is the only reasonable answer.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by *"Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country....."*  But this graphic is from La Raza the largest registered lobby of Mexicans for immigration to the United States.  They want to make the U. S. border States a province of Mexico known as Aztlan part by force.  The United States paid Mexico $18,000,000 after the Mexican American War and forgave Mexico its debts in the 1840s for our southern border as it now stands.  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this graphic look just a little bit treasonous to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have 12,000,000 foreign invaders on our soil.
> I would call that a matter for concern wouldn't you?​
Click to expand...


I just checked out your link.  According to the comments at the bottom, it states:

_The report cited is produced by FAIR, or Federation for Immigration Reform. This group is an advocacy group, in other words, they are not fair at all. Every report they produce is intended to support their point of view, so you have to take the numbers they produce with a heavy dose of salt.

Here is a non-opinionated report by a non-advocacy news reporting organization, Colorado Public News:

http://www.cpt12.org/news/index.php...eportation-after-traffic-stop-in-arapahoe-cou_

Whoa, wait a minute.  You're making this too easy. "*FAIR*" is part of an conglomeration of organizations started by John Tanton.  I've mentioned him several times in the course of this thread.

1.       Tanton solicited and received over $1. 2 million from the Pioneer Fund for FAIR. The Pioneer Fund is a foundation that has a history of promoting the genetic superiority of white, European-Americans.

2.       Tanton is an advocate of eugenics, the _science_ of race betterment. Tanton has written on the subject stating,_ Hitlers reign in Nazi Germany did little to advance the discussion of eugenics among sensitive persons_.

3.       In 1993, Tanton wrote, _Ive come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that._

4.       Tanton runs a publishing organization, the Social Contract Press. Tantons publishing arm reprinted the novel The Camp of the Saints, a racist book which tells the tale of immigrants from the east who come to France and destroy western civilization.

5.       The Social Contract Press produces a quarterly journal, The Social Contact, which has published numerous white nationalists such as Wayne Lutton, Peter Gemma, and the late Sam Francis.

6.       Tanton has had a long relationship with numerous white nationalists such as Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, and notorious ant-Semite Kevin MacDonald.

7.       Tanton is affiliated with individuals who are associated with Council of Conservative Citizens, a white nationalist organization that has called African Americans a _retrograde species of humanity_. Wayne Lutton, Tantons right hand man and Roy Beck, the former Washington editor of The Social Contract, have both spoken at Council of Conservative Citizens annual conferences.

8.       In a 1996 letter, Tanton wrote, Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids? And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to break the bad news [to less intelligent individuals], and how will it be implemented?

9.    In 1995 correspondence to Harry Weyher (former president of the white supremacist Pioneer Fund) on racial eugenics, Tanton questions the sexuality of Asian men by claiming that_ Male Orientals are less well equipped than those of some other groups.
_
10.  In a 1995 memo, Tanton wrote about his thoughts on European hate crimes laws, stating, _These have generally been pushed by Jewish interests who are offended by those who have challenged the received version of the Holocaust.
_
The bottom line is that Tanton is a white nationalist. He was the adviser for David Duke, the nazi turned Klansman back in the late 70s and early 80s.  I remember the guy quite well AND know why he would dabble in what you and the cheering section will rally around as manna from Heaven.

I read the comments and concur that much of what is on that site is pure fantasy and manufactured statistics.


----------



## BuddyColt

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
> assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
> Government-appointed lawyer.* In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
> an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
> counsel in an administrative removal proceeding*. Compare section
> 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
> 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
> being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
> choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
> Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
> 335 (1963).
> 
> Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
> 
> *The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is *improper entry*, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
> 
> IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of *improper entry*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will cite this each day for the benefit of people that may stumble across the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.  Do that.  It's entertaining yet quite irrelevant.
> 
> It only proves that (a) a removal proceeding is civil/administrative -- a fact which was never in doubt.  (b) It doesn't address the FACT that a criminal proceeding under 8 USC § 1325 is not a proceeding that takes in a civil/administrative Article II "court".  (c)  It highlights the fact that DuddlyDildoDolt doesn't have the first fucking clue on the topics.
Click to expand...


WTH is this stupid, dope smoking, retard talking about?  Now he's agreeing with over half of what has already been established ... except that a person can be tried for immigration *RELATED* crimes in federal court.  Those include, but are not limited to eluding authorities, lying to authorities, marriage fraud, entrepreneur fraud, etc.  Improper entry is a civil matter and tried in Immigration Court.  There is nothing dishonest about what I said and it is extremely accurate.


----------



## Unkotare

BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Hello? Why does this question scare you so much? Hello?


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> DuddleyDolt, determined to prove that he's a fucking complete moron, is *still* "arguing" that the name the lawmakers gave to that section somehow reveals whether a criminal law is a criminal law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a fucking complete moron on this board, it is you LIE ABILITY.  You talk a lot of shit, but let's face it, you have never been one to back up your position nor that chickenshit keyboard commando attitude you try to present on this board.
> 
> Offline, you are a squeamish little fucking idiot, living in his mommy's basement, afraid of his own shadow.  The only way you feel important is to continue to fuck with people that you haven't the courage to face off with in person.
> 
> You've had so much cum dumped up your ass that it seeps out your ears and you've gotten brain rot.  Without the name calling, you don't have anything except that infant sized dick in your hand (and you're so ashamed of that you live in fear of real people.)
> 
> Beat your keyboard asshole.  Talk shit.  But, at the end of the day, you are such a chickenshit that even cowards find you to be repulsive and embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, you really need to let the whole 'tough-guy' thing go. Everyone can see by now that you are just a gas bag and your threats, promises, and fantasies will never be anything more than hot air. You are just humiliating yourself at this point, tough-guy.
> 
> By the way, are you an attorney?
Click to expand...

He will let it go if you let go the whole retard guy act


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Hello? Why does this question scare you so much? Hello?



A better question is why are you such a braind dead moron? *No family attack-Meister*


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> Why did you just repeat the exact same thing you posted yesterday? Do you think Spam will somehow make you 'right'? Take your beef to the couple of assholes here really defending illegal immigration. If you want to insist that all illegal aliens ARE some stereotypical boogeyman, you will only convince those who already share your prejudice.
> 
> You know, come to think of it you are starting to remind me of a headcase who was banned some time ago. He also had an obsession with posting pics. Could it be...?



He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a fucking complete moron on this board, it is you LIE ABILITY.  You talk a lot of shit, but let's face it, you have never been one to back up your position nor that chickenshit keyboard commando attitude you try to present on this board.
> 
> Offline, you are a squeamish little fucking idiot, living in his mommy's basement, afraid of his own shadow.  The only way you feel important is to continue to fuck with people that you haven't the courage to face off with in person.
> 
> You've had so much cum dumped up your ass that it seeps out your ears and you've gotten brain rot.  Without the name calling, you don't have anything except that infant sized dick in your hand (and you're so ashamed of that you live in fear of real people.)
> 
> Beat your keyboard asshole.  Talk shit.  But, at the end of the day, you are such a chickenshit that even cowards find you to be repulsive and embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, you really need to let the whole 'tough-guy' thing go. Everyone can see by now that you are just a gas bag and your threats, promises, and fantasies will never be anything more than hot air. You are just humiliating yourself at this point, tough-guy.
> 
> By the way, are you an attorney?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will let it go if you let go the whole retard guy act
Click to expand...



That's really that last theme YOU should be talking about, idiot.


----------



## High_Gravity

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Hello? Why does this question scare you so much? Hello?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is why are you such a braind dead moron? Did your motehr beat you? did you fahte nto love ytou?
Click to expand...


Jesus you type like shit.


----------



## High_Gravity

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a fucking complete moron on this board, it is you LIE ABILITY.  You talk a lot of shit, but let's face it, you have never been one to back up your position nor that chickenshit keyboard commando attitude you try to present on this board.
> 
> Offline, you are a squeamish little fucking idiot, living in his mommy's basement, afraid of his own shadow.  The only way you feel important is to continue to fuck with people that you haven't the courage to face off with in person.
> 
> You've had so much cum dumped up your ass that it seeps out your ears and you've gotten brain rot.  Without the name calling, you don't have anything except that infant sized dick in your hand (and you're so ashamed of that you live in fear of real people.)
> 
> Beat your keyboard asshole.  Talk shit.  But, at the end of the day, you are such a chickenshit that even cowards find you to be repulsive and embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, you really need to let the whole 'tough-guy' thing go. Everyone can see by now that you are just a gas bag and your threats, promises, and fantasies will never be anything more than hot air. You are just humiliating yourself at this point, tough-guy.
> 
> By the way, are you an attorney?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will let it go if you let go the whole retard guy act
Click to expand...


Who are you to speak for him? you sucking his dick or something?


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you just repeat the exact same thing you posted yesterday? Do you think Spam will somehow make you 'right'? Take your beef to the couple of assholes here really defending illegal immigration. If you want to insist that all illegal aliens ARE some stereotypical boogeyman, you will only convince those who already share your prejudice.
> 
> You know, come to think of it you are starting to remind me of a headcase who was banned some time ago. He also had an obsession with posting pics. Could it be...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
Click to expand...




What is your first language?


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you just repeat the exact same thing you posted yesterday? Do you think Spam will somehow make you 'right'? Take your beef to the couple of assholes here really defending illegal immigration. If you want to insist that all illegal aliens ARE some stereotypical boogeyman, you will only convince those who already share your prejudice.
> 
> You know, come to think of it you are starting to remind me of a headcase who was banned some time ago. He also had an obsession with posting pics. Could it be...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
Click to expand...


Definently not English.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definently not English.
Click to expand...



It can't be.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you just repeat the exact same thing you posted yesterday? Do you think Spam will somehow make you 'right'? Take your beef to the couple of assholes here really defending illegal immigration. If you want to insist that all illegal aliens ARE some stereotypical boogeyman, you will only convince those who already share your prejudice.
> 
> You know, come to think of it you are starting to remind me of a headcase who was banned some time ago. He also had an obsession with posting pics. Could it be...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
Click to expand...


Notice how all your posts are one liners with no content like this one.


----------



## High_Gravity

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how all your posts are one liners with no content like this one.
Click to expand...


Its obvious you tried sooooooooooo hard to type this up with no mistakes.


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how all your posts are one liners with no content like this one.
Click to expand...



I asked you a question. Answer it.


----------



## BuddyColt

starcraftzzz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He repeated it because it wons your stupid world views and you chose to ignore it because ytou are patehdic and a loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how all your posts are one liners with no content like this one.
Click to expand...


All some of these folks see is their infallibility.  Even God himself has nothing on them.  We should have known that early on.


----------



## Unkotare

Are you an attorney?


----------



## MaryL

On the surface, it seems like a rather simple issue: Immigrate legally. Right Buddy? You aren't advocating FOR illegal activities, are you? I am sure you mean well. So do the rest of us. On your first post, you say that nobody is guilty until proven innocent, which would imply even YOU might think there is a possibility...that illegals are criminals. Or did I miss something? Anyway, I do want to segue here:  The INS enforces Federal laws.  Prior to 2003, it was a  a branch of the the US Dept. of Justice.  That should say something right there. Right now, this issue isn't as clear as it should be.  Local Police officers are being advised to avoid focusing on immigration scofflaws "to enhance public safety", as "immigrant" (?) community residents might see them as deportation agents.... State law enforcement officers used to cooperate fully with federal officials. Illegal immigration IS a federal offense, but it isn't necessarily a local criminal infraction ...That is the problem here, WE all have to iron this out. I don't want cops ignoring illegal aliens and I don't want this problem of 12 million illegals swept under the rug because it's expedient  politicaly or otherwise.


----------



## Liability

Unkotare said:


> Are you an attorney?



Te answer which DuddlyDolt, the pussy lying skell, will never just give up is that he is clearly not a lawyer.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will cite this each day for the benefit of people that may stumble across the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  Do that.  It's entertaining yet quite irrelevant.
> 
> It only proves that (a) a removal proceeding is civil/administrative -- a fact which was never in doubt.  (b) It doesn't address the FACT that a criminal proceeding under 8 USC § 1325 is not a proceeding that takes in a civil/administrative Article II "court".  (c)  It highlights the fact that DuddlyDildoDolt doesn't have the first fucking clue on the topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH is this stupid, dope smoking, retard talking about?  Now he's agreeing with over half of what has already been established ... except that a person can be tried for immigration *RELATED* crimes in federal court.  Those include, but are not limited to eluding authorities, lying to authorities, marriage fraud, entrepreneur fraud, etc.  Improper entry is a civil matter and tried in Immigration Court.  There is nothing dishonest about what I said and it is extremely accurate.
Click to expand...


When an alien is convicted of improper entry under 8 USC §1325, you totally transparent evasive pussy, which court conducts the trial or takes the plea?

When you finish your search for your long lost nadz, you pussy, and when you have to ultimately confront that question and forthrightly ANSWER it, you will have laid the groundwork for the refutation of your own stupid and dishonest ignorant blather.

Until then, you remain a totally exposed pussy lying quiff.

Muddle on, ya dishonest little bitch.  Muddle on.


----------



## Catalist

BuddyColt said:


> Catalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are freeloaders who absorb $113,000,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for health care, education and welfare.  Illegal Immigration &#8211; The $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer | Illegal Immigration Statistics  They have not passed a physical or mental examination, nor a criminal background check, nor have they learned English.  All of this is required of legal immigrants.  Deportation is the only reasonable answer.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by *"Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country....."*  But this graphic is from La Raza the largest registered lobby of Mexicans for immigration to the United States.  They want to make the U. S. border States a province of Mexico known as Aztlan part by force.  The United States paid Mexico $18,000,000 after the Mexican American War and forgave Mexico its debts in the 1840s for our southern border as it now stands.  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this graphic look just a little bit treasonous to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have 12,000,000 foreign invaders on our soil.
> I would call that a matter for concern wouldn't you?​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just checked out your link.  According to the comments at the bottom, it states:
> 
> _The report cited is produced by FAIR, or Federation for Immigration Reform. This group is an advocacy group, in other words, they are not fair at all. Every report they produce is intended to support their point of view, so you have to take the numbers they produce with a heavy dose of salt.
> 
> Here is a non-opinionated report by a non-advocacy news reporting organization, Colorado Public News:
> 
> http://www.cpt12.org/news/index.php...eportation-after-traffic-stop-in-arapahoe-cou_
> 
> Whoa, wait a minute.  You're making this too easy. "*FAIR*" is part of an conglomeration of organizations started by John Tanton.  I've mentioned him several times in the course of this thread.
> 
> 1.       Tanton solicited and received over $1. 2 million from the Pioneer Fund for FAIR. The Pioneer Fund is a foundation that has a history of promoting the genetic superiority of white, European-Americans.
> 
> 2.       Tanton is an advocate of eugenics, the &#8220;_science_&#8221; of race betterment. Tanton has written on the subject stating,_ &#8220;Hitler&#8217;s reign in Nazi Germany did little to advance the discussion of eugenics among sensitive persons_.&#8221;
> 
> 3.       In 1993, Tanton wrote, &#8220;_I&#8217;ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.&#8221;_
> 
> 4.       Tanton runs a publishing organization, the Social Contract Press. Tanton&#8217;s publishing arm reprinted the novel The Camp of the Saints, a racist book which tells the tale of immigrants from the east who come to France and destroy western civilization.
> 
> 5.       The Social Contract Press produces a quarterly journal, The Social Contact, which has published numerous white nationalists such as Wayne Lutton, Peter Gemma, and the late Sam Francis.
> 
> 6.       Tanton has had a long relationship with numerous white nationalists such as Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, and notorious ant-Semite Kevin MacDonald.
> 
> 7.       Tanton is affiliated with individuals who are associated with Council of Conservative Citizens, a white nationalist organization that has called African Americans a &#8220;_retrograde species of humanity_.&#8221; Wayne Lutton, Tanton&#8217;s &#8220;right hand man&#8221; and Roy Beck, the former Washington editor of The Social Contract, have both spoken at Council of Conservative Citizens annual conferences.
> 
> 8.       In a 1996 letter, Tanton wrote, &#8220;Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids? And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to break the bad news [to less intelligent individuals], and how will it be implemented?&#8221;
> 
> 9.    In 1995 correspondence to Harry Weyher (former president of the white supremacist Pioneer Fund) on racial eugenics, Tanton questions the sexuality of Asian men by claiming that_ &#8220;Male Orientals are less well equipped than those of some other groups.&#8221;
> _
> 10.  In a 1995 memo, Tanton wrote about his thoughts on European hate crimes laws, stating, &#8220;_These have generally been pushed by Jewish interests who are offended by those who have challenged the received version of the Holocaust.&#8221;
> _
> The bottom line is that Tanton is a white nationalist. He was the adviser for David Duke, the nazi turned Klansman back in the late 70s and early 80s.  I remember the guy quite well AND know why he would dabble in what you and the cheering section will rally around as manna from Heaven.
> 
> I read the comments and concur that much of what is on that site is pure fantasy and manufactured statistics.
Click to expand...


Let me make this very simple for you.  If the total cost of illegal immigrants to the U. S. taxpayer were $1, it would be too much.

Now, I could dig, and I have in the past  produced estimates that illegals cost taxpayers twice as much as $113,000,000,000 per year.  If you reject my figure, come up with your own estimate.

Frankly, you sound like some "illegal friendly" who just wants us to throw money at a group of people who can not control their birth rate and are spilling over into our country.  We have been too generous in giving guest workers jobs, and now these illegals think they are entitled to a piece of the pie.  They are freeloaders pure and simple, and this is a law enforcement question, so put your human rights blanket away.  Deportation is the answer in most countries of the world, because where illegals move, slums follow.

Show us the links so I can shred them.  What is your estimate?






This is a treasonous proposition, and must be dealt with accordingly.​


----------



## OpenJumper1

from USCIS.gov

INA: ACT 211- DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS


Sec. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 212(a)(7)(A) of this Act in such cases or in such classes of cases and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed, returning resident immigrants, defined in section 101(a)(27)(A) , who are otherwise admissible may be readmitted to the United States by the Attorney General in his discretion without being required to obtain a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien whom the Attorney General admits to the United States under section 207. 


Improper entry:  read the words, Improper entry means entry without documents or proof of pending immigration status 

also look up 1986 US immigration bill which is supposed to still be good to this day.


----------



## Liability

OpenJumper1 said:


> from USCIS.gov
> 
> INA: ACT 211- DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS
> 
> 
> Sec. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]
> 
> (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.
> 
> (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 212(a)(7)(A) of this Act in such cases or in such classes of cases and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed, returning resident immigrants, defined in section 101(a)(27)(A) , who are otherwise admissible may be readmitted to the United States by the Attorney General in his discretion without being required to obtain a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation.
> 
> (c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien whom the Attorney General admits to the United States under section 207.
> 
> 
> Improper entry:  read the words, Improper entry means entry without documents or proof of pending immigration status
> 
> also look up 1986 US immigration bill which is supposed to still be good to this day.



Just read 8 USC § 1325(a).

IF, unlike that stupid lying fuckwit piece of shit, DuddleyDolt, you understand the meaning of words and don't mind being honest about them, then there is already no doubt on Earth that improper entry is a crime.


----------



## BuddyColt

MaryL said:


> On the surface, it seems like a rather simple issue: Immigrate legally. Right Buddy? You aren't advocating FOR illegal activities, are you? I am sure you mean well. So do the rest of us. On your first post, you say that nobody is guilty until proven innocent, which would imply even YOU might think there is a possibility...that illegals are criminals. Or did I miss something? Anyway, I do want to segue here:  The INS enforces Federal laws.  Prior to 2003, it was a  a branch of the the US Dept. of Justice.  That should say something right there. Right now, this issue isn't as clear as it should be.  Local Police officers are being advised to avoid focusing on immigration scofflaws "to enhance public safety", as "immigrant" (?) community residents might see them as deportation agents.... State law enforcement officers used to cooperate fully with federal officials. Illegal immigration IS a federal offense, but it isn't necessarily a local criminal infraction ...That is the problem here, WE all have to iron this out. I don't want cops ignoring illegal aliens and I don't want this problem of 12 million illegals swept under the rug because it's expedient  politicaly or otherwise.



MaryL. I don't know what you're getting at, so hear me out and please read everything here.  It will be* WELL* worth your time.

In a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic such as we are guaranteed in the Constitution, every person is* presumed innocent* until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

This is something we don't want to do for people that are being labeled as "_illegal_" aliens.  The first problem here is that repeating a lie can make it appear true.  For instance, the liberals call semi automatic firearms "_assault weapons_."  In reality an assault weapon is a firearm capable of semi automatic and fully automatic fire.  A semi auto look-a-like rifle is simply NOT an _assault weapon_, but the lie has set precedents that have made life a living hell for a lot of people.

Ditto for immigration.  I went to work for an immigration law office because I had to get all sides of the issue.  What I've stated on this thread is not my opinion, it is the way the law is interpreted and enforced.  The Executive Office for Immigration Review reviews, interprets the statutes and applies the laws in regards to the immigration laws.  It is overseen by the Attorney General, appointed by the president and working within the Dept. of Justice.  

The problem here is that immigration is not illegal; it is only improper.  We demand a _"proper_" way to enter, but for MILLIONS, we do not provide that proper mechanism. Let me explain:

We have a host of visas.  All of the specify a type of person they apply to (temporary agricultural worker, student, etc.):

Types of Visas for Temporary Visitors

For MILLIONS those visas don't apply.  So, the *Guest Worker* must either LIE or they simply cross the border and work.  The visa system is half a century old and simply doesn't anticipate the reasons people come here.  Furthermore, those people do NOT want to become citizens.  I know this is hard to understand, but the Hispanics do not have a comprehension of our laws that you could relate to.

In Mexico, for example, avoiding the cops and playing games is a cost of doing business.  The Mexican government prints comic books, teaching the Hispanics how to avoid detection by our authorities.  Once here, avoiding the system and having to pay the fines is just a game, not the kind of activity that rises to _"criminal_" intent. So, how do we handle the issue?  The way you answer that is to answer what happened in the past.  That kind of testifies against my critics on this board.  So, let me repeat something to you:

_Several months ago talk show host, Neal Boortz, told his audience about a historical study he did. Boortz divided our nation's history into* NINE* time periods of 25 years (from the start of our nation to the current time.) Each of those 25 year periods represents the working lifetime of a person.

According to Boortz, he credited the Republicans and their tax initiatives for America's most prosperous of those time periods. And Boortz said that between *1982 and 2007 was the time period when America had the most jobs, we made the most money, paid the fewest taxes and had the most in assets*.

In *1986*, Newswatch Magazine reported that, according to official immigration authorities, the United States had an estimated* 10 MILLION* people in the United States without papers AND an additional *TWO MILLION* coming in each year. AND between *1986 and 2000*, the United States granted SEVEN AMNESTIES!

What I want to know is HOW did the United States have its most prosperous years in an era where we* started out with 10 MILLION* people here without papers,* two million *more entering annually,* 10 percent unemployment, "open borders*," AND *SEVEN AMNESTIES*  and lived the best years of our lives and* reduced unemployment by more than 50 percent? *BTW, the relative numbers haven't changed in population growth nor in the numbers of people here without papers. Okay guys, we need an answer_."

Despite all the numbers, the number of undocumented Guest Workers has not changed dramatically in a quarter of a century.  It should tell you: they don't want to become citizens.  So, why not create that class of Guest Workers without an automatic path to citizenship and those who come here, so with the knowledge that they nor any potential child will automatically become a U.S. citizen?  Why this constant pissing match with allegations _"they broke our laws_" when the evidence is, they never intended to break any freaking law.  According to the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of those in the U.S. without papers apply for Taxpayer Identification Numbers and pay the taxes.  If they're willingly paying taxes and they don't have a criminal record, where is the proof they intended to break a law?

WE hang a Welcome mat out that invites the poor here; we talk this game about Liberty and* unalienable Rights*, but once we take people up on the offer, we have National Socialists pitching a hissy fit with the inference that only citizens are due *unalienable Rights*.  You can't stop immigrants from coming.  You can pass draconian laws that will ultimately result in tyranny followed by amnesty, but you cannot stop immigration.  

The better avenue is to regulate it.  The methods being used today are costing the lives of people on *YOUR* side of this issue.  I should know.  I came from YOUR side of the political fence and nearly lost my life due to one of those laws the anti - immigrants passed... and you cannot understand that bad laws that cost lives motivate me to speak out.  Look, if you want to petition Congress and declare war against Mexico, more power to you.  If you want to take my Liberties or the Liberties of others, I will fight you to the bitter end - and I don't give a damn who the other group is I have to defend nor whether I like them or not.


----------



## tjvh

starcraftzzz said:


> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone



Thanks for writing the stupidest post of the day. Nice job.


----------



## BuddyColt

OpenJumper1 said:


> also look up 1986 US immigration bill which is supposed to still be good to this day.



The Simpson-Mazzoli Bill applies to employers that hire undocumented workers and it gave an amnesty to agricultural workers.  It has exactly* NOTHING* to do with improper entry.

_Improper Entry_ is_ NOT i_n the Criminal Code of the USC.  It is wholly an administrative matter before a civil forum.


----------



## BuddyColt

Catalist said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this very simple for you.  If the total cost of illegal immigrants to the U. S. taxpayer were $1, it would be too much.
> 
> Now, I could dig, and I have in the past  produced estimates that illegals cost taxpayers twice as much as $113,000,000,000 per year.  If you reject my figure, come up with your own estimate.
> 
> Frankly, you sound like some "illegal friendly" who just wants us to throw money at a group of people who can not control their birth rate and are spilling over into our country.  We have been too generous in giving guest workers jobs, and now these illegals think they are entitled to a piece of the pie.  They are freeloaders pure and simple, and this is a law enforcement question, so put your human rights blanket away.  Deportation is the answer in most countries of the world, because where illegals move, slums follow.
> 
> Show us the links so I can shred them.  What is your estimate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a treasonous proposition, and must be dealt with accordingly.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make this simple for you:
> 
> The John Tanton conglomeration has come up with figures as high as $200 Billion in terms of "_cost._"  Even if those figures were true (and you know they are not), it's a hell of lot less costly than the* TRILLIONS* of dollars spent in creating the ultimate POLICE STATE... creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, doubling the size of the BATFE and giving them unlimited jurisdiction, passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act,_" National ID / REAL ID Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, etc., etc.
> 
> If you want to debate me, I can send you a link to a REAL debate forum.  There won't be the endless is to, is not bullshit you find here.  You make your point; I make mine, those points are challenged and then you move on.  No name calling, no personality contests, no fancy fonts and pics.  We could have a real debate and let the people decide.
> 
> You won't do it.  Chris Simcox and Jim Gilchrist passed on that opportunity as did J.T. Ready and every representative of the Minutemen and their offshoots.  Nobody with actual experience is naive enough to take me on in an actual debate.  You might create the "illusion" of a "win" on this board with the number of people that post bullshit over and over instead of making their point and moving on.  They believe that everybody here is too stupid to read the posts and let them stand on their own merits.  If you're up for the challenge, I will take you on in a REAL debate forum.  PM sent...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## starcraftzzz

tjvh said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for writing the stupidest post of the day. Nice job.
Click to expand...


and thanks for being a retard it helps soce3ity out so much to pitty you


----------



## BuddyColt

tjvh said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for writing the stupidest post of the day. Nice job.
Click to expand...


The GOP did flip on immigration on recent years and pass bills that seek nothing short of the death penalty for a civil infraction of the law.  Look at the GOP flag wavers on this thread.  They cannot understand that Title 18 of the USC is the Criminal Code and that civil statutes do not impose criminal penalties, but rather call upon Title 18 to impose the criminal penalty.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for writing the stupidest post of the day. Nice job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP did flip on immigration on recent years and pass bills that seek nothing short of the death penalty for a civil infraction of the law.  Look at the GOP flag wavers on this thread.  They cannot understand that Title 18 of the USC is the Criminal Code and that civil statutes do not impose criminal penalties, but rather call upon Title 18 to impose the criminal penalty.
Click to expand...




BuddyColt said:


> *The GOP did flip on immigration on recent years and pass bills that seek nothing short of the death penalty for a civil infraction of the law.*


  -- ^ a compound lie from a scumbag liar.  

The *reality* is:  *the GOP did not pass ANY bills seeking the death penalty or anything close to it for the CRIME of improper entry.  *

Asshole lying fuckwit pussies -- like DuddleyDolt -- cannot admit that 8 USC § 1325 is absolutely a criminal statute -- as ESTABLISHED conclusively by the FACT that it provides for CRIMINAL sanctions (jail and prison).  And many many criminal statutes refer to Title 18 for the criminal penalties -- since that is the criminal penalty Title of the law.  

For example (not that it will matter to DuddleyDolt, since he ignores or intentionally lies about all things which prove him to be flatly wrong):  21 U.S.C. § 841 : US Code - Section 841: "Prohibited acts A" spells out the Federal crimes of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance, etc.   And, man, does it ever criminalize such conduct. 

 NONETHELESS, that Title of the United States Code ALSO refers to TITLE 18 for purposes of addressing SENTENCING.


----------



## High_Gravity

Duddleydolt keeps posting lies and Liability keeps slapping the shit out of him, I think duddleydolt likes the abuse.


----------



## Liability

High_Gravity said:


> Duddleydolt keeps posting lies and Liability keeps slapping the shit out of him, I think duddleydolt likes the abuse.



Ewww.  DuddleyDolt is a masochist and is getting all aroused?


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duddleydolt keeps posting lies and Liability keeps slapping the shit out of him, I think duddleydolt likes the abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ewww.  DuddleyDolt is a masochist and is getting all aroused?
Click to expand...


More than likely yes, the clown is also a stone cold racist, you should see him proudly repping his KKK Sheets in William Joyce's thread about whites being a minority on the racism board.


----------



## Liability

High_Gravity said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duddleydolt keeps posting lies and Liability keeps slapping the shit out of him, I think duddleydolt likes the abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ewww.  DuddleyDolt is a masochist and is getting all aroused?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than likely yes, the clown is also a stone cold racist, you should see him proudly repping his KKK Sheets in William Joyce's thread about whites being a minority on the racism board.
Click to expand...



WHU?  Whites a MINORITY?!?!

Oh nozies!

Sound the ALARMS.


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ewww.  DuddleyDolt is a masochist and is getting all aroused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than likely yes, the clown is also a stone cold racist, you should see him proudly repping his KKK Sheets in William Joyce's thread about whites being a minority on the racism board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHU?  Whites a MINORITY?!?!
> 
> Oh nozies!
> 
> Sound the ALARMS.
Click to expand...


The guy is a fuckin fraud and can't be taken seriously, next we'll see him in a 52nd Street thread repping Black Power.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

Wow, there sure are a lot of words here to try and tell us why the term "illegal alien" is wrong and why we are being so bad and hateful to those who come here "illegally".  Here's the bottom line.

It comes down to a question of sovereignty.  Does the United States of America have the right and I say the DUTY to maintain it's sovereignty by saying who can enter it's borders and who cannot?  Can you name one nation on this earth that maintains open borders to the magnitude that this nation does?  Does this nation have the right and again, I say the DUTY to KNOW who enters it's borders and for what purposes?  I say it does and if the law is not clear, then it should be made absolutely, crystal clear that those who try and enter this nation without going through the proper procedures will be PROSECUTED.

I am not intimately familiar with the federal laws that govern immigration and entry into this nation.  However, I know that literally thousands of illegal aliens are rounded up every year and shipped out of the country.  I would assume that if there were no laws governing this action, that the Supreme Court would have stopped it long ago.  I support these actions and I also support the closing of the border by placing troops there.

As for those on this thread that talk about how conservatives and Republicans are simply racist and or xenophobic, it's the same that we always hear.  The left's attempt to belittle or marginalize an opposing viewpoint always resorts to name calling and grouping those with opposing viewpoints into groups so they can affix negative labels to them.  "If you do not agree with me, then obviously you are a __________ (fill in the blank)."  Boring, predictable, and shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.  I wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican who hasn't been called a "racist" for disagreeing with Barry or for wanting immigration laws and policies followed.

The United States of America is a nation of immigrants.  I want it to continue to be a nation of immigrants... LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  And when someone enters this country without the proper documentation, you know what I call them?  ILLEGAL ALIENS!  Because they are...


----------



## Unkotare

BuddyColt said:


> The GOP did flip on immigration on recent years and pass bills that seek nothing short of the death penalty for a civil infraction of the law.




That's a lie. Why do you feel the need to lie? And, are you an attorney?


----------



## BuddyColt

OldUSAFSniper said:


> Wow, there sure are a lot of words here to try and tell us why the term "illegal alien" is wrong and why we are being so bad and hateful to those who come here "illegally".  Here's the bottom line.
> 
> It comes down to a question of sovereignty.  Does the United States of America have the right and I say the DUTY to maintain it's sovereignty by saying who can enter it's borders and who cannot?  Can you name one nation on this earth that maintains open borders to the magnitude that this nation does?  Does this nation have the right and again, I say the DUTY to KNOW who enters it's borders and for what purposes?  I say it does and if the law is not clear, then it should be made absolutely, crystal clear that those who try and enter this nation without going through the proper procedures will be PROSECUTED.
> 
> I am not intimately familiar with the federal laws that govern immigration and entry into this nation.  However, I know that literally thousands of illegal aliens are rounded up every year and shipped out of the country.  I would assume that if there were no laws governing this action, that the Supreme Court would have stopped it long ago.  I support these actions and I also support the closing of the border by placing troops there.
> 
> As for those on this thread that talk about how conservatives and Republicans are simply racist and or xenophobic, it's the same that we always hear.  The left's attempt to belittle or marginalize an opposing viewpoint always resorts to name calling and grouping those with opposing viewpoints into groups so they can affix negative labels to them.  "If you do not agree with me, then obviously you are a __________ (fill in the blank)."  Boring, predictable, and shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.  I wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican who hasn't been called a "racist" for disagreeing with Barry or for wanting immigration laws and policies followed.
> 
> The United States of America is a nation of immigrants.  I want it to continue to be a nation of immigrants... LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  And when someone enters this country without the proper documentation, you know what I call them?  ILLEGAL ALIENS!  Because they are...



Let's work backward here OldUSAFSniper:

I've already pointed out that the so - called "legal" process as you demand to call it* does not exist* in many fact situations.  You show me the relevant visa that applies to Guest Workers and we can end this debate right here and right now.  Unless there is a proper procedure, there can, in* no way, shape, fashion or form* be an _illegal alien_ based upon your own definition.

Insofar as conservatives and liberals go, you can leave me off your lists.  Liberals have become the mouthpieces of the *communist party* while the social conservatives have become the top salesmen for the* POLICE STATE* as envisioned by the *globalists*.  Personally, I'm not on either side, but watch those who accuse others of being liars ignore this paragraph.

As you said, a lot of people are rounded up and sent home.  Had you READ THIS THREAD before giving your .02 cents worth, you'd get a sense about what deportation is all about.  Deportation is the civil consequence for *improper entry*, which is not a crime, but a minor civil infraction.  In most cases the civil infraction would not even be a issue if the United States created a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.

Next, we come back to that pretext of sovereignty.  Here's a cut and paste from the last time we addressed that question:

"_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."
Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?

Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government? _

Sovereignty is about the country's authority over a geographic region NOT over the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  It's a world of difference and your misapplication is evidence that you care more about the POWER OF GOVERNMENT rather than the Liberties of the people.  If our founding fathers summed up America in one word, it would be Liberty... the very thing you find so loathsome.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, there sure are a lot of words here to try and tell us why the term "illegal alien" is wrong and why we are being so bad and hateful to those who come here "illegally".  Here's the bottom line.
> 
> It comes down to a question of sovereignty.  Does the United States of America have the right and I say the DUTY to maintain it's sovereignty by saying who can enter it's borders and who cannot?  Can you name one nation on this earth that maintains open borders to the magnitude that this nation does?  Does this nation have the right and again, I say the DUTY to KNOW who enters it's borders and for what purposes?  I say it does and if the law is not clear, then it should be made absolutely, crystal clear that those who try and enter this nation without going through the proper procedures will be PROSECUTED.
> 
> I am not intimately familiar with the federal laws that govern immigration and entry into this nation.  However, I know that literally thousands of illegal aliens are rounded up every year and shipped out of the country.  I would assume that if there were no laws governing this action, that the Supreme Court would have stopped it long ago.  I support these actions and I also support the closing of the border by placing troops there.
> 
> As for those on this thread that talk about how conservatives and Republicans are simply racist and or xenophobic, it's the same that we always hear.  The left's attempt to belittle or marginalize an opposing viewpoint always resorts to name calling and grouping those with opposing viewpoints into groups so they can affix negative labels to them.  "If you do not agree with me, then obviously you are a __________ (fill in the blank)."  Boring, predictable, and shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.  I wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican who hasn't been called a "racist" for disagreeing with Barry or for wanting immigration laws and policies followed.
> 
> The United States of America is a nation of immigrants.  I want it to continue to be a nation of immigrants... LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  And when someone enters this country without the proper documentation, you know what I call them?  ILLEGAL ALIENS!  Because they are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's work backward here OldUSAFSniper:
> 
> I've already pointed out that the so - called "legal" process as you demand to call it* does not exist* in many fact situations.  You show me the relevant visa that applies to Guest Workers and we can end this debate right here and right now.  Unless there is a proper procedure, there can, in* no way, shape, fashion or form* be an _illegal alien_ based upon your own definition.
> 
> Insofar as conservatives and liberals go, you can leave me off your lists.  Liberals have become the mouthpieces of the *communist party* while the social conservatives have become the top salesmen for the* POLICE STATE* as envisioned by the *globalists*.  Personally, I'm not on either side, but watch those who accuse others of being liars ignore this paragraph.
> 
> As you said, a lot of people are rounded up and sent home.  Had you READ THIS THREAD before giving your .02 cents worth, you'd get a sense about what deportation is all about.  Deportation is the civil consequence for *improper entry*, which is not a crime, but a minor civil infraction.  In most cases the civil infraction would not even be a issue if the United States created a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.
> 
> Next, we come back to that pretext of sovereignty.  Here's a cut and paste from the last time we addressed that question:
> 
> "_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."
> Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?
> 
> Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government? _
> 
> Sovereignty is about the country's authority over a geographic region NOT over the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  It's a world of difference and your misapplication is evidence that you care more about the POWER OF GOVERNMENT rather than the Liberties of the people.  If our founding fathers summed up America in one word, it would be Liberty... the very thing you find so loathsome.
Click to expand...


I saw you on the racism board in William Joyce's thread repping your white power bullshit, why do you want open borders for the Hispanics you fucking fraud? do your KKK jerk off buddies know this about you?


----------



## Unkotare

BloodyDolt is an idiot on the level of ed spaceman/vamipre, with his delusional sense of self-importance and ability to ignore reality.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> BloodyDolt is an idiot on the level of ed spaceman/vamipre, with his delusional sense of self-importance and ability to ignore reality.



He is also a complete liar and hypocrite, how can you advocate open borders for Hispanics yet be on here repping white power groups? what a fucking fraud.


----------



## BuddyColt

High_Gravity said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you on the racism board in William Joyce's thread repping your white power bullshit, why do you want open borders for the Hispanics you fucking fraud? do your KKK jerk off buddies know this about you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I forgot to let you know, as I did the rest of your cheering section, WHEN your arguments had become irrelevant.
> 
> If you could get past the name calling to have something resembling civil discourse, I might be inclined to give you the time of day.  In answer to your question:
> 
> I doubt that there is a man or woman alive that has discussed and debated these issues with the K.K.K. more than I have.  In the 1980s and 1990s my hometown newspaper once said that I was the most quoted man in Georgia.  With respect to the immigration issue, I STILL see my research being touted on anti - immigrant threads, while those who are totally in the dark, such as yourself, are buying bullshit from amateurs that think by controlling the environment on this board, they are controlling the immigration issue world wide.
> 
> You keep harping on _"open borders._"  So, if you are not FOR "_open borders_," what is the alternative?  Would that not be a militarized border to make sure we had closed borders, the *OPPOSITE* of "_open borders_?"
> 
> So, you're accusing me of being* against* the so - called "_Patriot Act_," National ID / REAL ID Act, National Defense Authorization Act, warrant less searches, 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring and surveillance, and the abolition of innocent until proven guilty.  Sounds like you're answering your own question to me.
> 
> If you'd like to address me without the name calling and the other bullshit, but pretend that you are capable of civil discourse we can discuss issues.  Otherwise, I will skip over your posts just as I do the other guys that don't have enough intelligence to discuss this rationally.  If you act like a small child and don't get a response, don't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I forgot to let you know, as I did the rest of your cheering section, WHEN your arguments had become irrelevant.
> 
> If you could get past the name calling to have something resembling civil discourse, I might be inclined to give you the time of day.  In answer to your question:
> 
> I doubt that there is a man or woman alive that has discussed and debated these issues with the K.K.K. more than I have.  In the 1980s and 1990s my hometown newspaper once said that I was the most quoted man in Georgia.  With respect to the immigration issue, I STILL see my research being touted on anti - immigrant threads, while those who are totally in the dark, such as yourself, are buying bullshit from amateurs that think by controlling the environment on this board, they are controlling the immigration issue world wide.
> 
> You keep harping on _"open borders._"  So, if you not FOR "_open borders_," what is the alternative?  Would that not be a militarized border to make sure we had closed borders, the *OPPOSITE* of "_open borders_?"
> 
> So, you're accusing me of being* against* the so - called "_Patriot Act_," National ID / REAL ID Act, National Defense Authorization Act, warrant less searches, 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring and surveillance, and the abolition of innocent until proven guilty.  Sounds like you're answering your own question to me.
> 
> If you'd like to address me without the name calling and the other bullshit, but pretend that you are capable of civil discourse we can discuss issues.  Otherwise, I will skip over your posts just as I do the other guys that don't have enough intelligence to discuss this rationally.  If you act like a small child and don't get a response, don't be surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a white supremist piece of shit who wants open borders for Hispanics? good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

BloodyDolt grows more insane and inconsistent with every post. Motherfucker is out of his pea brain.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> BloodyDolt grows more insane and inconsistent with every post. Motherfucker is out of his pea brain.



Next I am expecting him to champion gay rights, Black power and Arab Nationalism.


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> OpenJumper1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> also look up 1986 US immigration bill which is supposed to still be good to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Simpson-Mazzoli Bill applies to employers that hire undocumented workers and it gave an amnesty to agricultural workers.  It has exactly* NOTHING* to do with improper entry.
> 
> _Improper Entry_ is_ NOT i_n the Criminal Code of the USC.  It is wholly an administrative matter before a civil forum.
Click to expand...


False.  BloodyDolt lies an awful lot. 

Improper Entry is 8 USC §1325.  It is part of the criminal code since it provides for criminal penalties and explicitly cites to Title 18 relative TO those criminal penalties (jail and prison).

It is NOT "wholly" administrative.  In fact, by its very clear terms, it only provides for the ADDITION of civil penalties.


----------



## Unkotare

And to declare himself Napoleon.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> And to declare himself Napoleon.



And a devout Muslim follower who is also an Athiest and a Vegan.


----------



## BuddyColt

High_Gravity said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a white supremist piece of shit who wants open borders for Hispanics? good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read too good, do you?  I haven't supported white supremacy.  I don't condemn them, but then again, I'm not condemning the Hispanics.  I'm always looking to build a bridge to understanding.
> 
> I gave you the opportunity.  So, good luck with trying to win the debate with the usual misrepresentations and false allegations.  BTW, you haven't even proved that I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read too good, do you?  I haven't supported white supremacy.  I don't condemn them, but then again, I'm not condemning the Hispanics.  I'm always looking to build a bridge to understanding.
> 
> I gave you the opportunity.  So, good luck with trying to win the debate with the usual misrepresentations and false allegations.  BTW, you haven't even proved that I'm white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were in that thread supporting white power groups you fucking hypocrite, how do your buddies in the white sheets feel about your open borders policies?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## BuddyColt

High_Gravity said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were in that thread supporting white power groups you fucking hypocrite, how do your buddies in the white sheets feel about your open borders polict?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity, you are an idiot.  Admitting that someone has a relevant point does not mean you support them.
> 
> For instance, I agree with the Republicans that Barack Obama has spent more money than all other presidents in the United States combined.  Also admit that most of the money that Obama spent, save of Obamacare, was to finance the POLICE STATE voted into law by the Republicans.  Can't you simply accept the fact that I'm not on either side of that phony classification system?  Does it really upset your world view that much?
> 
> If you care so much about my alleged "buddies" and what they think, why don't you ask them?  Maybe they can get it through your stupid fucking head that I am not one of them.
> 
> Your little cheering section is a just a few pea brained dumb asses that can't get off this board and have intelligent conversations.  Further, I've noticed that you guys argue with others on other threads as if you have a monopoly on understanding.  Your little clique group can't seem to get along with anybody.  Everybody that disagrees with you is a liar, hypocrite, idiot, faggot, etc.  It seems to me that all the time you guys spend making those allegations might lead some to think, you are worried about yourself and trying to impute your weaknesses onto others.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and you know, deep inside, that this is the only place you can nurse your addictions while feeding your weaknesses.  See you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

BuddyColt said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, there sure are a lot of words here to try and tell us why the term "illegal alien" is wrong and why we are being so bad and hateful to those who come here "illegally".  Here's the bottom line.
> 
> It comes down to a question of sovereignty.  Does the United States of America have the right and I say the DUTY to maintain it's sovereignty by saying who can enter it's borders and who cannot?  Can you name one nation on this earth that maintains open borders to the magnitude that this nation does?  Does this nation have the right and again, I say the DUTY to KNOW who enters it's borders and for what purposes?  I say it does and if the law is not clear, then it should be made absolutely, crystal clear that those who try and enter this nation without going through the proper procedures will be PROSECUTED.
> 
> I am not intimately familiar with the federal laws that govern immigration and entry into this nation.  However, I know that literally thousands of illegal aliens are rounded up every year and shipped out of the country.  I would assume that if there were no laws governing this action, that the Supreme Court would have stopped it long ago.  I support these actions and I also support the closing of the border by placing troops there.
> 
> As for those on this thread that talk about how conservatives and Republicans are simply racist and or xenophobic, it's the same that we always hear.  The left's attempt to belittle or marginalize an opposing viewpoint always resorts to name calling and grouping those with opposing viewpoints into groups so they can affix negative labels to them.  "If you do not agree with me, then obviously you are a __________ (fill in the blank)."  Boring, predictable, and shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.  I wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican who hasn't been called a "racist" for disagreeing with Barry or for wanting immigration laws and policies followed.
> 
> The United States of America is a nation of immigrants.  I want it to continue to be a nation of immigrants... LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  And when someone enters this country without the proper documentation, you know what I call them?  ILLEGAL ALIENS!  Because they are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's work backward here OldUSAFSniper:
> 
> I've already pointed out that the so - called "legal" process as you demand to call it* does not exist* in many fact situations.  You show me the relevant visa that applies to Guest Workers and we can end this debate right here and right now.  Unless there is a proper procedure, there can, in* no way, shape, fashion or form* be an _illegal alien_ based upon your own definition.
> 
> Insofar as conservatives and liberals go, you can leave me off your lists.  Liberals have become the mouthpieces of the *communist party* while the social conservatives have become the top salesmen for the* POLICE STATE* as envisioned by the *globalists*.  Personally, I'm not on either side, but watch those who accuse others of being liars ignore this paragraph.
> 
> As you said, a lot of people are rounded up and sent home.  Had you READ THIS THREAD before giving your .02 cents worth, you'd get a sense about what deportation is all about.  Deportation is the civil consequence for *improper entry*, which is not a crime, but a minor civil infraction.  In most cases the civil infraction would not even be a issue if the United States created a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.
> 
> Next, we come back to that pretext of sovereignty.  Here's a cut and paste from the last time we addressed that question:
> 
> "_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."
> Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?
> 
> Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government? _
> 
> Sovereignty is about the country's authority over a geographic region NOT over the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  It's a world of difference and your misapplication is evidence that you care more about the POWER OF GOVERNMENT rather than the Liberties of the people.  If our founding fathers summed up America in one word, it would be Liberty... the very thing you find so loathsome.
Click to expand...


Okay, let's get one thing straight.  As for the intracacies of immigration law:  I don't really care.  As long as someone comes here illegally and is subsequently sent packing, then they (the government) is doing what I want them to do.  Although I would prefer they meet them at the border and keep them from entering in the first place.

It all boils down to the issue of whether or not a nation has the RIGHT to say who can enter into their geographical borders.  The one enumerated duty of the federal government in the constitution is to protect its citizens.  One way of doing that is by controlling its borders.  A nation, THIS NATION, has the right and the DUTY to say who can come here and who cannot.  Whether that is Hispanics, Romanians, Russians, or three-toed sloths it doesn't make any difference.  When the nation passes a law to say that you have to abide by these certain steps and you don't, then illegal alien meet the agent from ICE.  Jail them, take their DNA, fingerprints and picture and then send them back.  If they try to come back, let them pick up trash along side the roadway for 60 days and then send them back.

Anyone who has read my posts on this forum KNOWS that I have no love for the federal government.  It is bloated, expensive, wasteful, incompetent, and encroaches dangerously into personal freedoms.  But in this arena, it should be aggressive and it should be effective.  Barry and his boys are no better than the last President.

In this country, at least for now, the people ARE the government... well, they're supposed to be.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity, you are an idiot.  Admitting that someone has a relevant point does not mean you support them.
> 
> For instance, I agree with the Republicans that Barack Obama has spent more money than all other presidents in the United States combined.  Also admit that most of the money that Obama spent, save of Obamacare, was to finance the POLICE STATE voted into law by the Republicans.  Can't you simply accept the fact that I'm not on either side of that phony classification system?  Does it really upset your world view that much?
> 
> If you care so much about my alleged "buddies" and what they think, why don't you ask them?  Maybe they can get it through your stupid fucking head that I am not one of them.
> 
> Your little cheering section is a just a few pea brained dumb asses that can't get off this board and have intelligent conversations.  Further, I've noticed that you guys argue with others on other threads as if you have a monopoly on understanding.  Your little clique group can't seem to get along with anybody.  Everybody that disagrees with you is a liar, hypocrite, idiot, faggot, etc.  It seems to me that all the time you guys spend making those allegations might lead some to think, you are worried about yourself and trying to impute your weaknesses onto others.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and you know, deep inside, that this is the only place you can nurse your addictions while feeding your weaknesses.  See you around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you use Tide or Bleech for your KKK Sheets?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## BuddyColt

OldUSAFSniper said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, there sure are a lot of words here to try and tell us why the term "illegal alien" is wrong and why we are being so bad and hateful to those who come here "illegally".  Here's the bottom line.
> 
> It comes down to a question of sovereignty.  Does the United States of America have the right and I say the DUTY to maintain it's sovereignty by saying who can enter it's borders and who cannot?  Can you name one nation on this earth that maintains open borders to the magnitude that this nation does?  Does this nation have the right and again, I say the DUTY to KNOW who enters it's borders and for what purposes?  I say it does and if the law is not clear, then it should be made absolutely, crystal clear that those who try and enter this nation without going through the proper procedures will be PROSECUTED.
> 
> I am not intimately familiar with the federal laws that govern immigration and entry into this nation.  However, I know that literally thousands of illegal aliens are rounded up every year and shipped out of the country.  I would assume that if there were no laws governing this action, that the Supreme Court would have stopped it long ago.  I support these actions and I also support the closing of the border by placing troops there.
> 
> As for those on this thread that talk about how conservatives and Republicans are simply racist and or xenophobic, it's the same that we always hear.  The left's attempt to belittle or marginalize an opposing viewpoint always resorts to name calling and grouping those with opposing viewpoints into groups so they can affix negative labels to them.  "If you do not agree with me, then obviously you are a __________ (fill in the blank)."  Boring, predictable, and shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.  I wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican who hasn't been called a "racist" for disagreeing with Barry or for wanting immigration laws and policies followed.
> 
> The United States of America is a nation of immigrants.  I want it to continue to be a nation of immigrants... LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  And when someone enters this country without the proper documentation, you know what I call them?  ILLEGAL ALIENS!  Because they are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's work backward here OldUSAFSniper:
> 
> I've already pointed out that the so - called "legal" process as you demand to call it* does not exist* in many fact situations.  You show me the relevant visa that applies to Guest Workers and we can end this debate right here and right now.  Unless there is a proper procedure, there can, in* no way, shape, fashion or form* be an _illegal alien_ based upon your own definition.
> 
> Insofar as conservatives and liberals go, you can leave me off your lists.  Liberals have become the mouthpieces of the *communist party* while the social conservatives have become the top salesmen for the* POLICE STATE* as envisioned by the *globalists*.  Personally, I'm not on either side, but watch those who accuse others of being liars ignore this paragraph.
> 
> As you said, a lot of people are rounded up and sent home.  Had you READ THIS THREAD before giving your .02 cents worth, you'd get a sense about what deportation is all about.  Deportation is the civil consequence for *improper entry*, which is not a crime, but a minor civil infraction.  In most cases the civil infraction would not even be a issue if the United States created a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.
> 
> Next, we come back to that pretext of sovereignty.  Here's a cut and paste from the last time we addressed that question:
> 
> "_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."
> Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?
> 
> Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government? _
> 
> Sovereignty is about the country's authority over a geographic region NOT over the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  It's a world of difference and your misapplication is evidence that you care more about the POWER OF GOVERNMENT rather than the Liberties of the people.  If our founding fathers summed up America in one word, it would be Liberty... the very thing you find so loathsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let's get one thing straight.  As for the intracacies of immigration law:  I don't really care.  As long as someone comes here illegally and is subsequently sent packing, then they (the government) is doing what I want them to do.  Although I would prefer they meet them at the border and keep them from entering in the first place.
> 
> It all boils down to the issue of whether or not a nation has the RIGHT to say who can enter into their geographical borders.  The one enumerated duty of the federal government in the constitution is to protect its citizens.  One way of doing that is by controlling its borders.  A nation, THIS NATION, has the right and the DUTY to say who can come here and who cannot.  Whether that is Hispanics, Romanians, Russians, or three-toed sloths it doesn't make any difference.  When the nation passes a law to say that you have to abide by these certain steps and you don't, then illegal alien meet the agent from ICE.  Jail them, take their DNA, fingerprints and picture and then send them back.  If they try to come back, let them pick up trash along side the roadway for 60 days and then send them back.
> 
> Anyone who has read my posts on this forum KNOWS that I have no love for the federal government.  It is bloated, expensive, wasteful, incompetent, and encroaches dangerously into personal freedoms.  But in this arena, it should be aggressive and it should be effective.  Barry and his boys are no better than the last President.
> 
> In this country, at least for now, the people ARE the government... well, they're supposed to be.
Click to expand...


The more you write, the deeper you dig that hole.

The American people are the people that have the final say.  Whether you like it or not - and make no mistake, I'm not all that amused by some of the decisions the American people make, they have spoken about the immigration situation.  The American people hire, rent to, sell to  and buy from the Hispanics regardless of the laws that the American people have deemed to be unconstitutional.

The difference between you and I is that I understand the difference between an *unalienable Right* versus the geographic territory the government has power over.

The reality is, the anti - immigrant lobby has gotten TRILLIONS of dollars allocated to destroy your Liberties under the guise of fighting so - called "_illegal_" immigration.  You're only pissed at me because you can't stop it and I'd rather have a Guest Worker living next door and keep my Liberties than to live in a absolute POLICE STATE where everybody has the Mark of the Beast and begs government's permisssion to allow them to make their every movement.


----------



## BuddyColt

High_Gravity said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you use Tide or Bleech for your KKK Sheets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical redneck bullshit that has destroyed this thread.  This dumb ass can't even spell bleach.  You know it's a while since they done any laundry.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical redneck bullshit that has destroyed this thread.  This dumb ass can't even spell bleach.  You know it's a while since they done any laundry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so your an English teacher now as well as a White Supremist who fights for open borders for Hispanics? how do you multi task all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's work backward here OldUSAFSniper:
> 
> I've already pointed out that the so - called "legal" process as you demand to call it* does not exist* in many fact situations.  You show me the relevant visa that applies to Guest Workers and we can end this debate right here and right now.  Unless there is a proper procedure, there can, in* no way, shape, fashion or form* be an _illegal alien_ based upon your own definition.
> 
> Insofar as conservatives and liberals go, you can leave me off your lists.  Liberals have become the mouthpieces of the *communist party* while the social conservatives have become the top salesmen for the* POLICE STATE* as envisioned by the *globalists*.  Personally, I'm not on either side, but watch those who accuse others of being liars ignore this paragraph.
> 
> As you said, a lot of people are rounded up and sent home.  Had you READ THIS THREAD before giving your .02 cents worth, you'd get a sense about what deportation is all about.  Deportation is the civil consequence for *improper entry*, which is not a crime, but a minor civil infraction.  In most cases the civil infraction would not even be a issue if the United States created a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship.
> 
> Next, we come back to that pretext of sovereignty.  Here's a cut and paste from the last time we addressed that question:
> 
> "_Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."
> Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?
> 
> Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government? _
> 
> Sovereignty is about the country's authority over a geographic region NOT over the *unalienable Rights* of individuals.  It's a world of difference and your misapplication is evidence that you care more about the POWER OF GOVERNMENT rather than the Liberties of the people.  If our founding fathers summed up America in one word, it would be Liberty... the very thing you find so loathsome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's get one thing straight.  As for the intracacies of immigration law:  I don't really care.  As long as someone comes here illegally and is subsequently sent packing, then they (the government) is doing what I want them to do.  Although I would prefer they meet them at the border and keep them from entering in the first place.
> 
> It all boils down to the issue of whether or not a nation has the RIGHT to say who can enter into their geographical borders.  The one enumerated duty of the federal government in the constitution is to protect its citizens.  One way of doing that is by controlling its borders.  A nation, THIS NATION, has the right and the DUTY to say who can come here and who cannot.  Whether that is Hispanics, Romanians, Russians, or three-toed sloths it doesn't make any difference.  When the nation passes a law to say that you have to abide by these certain steps and you don't, then illegal alien meet the agent from ICE.  Jail them, take their DNA, fingerprints and picture and then send them back.  If they try to come back, let them pick up trash along side the roadway for 60 days and then send them back.
> 
> Anyone who has read my posts on this forum KNOWS that I have no love for the federal government.  It is bloated, expensive, wasteful, incompetent, and encroaches dangerously into personal freedoms.  But in this arena, it should be aggressive and it should be effective.  Barry and his boys are no better than the last President.
> 
> In this country, at least for now, the people ARE the government... well, they're supposed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you write, the deeper you dig that hole.
> 
> The American people are the people that have the final say.  Whether you like it or not - and make no mistake, I'm not all that amused by some of the decisions the American people make, they have spoken about the immigration situation.  The American people hire, rent to, sell to  and buy from the Hispanics regardless of the laws that the American people have deemed to be unconstitutional.
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I understand the difference between an *unalienable Right* versus the geographic territory the government has power over.
> 
> The reality is, the anti - immigrant lobby has gotten TRILLIONS of dollars allocated to destroy your Liberties under the guise of fighting so - called "_illegal_" immigration.  You're only pissed at me because you can't stop it and I'd rather have a Guest Worker living next door and keep my Liberties than to live in a absolute POLICE STATE where everybody has the Mark of the Beast and begs government's permisssion to allow them to make their every movement.
Click to expand...


How do your Skinhead and KKK buddies feel about your stance on open borders for all?


----------



## Liability

BuddyColt said:


> This is the typical redneck bullshit that has destroyed this thread.  This dumb ass can't even spell bleach.  You know it's a while *since they done* any laundry.



Irony is beyond ironic.


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical redneck bullshit that has destroyed this thread.  This dumb ass can't even spell bleach.  You know it's a while *since they done* any laundry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony is beyond ironic.
Click to expand...


Now now, Duddleydolt is an inbred white supremist who learned English from illegals from Guatamala.


----------



## BuddyColt

BuddyColt said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the surface, it seems like a rather simple issue: Immigrate legally. Right Buddy? You aren't advocating FOR illegal activities, are you? I am sure you mean well. So do the rest of us. On your first post, you say that nobody is guilty until proven innocent, which would imply even YOU might think there is a possibility...that illegals are criminals. Or did I miss something? Anyway, I do want to segue here:  The INS enforces Federal laws.  Prior to 2003, it was a  a branch of the the US Dept. of Justice.  That should say something right there. Right now, this issue isn't as clear as it should be.  Local Police officers are being advised to avoid focusing on immigration scofflaws "to enhance public safety", as "immigrant" (?) community residents might see them as deportation agents.... State law enforcement officers used to cooperate fully with federal officials. Illegal immigration IS a federal offense, but it isn't necessarily a local criminal infraction ...That is the problem here, WE all have to iron this out. I don't want cops ignoring illegal aliens and I don't want this problem of 12 million illegals swept under the rug because it's expedient  politicaly or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL. I don't know what you're getting at, so hear me out and please read everything here.  It will be* WELL* worth your time.
> 
> In a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic such as we are guaranteed in the Constitution, every person is* presumed innocent* until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
> 
> This is something we don't want to do for people that are being labeled as "_illegal_" aliens.  The first problem here is that repeating a lie can make it appear true.  For instance, the liberals call semi automatic firearms "_assault weapons_."  In reality an assault weapon is a firearm capable of semi automatic and fully automatic fire.  A semi auto look-a-like rifle is simply NOT an _assault weapon_, but the lie has set precedents that have made life a living hell for a lot of people.
> 
> Ditto for immigration.  I went to work for an immigration law office because I had to get all sides of the issue.  What I've stated on this thread is not my opinion, it is the way the law is interpreted and enforced.  The Executive Office for Immigration Review reviews, interprets the statutes and applies the laws in regards to the immigration laws.  It is overseen by the Attorney General, appointed by the president and working within the Dept. of Justice.
> 
> The problem here is that immigration is not illegal; it is only improper.  We demand a _"proper_" way to enter, but for MILLIONS, we do not provide that proper mechanism. Let me explain:
> 
> We have a host of visas.  All of the specify a type of person they apply to (temporary agricultural worker, student, etc.):
> 
> Types of Visas for Temporary Visitors
> 
> For MILLIONS those visas don't apply.  So, the *Guest Worker* must either LIE or they simply cross the border and work.  The visa system is half a century old and simply doesn't anticipate the reasons people come here.  Furthermore, those people do NOT want to become citizens.  I know this is hard to understand, but the Hispanics do not have a comprehension of our laws that you could relate to.
> 
> In Mexico, for example, avoiding the cops and playing games is a cost of doing business.  The Mexican government prints comic books, teaching the Hispanics how to avoid detection by our authorities.  Once here, avoiding the system and having to pay the fines is just a game, not the kind of activity that rises to _"criminal_" intent. So, how do we handle the issue?  The way you answer that is to answer what happened in the past.  That kind of testifies against my critics on this board.  So, let me repeat something to you:
> 
> _Several months ago talk show host, Neal Boortz, told his audience about a historical study he did. Boortz divided our nation's history into* NINE* time periods of 25 years (from the start of our nation to the current time.) Each of those 25 year periods represents the working lifetime of a person.
> 
> According to Boortz, he credited the Republicans and their tax initiatives for America's most prosperous of those time periods. And Boortz said that between *1982 and 2007 was the time period when America had the most jobs, we made the most money, paid the fewest taxes and had the most in assets*.
> 
> In *1986*, Newswatch Magazine reported that, according to official immigration authorities, the United States had an estimated* 10 MILLION* people in the United States without papers AND an additional *TWO MILLION* coming in each year. AND between *1986 and 2000*, the United States granted SEVEN AMNESTIES!
> 
> What I want to know is HOW did the United States have its most prosperous years in an era where we* started out with 10 MILLION* people here without papers,* two million *more entering annually,* 10 percent unemployment, "open borders*," AND *SEVEN AMNESTIES*  and lived the best years of our lives and* reduced unemployment by more than 50 percent? *BTW, the relative numbers haven't changed in population growth nor in the numbers of people here without papers. Okay guys, we need an answer_."
> 
> Despite all the numbers, the number of undocumented Guest Workers has not changed dramatically in a quarter of a century.  It should tell you: they don't want to become citizens.  So, why not create that class of Guest Workers without an automatic path to citizenship and those who come here, so with the knowledge that they nor any potential child will automatically become a U.S. citizen?  Why this constant pissing match with allegations _"they broke our laws_" when the evidence is, they never intended to break any freaking law.  According to the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of those in the U.S. without papers apply for Taxpayer Identification Numbers and pay the taxes.  If they're willingly paying taxes and they don't have a criminal record, where is the proof they intended to break a law?
> 
> WE hang a Welcome mat out that invites the poor here; we talk this game about Liberty and* unalienable Rights*, but once we take people up on the offer, we have National Socialists pitching a hissy fit with the inference that only citizens are due *unalienable Rights*.  You can't stop immigrants from coming.  You can pass draconian laws that will ultimately result in tyranny followed by amnesty, but you cannot stop immigration.
> 
> The better avenue is to regulate it.  The methods being used today are costing the lives of people on *YOUR* side of this issue.  I should know.  I came from YOUR side of the political fence and nearly lost my life due to one of those laws the anti - immigrants passed... and you cannot understand that bad laws that cost lives motivate me to speak out.  Look, if you want to petition Congress and declare war against Mexico, more power to you.  If you want to take my Liberties or the Liberties of others, I will fight you to the bitter end - and I don't give a damn who the other group is I have to defend nor whether I like them or not.
Click to expand...


My response to you was being lost in the maze of posts by one person in three personages.


----------



## High_Gravity

BuddyColt said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the surface, it seems like a rather simple issue: Immigrate legally. Right Buddy? You aren't advocating FOR illegal activities, are you? I am sure you mean well. So do the rest of us. On your first post, you say that nobody is guilty until proven innocent, which would imply even YOU might think there is a possibility...that illegals are criminals. Or did I miss something? Anyway, I do want to segue here:  The INS enforces Federal laws.  Prior to 2003, it was a  a branch of the the US Dept. of Justice.  That should say something right there. Right now, this issue isn't as clear as it should be.  Local Police officers are being advised to avoid focusing on immigration scofflaws "to enhance public safety", as "immigrant" (?) community residents might see them as deportation agents.... State law enforcement officers used to cooperate fully with federal officials. Illegal immigration IS a federal offense, but it isn't necessarily a local criminal infraction ...That is the problem here, WE all have to iron this out. I don't want cops ignoring illegal aliens and I don't want this problem of 12 million illegals swept under the rug because it's expedient  politicaly or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL. I don't know what you're getting at, so hear me out and please read everything here.  It will be* WELL* worth your time.
> 
> In a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic such as we are guaranteed in the Constitution, every person is* presumed innocent* until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
> 
> This is something we don't want to do for people that are being labeled as "_illegal_" aliens.  The first problem here is that repeating a lie can make it appear true.  For instance, the liberals call semi automatic firearms "_assault weapons_."  In reality an assault weapon is a firearm capable of semi automatic and fully automatic fire.  A semi auto look-a-like rifle is simply NOT an _assault weapon_, but the lie has set precedents that have made life a living hell for a lot of people.
> 
> Ditto for immigration.  I went to work for an immigration law office because I had to get all sides of the issue.  What I've stated on this thread is not my opinion, it is the way the law is interpreted and enforced.  The Executive Office for Immigration Review reviews, interprets the statutes and applies the laws in regards to the immigration laws.  It is overseen by the Attorney General, appointed by the president and working within the Dept. of Justice.
> 
> The problem here is that immigration is not illegal; it is only improper.  We demand a _"proper_" way to enter, but for MILLIONS, we do not provide that proper mechanism. Let me explain:
> 
> We have a host of visas.  All of the specify a type of person they apply to (temporary agricultural worker, student, etc.):
> 
> Types of Visas for Temporary Visitors
> 
> For MILLIONS those visas don't apply.  So, the *Guest Worker* must either LIE or they simply cross the border and work.  The visa system is half a century old and simply doesn't anticipate the reasons people come here.  Furthermore, those people do NOT want to become citizens.  I know this is hard to understand, but the Hispanics do not have a comprehension of our laws that you could relate to.
> 
> In Mexico, for example, avoiding the cops and playing games is a cost of doing business.  The Mexican government prints comic books, teaching the Hispanics how to avoid detection by our authorities.  Once here, avoiding the system and having to pay the fines is just a game, not the kind of activity that rises to _"criminal_" intent. So, how do we handle the issue?  The way you answer that is to answer what happened in the past.  That kind of testifies against my critics on this board.  So, let me repeat something to you:
> 
> _Several months ago talk show host, Neal Boortz, told his audience about a historical study he did. Boortz divided our nation's history into* NINE* time periods of 25 years (from the start of our nation to the current time.) Each of those 25 year periods represents the working lifetime of a person.
> 
> According to Boortz, he credited the Republicans and their tax initiatives for America's most prosperous of those time periods. And Boortz said that between *1982 and 2007 was the time period when America had the most jobs, we made the most money, paid the fewest taxes and had the most in assets*.
> 
> In *1986*, Newswatch Magazine reported that, according to official immigration authorities, the United States had an estimated* 10 MILLION* people in the United States without papers AND an additional *TWO MILLION* coming in each year. AND between *1986 and 2000*, the United States granted SEVEN AMNESTIES!
> 
> What I want to know is HOW did the United States have its most prosperous years in an era where we* started out with 10 MILLION* people here without papers,* two million *more entering annually,* 10 percent unemployment, "open borders*," AND *SEVEN AMNESTIES*  and lived the best years of our lives and* reduced unemployment by more than 50 percent? *BTW, the relative numbers haven't changed in population growth nor in the numbers of people here without papers. Okay guys, we need an answer_."
> 
> Despite all the numbers, the number of undocumented Guest Workers has not changed dramatically in a quarter of a century.  It should tell you: they don't want to become citizens.  So, why not create that class of Guest Workers without an automatic path to citizenship and those who come here, so with the knowledge that they nor any potential child will automatically become a U.S. citizen?  Why this constant pissing match with allegations _"they broke our laws_" when the evidence is, they never intended to break any freaking law.  According to the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of those in the U.S. without papers apply for Taxpayer Identification Numbers and pay the taxes.  If they're willingly paying taxes and they don't have a criminal record, where is the proof they intended to break a law?
> 
> WE hang a Welcome mat out that invites the poor here; we talk this game about Liberty and* unalienable Rights*, but once we take people up on the offer, we have National Socialists pitching a hissy fit with the inference that only citizens are due *unalienable Rights*.  You can't stop immigrants from coming.  You can pass draconian laws that will ultimately result in tyranny followed by amnesty, but you cannot stop immigration.
> 
> The better avenue is to regulate it.  The methods being used today are costing the lives of people on *YOUR* side of this issue.  I should know.  I came from YOUR side of the political fence and nearly lost my life due to one of those laws the anti - immigrants passed... and you cannot understand that bad laws that cost lives motivate me to speak out.  Look, if you want to petition Congress and declare war against Mexico, more power to you.  If you want to take my Liberties or the Liberties of others, I will fight you to the bitter end - and I don't give a damn who the other group is I have to defend nor whether I like them or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to you was being lost in the maze of posts by one person in three personages.
Click to expand...


Put the crack pipe down when I'm talkin to you woman.


----------



## Unkotare

BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Are you a tough-guy? Are you a fucking psycho?


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Are you a tough-guy? Are you a fucking psycho?



He is a La Raza Freedom Fighter/KKK Member/Nation of Islam/Homosexual Rights Activist.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Are you a tough-guy? Are you a fucking psycho?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a La Raza Freedom Fighter/KKK Member/Nation of Islam/Homosexual Rights Activist.
Click to expand...



And that's just during the weekends!


----------



## Liability

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Are you a tough-guy? Are you a fucking psycho?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a La Raza Freedom Fighter/KKK Member/Nation of Islam/Homosexual Rights Activist.
Click to expand...


La Raza is Spanish for "fucking cock bites."  Right?


----------



## High_Gravity

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Are you a tough-guy? Are you a fucking psycho?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a La Raza Freedom Fighter/KKK Member/Nation of Islam/Homosexual Rights Activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> La Raza is Spanish for "fucking cock bites."  Right?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## MaryL

I bring up the legal case of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984). Criminal or not, Civil offense or not, the defendant was DEPORTED and that was held as a civil issue, and deportation was held not to be punitive....


----------



## Zoom-boing

Don't know when buttercup got banned but tff that he completely and totally ignores Liability in the last several pages.  Poor, poor little cave dwelling buttercup.


----------



## MaryL

BuddyColt was banned? Saw that one coming. All those red stars, but I feel bad for the guy. This guy made me search long and hard to support my beliefs.  Hate to say it, we need people like him...


----------



## Catalist

MaryL said:


> BuddyColt was banned? Saw that one coming. All those red stars, but I feel bad for the guy. This guy made me search long and hard to support my beliefs.  Hate to say it, we need people like him...



Apparently, prior to Wednesday Buddy Colt sent me a PM, and challenged me to move to another site to debate illegal immigration.  He stated he had been banned from many sites for his views on illegal immigration.  I wrote him a PM indicating, I was not that interested in the topic, and that government has funded $120,000,000 for a "bug zapper" type radar, crowd control device that is being tested in a mobile version in Afghanistan.  The intent is to install this "electronic fence" across our border.





Buddy Colt was mostly big talk, but when I tried to send the PM, it indicated Buddy was no longer available.  It has been my experience that those who make a lot of noise supporting illegals are quite close to the illegal community, and mainly want to keep tax dollars flowing to illegals.  People like this are supporting freeloaders and milking tax payers.  I compliment moderators for banning Buddy Colt. 

The last thing we need in an American website is foreigners pumping propaganda into our discussions to advocate their freeloading politics.  This guy was trying to turn a law enforcement problem into a human rights issue.  Good riddance.


----------



## MaryL

Catalist said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt was banned? Saw that one coming. All those red stars, but I feel bad for the guy. This guy made me search long and hard to support my beliefs.  Hate to say it, we need people like him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, prior to Wednesday Buddy Colt sent me a PM, and challenged me to move to another site to debate illegal immigration.  I wrote a PM indicating, I was not that interested in the topic, and that government has funded $120,000,000 for a "bug zapper" type radar, crowd control device that is being tested in a mobile version in Afghanistan.  The intent is to install this "electronic fence" across our border.
> 
> Buddy Colt was mostly big talk, but when I tried to send the PM, it indicated Buddy was no longer available.  It has been my experience that those who make a lot of noise on this subject are quite close to the illegal community, and mainly want to keep tax dollars flowing to illegals.  People like this are supporting freeloaders and milking tax payers.  I compliment moderators for banning Buddy Colt.  This guy was trying to turn a law enforcement problem into a human rights issue.  Good riddance.
Click to expand...


I didn't have much use for  him either. I looked long and hard about illegals. Buddy Colt did that.  Kudos for him. I learned  Illegal  aliens get deported even if this is a civil issue, SO  that  doesn't matter here one way or the other. Illegals get deported,  one way or the other. It makes little difference what they are classified as.  His point here is forever lost...Whatever THAT means.


----------



## Catalist

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> BloodyDolt, are you an attorney? Are you a tough-guy? Are you a fucking psycho?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a La Raza Freedom Fighter/KKK Member/Nation of Islam/Homosexual Rights Activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> La Raza is Spanish for "fucking cock bites."  Right?
Click to expand...


La Raza is a legally registered lobbyist in the United States that promotes illegal immigration.  Please do not take these illegals lightly, 12,000,000 of them have already _invaded_ the United States after we were kind enough to allow them to enter our nation as migrant workers.  They not only think they are entitled to a piece of the American pie, they are demanding Anglos leave among other things.  

This in spite of the fact that in the 1840s after the Mexican-American War we forgave their debts and paid them $18,000,000 for our southern border as it now stands.  One could make a pretty good argument that these wetbacks are treasonous to America. 

We need to get American military out of Afghanistan and down to our southern border.  Mexican drug cartels have killed 50,000 since Filip Calderon became president of Mexico, and their problems are spilling into the United States.  Incarceration with deportation is the logical answer.


----------



## Unkotare

You are that guy who was banned before, aren't you? Repeating the same posts over and over, obsessed with posting oversized pics, it all seems very familiar. Maybe some mod should run an IP check.


----------



## Catalist

MaryL said:


> Catalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> BuddyColt was banned? Saw that one coming. All those red stars, but I feel bad for the guy. This guy made me search long and hard to support my beliefs.  Hate to say it, we need people like him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, prior to Wednesday Buddy Colt sent me a PM, and challenged me to move to another site to debate illegal immigration.  I wrote a PM indicating, I was not that interested in the topic, and that government has funded $120,000,000 for a "bug zapper" type radar, crowd control device that is being tested in a mobile version in Afghanistan.  The intent is to install this "electronic fence" across our border.
> 
> Buddy Colt was mostly big talk, but when I tried to send the PM, it indicated Buddy was no longer available.  It has been my experience that those who make a lot of noise on this subject are quite close to the illegal community, and mainly want to keep tax dollars flowing to illegals.  People like this are supporting freeloaders and milking tax payers.  I compliment moderators for banning Buddy Colt.  This guy was trying to turn a law enforcement problem into a human rights issue.  Good riddance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have much use for  him either. I looked long and hard about illegals. Buddy Colt did that.  Kudos for him. I learned  Illegal  aliens get deported even if this is a civil issue, SO  that  doesn't matter here one way or the other. Illegals get deported,  one way or the other. It makes little difference what they are classified as.  His point here is forever lost...Whatever THAT means.
Click to expand...


The government has solutions to illegal immigration in the works.  Only two facts need be remembered here.  First, illegal immigrants entered the United States illegally.  They were given no physical or mental examinations, there were no criminal record searches, they were not required to learn English, and they bring their Mexican slums with them.

Second, these 12,000,000 invaders cost American taxpayers *$113 BILLION a year* for education, welfare and health care.  There is no such thing as "cheap labor."  We are spending nearly as much on illegals as we do on the War in Afghanistan.  We simply can not afford these freeloaders any more.

We have this problem because we have not cleaned house as we used to do under Eisenhower, Truman, and Hoover.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback  Bottom line; call Orkin and get these filthy cock roaches out of our country.  One does not need a four year degree to understand this law enforcement issue.  This issue is a political distraction, America has plans to clean house permanently.


----------



## Unkotare

How long until the mods figure out who you are?


----------



## MaryL

Catalist,  you have solutions. I have solutions. We agree. But our collective Government? I think they have something  else in mind. I stopped voting years ago.  They stopped listening to US long ago. I have thought about this, about seeking  a lawyer for a class action suit  against the federal government for  their ineptitude  enforcing  federal immigration laws. That deserves some thought, don't you think?


----------



## Unkotare

If you don't vote, Mary, then you need to shut the fuck up because you are irrelevant.


----------



## Catalist

Unkotare said:


> How long until the mods figure out who you are?



I presume this remark is intended for me.  I have watched you spread your propaganda in this website unhampered.  While this issue is of interest to me, it is not it is not as important as it is to the freeloaders you appear to support.

You are in a Tea Party site where my views are in the majority.  Here is a brief video proclaiming the results of a Rasmussen poll from 2009.  I think you will find that if you took the poll today the numbers would be much higher.  You are a bright guy, I think you can figure out that wetbacks are not welcome in the United States.  This is not a negotiation, this is deportation with incarceration.  The freeloaders are on their way out, and the facts to support that are abundant, and all over the internet.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXECieJvPKs]Poll Shows Americans Against Illegal Immigration - YouTube[/ame]

1).  67% of Americans in 2009 believed there should be police raids on locations, (Home Depot) where illegals congregate.

2).  79% of Americans in 2009 believed the U. S. military should be sent to the border if drug violence continues.

3).  61% of Americans in 2009 believed we should complete a fence across the entire U. S./Mexico border.

4).  73% of Americans believed citizenship should be checked during traffic stops.

Your tactics of twisting the facts are not going to work in this web site.  Members here are quite well informed about the facts.  This concludes what I have to say about this issue.  There is no need for further discussion, the U. S. Government has planned and funded measures to make the immigration problem go away in a very few years.


----------



## Catalist

Just as a footnote, you might want to turn off your computer for a time, and look into getting a life.  Your stats show you make 1,144 posts per month, about 38 a day.   Looks like internet fatigue to me!


----------



## Catalist

MaryL said:


> Catalist,  you have solutions. I have solutions. We agree. But our collective Government? I think they have something  else in mind. I stopped voting years ago.  They stopped listening to US long ago. I have thought about this, about seeking  a lawyer for a class action suit  against the federal government for  their ineptitude  enforcing  federal immigration laws. That deserves some thought, don't you think?





Unkotare said:


> If you don't vote, Mary, then you need to shut the fuck up because you are irrelevant.



As unorthodox as this may sound, I am going with Unkotare on this one.  People who do not vote lose their right to complain.


----------



## Unkotare

Catalist said:


> You are in a Tea Party site where my views are in the majority.






Say what now?


----------



## Catalist

Unkotare said:


> Catalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in a Tea Party site where my views are in the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say what now?
Click to expand...


I notice you have entirely overlooked my Rasmussen Poll information, as you prefer personal attacks on Americans who demand respect for our borders.  On this planet this is the norm.  Here are the facts country by country.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

Apparently, you missed the poll in this thread.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/224983-now-we-know-its-the-tea-partys-fault-4.html#post5385011  Evidently you have a problem with Tea Party politics.  38 posts a day, and you did not figure this out?  Apparently, you prefer to post in threads rather than read them.

I notice you did not take my input that 38 posts per day is a tad excessive.  You should consider getting a life, instead of posting self-absorbed messages supporting freeloaders.


----------



## Unkotare

If you expect anyone to know what the fuck you are talking about you are likely to be disappointed. Maybe you should go be crazy somewhere else.


----------



## Unkotare

Oh, and if you have any other stupid conclusions to reach you might read this entire thread first, idiot.


----------



## Catalist

Unkotare said:


> If you expect anyone to know what the fuck you are talking about you are likely to be disappointed. Maybe you should go be crazy somewhere else.





Unkotare said:


> Oh, and if you have any other stupid conclusions to reach you might read this entire thread first, idiot.



Struck a nerve.  Good.  My work is done here.


----------



## Unkotare

Catalist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect anyone to know what the fuck you are talking about you are likely to be disappointed. Maybe you should go be crazy somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and if you have any other stupid conclusions to reach you might read this entire thread first, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Struck a nerve.  Good.  My work is done here.
Click to expand...




You would really need to make it clear what the fuck you are talking about if you hope to strike a nerve. Better hurry up before that IP check is run.


----------



## Unkotare

And you still haven't even read this thread, I see.


----------



## Unkotare

And.................bye-bye


----------



## High_Gravity

MaryL said:


> BuddyColt was banned? Saw that one coming. All those red stars, but I feel bad for the guy. This guy made me search long and hard to support my beliefs.  Hate to say it, we need people like him...



Um no, we DEFINENTLY don't need more retards like him.


----------

