# How can one take a stand against illegal immigration or force local politicians to?



## BrokeLoser (Mar 4, 2018)

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 4, 2018)

You can take a stand on anything you want. You can’t force anyone else into that stand.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 4, 2018)

SavannahMann said:


> You can take a stand on anything you want. You can’t force anyone else into that stand.



That’s brilliant....any ideas?


----------



## harmonica (Mar 4, 2018)

STOP it or we will take care of it ourselves


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 4, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.


You take a stand by saying you arent going to stand for it anymore. However, you might get your ass kicked like those losers did from the confederacy.


----------



## Patric Paramedic (Mar 4, 2018)

Broke Loser - As a veteran Paramedic, I've asked at least a dozen politicians - the most recent being former L.A. Mayor Tony Villaraigosa 0 why they won't spend a 24-hour ride-along shift with a Paramedic team in South San Diego? Then I handed them my phone number.

They each - every single one - smiled and said, "I'd really like to do that."

No, they really don't. Because if they did, they might have to try to explain why 85 emergency rooms have closed. just in California alone. And they would cower in the corner of the ambulance at the mere sight of who - exactly - is responsible for most of the blood-letting on our streets - night after night after night.

Here's a question for your favorite politician, and one I personally asked Tony V (who may well be our next Governor):

When is the last time you heard about a Vietnamese or a Japanese drive-by shooting in L.A.?

Dear Broke Loser: don't hold your breath for a logical answer.


----------



## hazlnut (Mar 4, 2018)

It's been declining all on it's own since 2008.

Only hire contractors with pay-rolled employees to work on your house.

Make the penalty for hiring undocumented workers and paying them under the table punishable by death or life in prison.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 4, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.
> ...



I seriously doubt that...I wear a bright red Make America Great Again hat everyday to the ghettos and barrios where I have building projects going. I try to provoke the filthy cockroaches...they’re scared little bitches...they won’t engage. I’m 6’4” 260lbs...the common cockroach is 5’6” 120lbs....I like physics and my odds.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 4, 2018)

Patric Paramedic said:


> Broke Loser - As a veteran Paramedic, I've asked at least a dozen politicians - the most recent being former L.A. Mayor Tony Villaraigosa 0 why they won't spend a 24-hour ride-along shift with a Paramedic team in South San Diego? Then I handed them my phone number.
> 
> They each - every single one - smiled and said, "I'd really like to do that."
> 
> ...



Haha...sad but true. It’s an awfully bizarre situation. Everyone sane is fully aware of the negative impact that illegals have on our society, yet no one but Trump has the balls to do something about it. 
Good points, and thanks for illustrating the decency of the Japanese and Vietnamese.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.



again, talk to your fellow white people who hire them to pick their lettuce and clean their toilets and watch their kids.


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 4, 2018)

*Pull ICE and DHS out of the state of California completely.
Warn the people first, but DO IT.
Allow it to go lawless.
Deport all ILLEGALS to the state of California.
Stop ALL federal benefit coverage for things like emergency room care for ILLEGALS.
Should take just one summer to get the results you need.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2018)

DarkFury said:


> Pull ICE and DHS out of the state of California completely.
> Warn the people first, but DO IT.
> Allow it to go lawless.
> Deport all ILLEGALS to the state of California.
> ...



Um, Dork Furby, CA sends more to Washington than they get back.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 4, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> > Pull ICE and DHS out of the state of California completely.
> ...



Not always true...who paid for the floods and fires?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Not always true...who paid for the floods and fires?



doesn't matter.  The point is, taxpayers in CA are subsizing more in other states than they are getting back.


----------



## Slade3200 (Mar 4, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...


Sounds like you are an antagonistic douchebag looking for a fight. Could do with less of your types in this country


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 4, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...


I seriously doubt you go to the ghettos everyday much less wear a MAGA hat like the school shooter. Your confederate loser heroes had delusions of grandeur like you and you see what happened to them after they started believing their own press clippings right?


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 5, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Those Confederates wanted to keep saving your people from dying in Africa, they wanted to keep extending an opportunity for Africans to come to America. Imagine how many more lives would have been spared had they got their way.
Where would you be today had it not been for the folks that brought your people here?


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 5, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...


They only wanted Africans to come here so they could continue making money off them. If the losers had gotten their way millions of more Africans would have died in the bottom of ships or at the hands of inbred cave monkeys like the confederates were.

I would be in Africa loving life if my people werent brought here.


----------



## impuretrash (Mar 5, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



You would have never been born.


----------



## Asclepias (Mar 5, 2018)

impuretrash said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...


How can you prove that?


----------



## MikeK (Mar 5, 2018)

Patric Paramedic said:


> Broke Loser - As a veteran Paramedic, I've asked at least a dozen politicians - the most recent being former L.A. Mayor Tony Villaraigosa 0 why they won't spend a 24-hour ride-along shift with a Paramedic team in South San Diego? Then I handed them my phone number.
> 
> They each - every single one - smiled and said, "I'd really like to do that."
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## MikeK (Mar 5, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> again, talk to your fellow white people who hire them to pick their lettuce and clean their toilets and watch their kids.


You've raised an important issue.  But the presence of temporary _day-help_ would be easily controllable by establishing and properly maintaining a biometric citizen ID system to prevent employment of illegals and enable the regulated presence of "carded" day workers.


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> > Pull ICE and DHS out of the state of California completely.
> ...


*CalPers will require 100 % of every tax dollar taken in and still be short! They carry a lot of their debt off book thus your statement is a lie.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 6, 2018)

MikeK said:


> You've raised an important issue. But the presence of temporary _day-help_ would be easily controllable by establishing and properly maintaining a biometric citizen ID system to prevent employment of illegals and enable the regulated presence of "carded" day workers.



Oh, I agree, a national ID card system would be great.  But we'd never do that because the Libertarian Wing of the GOP would be seeing black UN helicopters or some such shit. 

That said, the people who are determined to cheat working Americans out of money will try to find a way around it, unless you really enforce it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 6, 2018)

DarkFury said:


> CalPers will require 100 % of every tax dollar taken in and still be short! They carry a lot of their debt off book thus your statement is a lie.



Um, no.  You really don't know what you are talking about, Dork Furby. 

The Blue states carry the red states.  We have the industry and the economic activity, not the states where Cleetus marries his cousin, Betty Sue.


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> > CalPers will require 100 % of every tax dollar taken in and still be short! They carry a lot of their debt off book thus your statement is a lie.
> ...


*You better look up CalPers on the net idiot. It will be technically insolvent in June of this year. william the wie 
Can bring you up to date on that.*


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2018)

You overestimated how ready, willing and able I am to go crawling through the CalPers sewer.

85 Emergency room closures in CA just posted and linked by Patric Paramedic on another thread I'm following.

Adjusted for the 30% tax bracket the 10 year treasury yields only 60% as much as CA's top rated debt.

I don't know about you but I haven't seen or heard any of the usual propaganda about "everyone is rebuilding." to cover up for the fact that U-Haul charges nearly double for outgoing trucks v. incoming trucks in CA.

If yield whores didn't make crack whores seem picky CA would have gone into default long ago.

And in summary only raiding CalPers funds is keeping CA out of default.


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 6, 2018)

william the wie said:


> You overestimated how ready, willing and able I am to go crawling through the CalPers sewer.
> 
> 85 Emergency room closures in CA just posted and linked by Silhouette on another thread I'm following.
> 
> ...


*Truck fees are 185% higher for leaving California. California has a off book debt ratio much higher. Many California residents that are retired are moving to no take States where laws force unions to keep their promises on benefits.*


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2018)

I was using the Austin TX numbers. If you are using the AZ numbers as I suspect then the SOCAL real estate market is in really bad shape. didn't that premium used to be a lot higher back in 2015?


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2018)

DarkFury said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > You overestimated how ready, willing and able I am to go crawling through the CalPers sewer.
> ...





DarkFury said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > You overestimated how ready, willing and able I am to go crawling through the CalPers sewer.
> ...


 I doubt that will work on CalPers because of 10th Amendment and the relevant unions are flat broke due to legislation in another state. What will work is public service union strikes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2018)

DarkFury said:


> You better look up CalPers on the net idiot. It will be technically insolvent in June of this year. william the wie
> Can bring you up to date on that.



That's one program... you miss the point entirely. 

You just aren't very smart, are you?


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 7, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> > You better look up CalPers on the net idiot. It will be technically insolvent in June of this year. william the wie
> ...


*That one program carries more debt than all the money the state takes in idiot! All of it, they just cut Union benefits by 63% illegally to make any type of payment. Maybe you should study up on public debt load moron.*


----------



## william the wie (Mar 7, 2018)

the yield on the 10 year treasury is eroding and I am getting vibes that at least some blue state munis are dropping in price. I kind of doubt that intelligence because yield whores never show that much sense.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 7, 2018)

My money is on a further collapse of public services before any of the big five, CA, IL, MA, NJ & NY, go into default and followed how quickly and by how many is anyone's guess.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben (Mar 7, 2018)

Patric Paramedic said:


> Broke Loser - As a veteran Paramedic, I've asked at least a dozen politicians - the most recent being former L.A. Mayor Tony Villaraigosa 0 why they won't spend a 24-hour ride-along shift with a Paramedic team in South San Diego? Then I handed them my phone number.
> 
> They each - every single one - smiled and said, "I'd really like to do that."
> 
> ...


Good old Southbay San Diego...how is that shithole these days?  My condolence. Glad I left.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2018)

DarkFury said:


> That one program carries more debt than all the money the state takes in idiot! All of it, they just cut Union benefits by 63% illegally to make any type of payment. Maybe you should study up on public debt load moron.



Why, you guys always exaggerate it... to justify tax cuts for rich people. 

"Their debt is unsustainable if we go out 50 years!!!"


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 8, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> > That one program carries more debt than all the money the state takes in idiot! All of it, they just cut Union benefits by 63% illegally to make any type of payment. Maybe you should study up on public debt load moron.
> ...


*How many car payments you going to make idiot when your mortgage takes 100% of your check?*


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2018)

DarkFury said:


> How many car payments you going to make idiot when your mortgage takes 100% of your check?



Again, you're babbling....  

So you are going to give back your Trump Tax cut to pay down the 20 Trillion debt, right?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 21, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > You can take a stand on anything you want. You can’t force anyone else into that stand.
> ...



Your representative is “supposed” to vote according to their constituents, that’s not always the case with regard to those in D,C. ... especially in regards to illegal or undocumented immigrants. 

Now California would not object to using illegal immigrants to increase its representation in the House under Congress.  You may not know this, but when it comes to the census there is nothing to differentiate the U.S. citizen from one who is here illegally.  All those living within the boundary of the United States gets counted.  This is why, with regards to DACA, there is no exact count as to how many fit into that description except for those who make it known to the government.

The state of Texas is changing their state run election to the electoral college, a rather good decision to combat the flow of illegal immigrants in seeking our nation’s benefits as well as a desire for representation.  Again representation is based on “people residing within the state”, not a count of U.S. citizenship.  No more will cities overwhelmingly dictate state legislative policy, but those rural suburbs will have equal say and representation.   Our best hope is to start on the state level, even make the case for a state electoral college with your local representative.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 21, 2018)

hazlnut said:


> It's been declining all on it's own since 2008.
> 
> Only hire contractors with pay-rolled employees to work on your house.
> 
> Make the penalty for hiring undocumented workers and paying them under the table punishable by death or life in prison.



So what exactly is Libby Schaaf’s excuse? Either we protect and allow illegal (undocumented workers) to stay contrary to our federal immigration law, or we indeed enforce a penalty on those who don’t enforce it.  Does she qualify for your life in prison or death penalty proposal? What penalty do you propose for those in a position meant to enforce federal law?


----------



## MikeK (Mar 21, 2018)

Considering the damage Illegal immigration can do, with particular emphasis on the dangerously aggressive type of illegals presently pouring in from the Middle East, any elected official who will not act to eliminate this invasive threat may be regarded as *treasonous* to the fundamental interests of the Nation and must be promptly removed from office -- regardless of _any other_ consideration.  It is important that those of us who understand the nature of the threat these illegal Muslims pose to our Country make every possible effort to *educate those who do not understand it* and to convince them to vote the treacherous pro-immigrant politicians out.

Again -- this is critically *important!*


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 21, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Why do you refer to “confederate losers” when the Hillarywing of the Democratic Party still holds those beliefs...they have ever brought the idea of nullification back as their response to illegal immigration!  The Hillarybots are disgusting 
.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2018)

MikeK said:


> Considering the damage Illegal immigration can do, with particular emphasis on the dangerously aggressive type of illegals presently pouring in from the Middle East, any elected official who will not act to eliminate this invasive threat may be regarded as *treasonous* to the fundamental interests of the Nation and must be promptly removed from office -- regardless of _any other_ consideration. It is important that those of us who understand the nature of the threat these illegal Muslims pose to our Country make every possible effort to *educate those who do not understand it* and to convince them to vote the treacherous pro-immigrant politicians out.



Ooooh, there's a scary Muslim hiding under your bed, right now.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 21, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.


Applied Capitalism not Applied Socialism!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the damage Illegal immigration can do, with particular emphasis on the dangerously aggressive type of illegals presently pouring in from the Middle East, any elected official who will not act to eliminate this invasive threat may be regarded as *treasonous* to the fundamental interests of the Nation and must be promptly removed from office -- regardless of _any other_ consideration. It is important that those of us who understand the nature of the threat these illegal Muslims pose to our Country make every possible effort to *educate those who do not understand it* and to convince them to vote the treacherous pro-immigrant politicians out.
> ...



Every nation has a right to defend its own borders.  Just exactly where in the Constitution does it state that we HAVE to accept immigrants (or even refugees for that matter) from all parts of the world, particularly from those known areas where terrorists have built a strongholds and actively look for means to infiltrate our country.

Do we need another 9-11 because some are too thickheaded, or just lacking in intelligence to know we need protective measures in place to protect our own citizens?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Every nation has a right to defend its own borders. Just exactly where in the Constitution does it state that we HAVE to accept immigrants (or even refugees for that matter) from all parts of the world, particularly from those known areas where terrorists have built a strongholds and actively look for means to infiltrate our country.



Hey, guy, when we stop arming terrorists, we probably won't have a problem with them anymore.  WE armed Saddam. WE armed Bin Laden. WE armed the assholes who killed those folks in Benghazi.  

Which has nothing to do with how to rework our immigration laws.  The 9/11 hijackers got in here legally on student visas because the Saudis fucking OWN us.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 23, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.



Why do so many people fret over so - called "_illegal immigration_"  when it is actually a symptom of a much deeper disease?

The American people have, of their own free will and volition, created the symptoms whereby they demand the government help save them from themselves.  The more you demand the government do something, the more they will reduce your Rights and attack your Liberties until you have nothing left.

And, as they do that, you come closer to having the United States Supreme Court make the final decision as to how to best handle the situation.  If you let them decide, you are not going to like what they have to say.

The best place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm.  You don't need the government to resolve this issue.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 23, 2018)

A simple fee or fine can ensure all foreign nationals in the US, have a federal id.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 23, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



The Constitution is very limited in the role it can play toward foreigners.  For example, Article 1, Section 8 states:

"_To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization_"

What the Constitution* does not say *is that people have to become citizens in order to conduct business in the United States.  What the Constitution *does not say* is that we have to extend the privileges and benefits of citizenship to non-citizens.  Yet the right demands that all foreigners become citizens and the left gives the foreigners the same benefits and privileges of citizenship.

It's dishonest to claim that foreigners are _"invading_" because *over half *of America is willingly doing business with those who are undocumented.  That makes them, for all intents and purposes, invitees.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> A simple fee or fine can ensure all foreign nationals in the US, have a federal id.



Bumper sticker slogans for solutions are what is responsible for the demise of the Republic.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 23, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > A simple fee or fine can ensure all foreign nationals in the US, have a federal id.
> ...


No faith in capitalism?


----------



## Humorme (Mar 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I think the system *IS* working.  Over half of America is on drugs, be it legal or illegal.  The government starts out with treating children for absolutely bogus conditions like ADD / ADHD.  So the child is introduced to Ritalin.   From there, children are taught they need SSRIs / opioids because their lives are so bad they can't cope.  Then the children lose their insurance or decide to self medicate.

So, we have a government and their constituency that is so freaking stupid that they want to criminalize drugs after they just spent years creating the addicts.  Foreigners take advantage of the situation by importing drugs.  And the bulk of Americans, so stupid from the effects of drugs, they cannot figure this equation out:

Once you've created the addict, you either legalize drugs, cease and desist creating addicts, *OR* accept the fact that drugs are going to come in the U.S. via the border.

The addicts, *unable and unwilling* to work, leave a void whereby foreign laborers come in and do the job.  Even if you got rid of the foreigners, it won't make an addict clean and it won't give them a clean criminal record.  Adding insult to injury, even if an addict cleans up their act, we have a nation of dumb asses that rely on background checks and we have no second chances nor do we believe in redemption.  So that half of America, most likely are not returning to work.

Then we blame all of this on foreigners and want to punish them for the conditions our own people created - *AND REFUSE TO DEAL WITH*.  It's easier to blame the foreigners, but the practice means that the people are willing to forfeit their* unalienable* Rights and Liberties instead of addressing the root cause of their problems.  I'm not willing to give up my Rights so that nit wits can get laws passed to screw with the foreigners - all of whom are simply taking advantage of the situation the American people created for themselves.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 23, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




I'm just not into that Orwellian crap.  I don't like the fact that I'm required to have such an ID where the government can track everything we do from the womb to the tomb, 24 / 7 / 365. 

Heaven forbid the government do a complete takeover and try to tyrannize all of us.  Due to the inability to mount any opposition because Uncle Scam knows *everything* about us we'd never be able to mount a resistance.

Unless you want something from Uncle Scam (i.e. money, an education, healthcare at taxpayer expense, etc.)  then ID serves little purpose.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 23, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


are you a foreign national in the US?  if not, don't whine about it, be Patriotic.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



"_No man can put a chain about the ankleof his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck_."  Frederick Douglas, former slave

"..._in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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*, _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Every nation has a right to defend its own borders. Just exactly where in the Constitution does it state that we HAVE to accept immigrants (or even refugees for that matter) from all parts of the world, particularly from those known areas where terrorists have built a strongholds and actively look for means to infiltrate our country.
> ...



Show me a link where it shows the United States arming all the worlds terrorists. That’s the most idiotic post I’ve seen for not enforcing our borders, and setting immigration restrictions.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 24, 2018)

Humorme said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.
> ...



The problem with your argument is the United States has always had laws concerning Citizenship, it’s what defines a nation. Every country has some form of laws with interests in defending their own borders. Without a clear defined enforced border there is no national sovereignty.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 24, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and  we have done so through our own narion’s History.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 24, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If you keep the government ID to a photo ID, without a chip or some form of scan feature, they can’t track you unless they physically write your information down with a photo copy of your card. I do support a clear government ID from your home state (if you don’t already own a drivers license), a clear unique Federal card for foreign nationalists, with a separate paper card for work visas or temporary entry. Make it a part of your identification, just like we already do in order to enter every government building, library, obtain alcohol, flights, hotel reservations, traffic violation, gun purchases, rentals, museums, picking up your child at school, and YES especially even before you vote.  If the government REALLY needs to track you, they already have that ability ... unless you can find a way to eliminate your social security number.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 24, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...



There is no problem with my argument.  You said it yourself.  The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship.  I've quoted the first immigration statute many times.   Hell, let's do it again:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person,* who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed_."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here  from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from.  Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need *NOT* be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?


----------



## Humorme (Mar 24, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



States also have the right to decide who can come and go, doing business as *non-citizens*.  You aren't the only swinging Richard who gets to make the decision for a state - and especially states you are not a citizen of.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 24, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Oddly, my own efforts to get rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" were the driving force that initially got me involved in immigration.  *BEFORE* the anti - immigrant lobby came along, constitutionalists had begun to fight back at the illegally ratified 16th Amendment. 

Politicians were telling us via the IRS that the income tax was _"voluntary_."  So, how did you "_volunteer_?"  You filled out an application for a Socialist Security Card.  Lots of people then rescinded that contract and dumped the SSN.  My own Congressman saw the writing on the wall and introduced legislation that would have abolished the IRS and repealed the income tax.  But, it would be people like you that wanted to keep that plank from the Communist Manifesto and so anti-immigrant legislators used the SSN as their "_unique identifier_" and saving the illegal / communist income tax on the pretext for the need of that number.

The government has *no business* tracking me.  I was born free with a natural Right to privacy and the government needs* probable cause* to think I committed a crime before they start babysitting me and tracking me.

This Orwellian 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance and womb to the tomb monitoring are for those who want to be ruled by petty despots and dictators.  Thank you, but I vote no.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Show me a link where it shows the United States arming all the worlds terrorists. That’s the most idiotic post I’ve seen for not enforcing our borders, and setting immigration restrictions



I didn't say, "All the world's terrorists". 

We armed Saddam. 
We armed Bin Laden

We acted all surprised when these guys bit us in the ass.. but we shouldn't have been.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

Also, am the only one amused that a guy who whines about the "Shackles of big government" wants a government that is going to go around carding people to see who does and doesn't belong here?


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Also, am the only one amused that a guy who whines about the "Shackles of big government" wants a government that is going to go around carding people to see who does and doesn't belong here?



Grow government as much as needed and take whatever action required to rid this nation of disgusting thirdworld filth and dead weight.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Grow government as much as needed and take whatever action required to rid this nation of disgusting thirdworld filth and dead weight.



Most immigrants I know are great people. 

On the other hand, I never saw anyone who flew a confederate flag who wasn't a white trash piece of shit.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Grow government as much as needed and take whatever action required to rid this nation of disgusting thirdworld filth and dead weight.
> ...



Yeah, yeah, yeah....we’ve covered this ten times before...you love your jibber-jabber speaking, filthy blood sucking wetbacks because you’re a filthy blood sucking wetback...we get it.
Just remember...it was “white trash” that built this nation and the welfare system that you and all your human cockroach buddies need to survive.
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you Gustavo.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 24, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


Doesn't seem relevant.  Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808.  All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 24, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No constitutional precedent for such an idea.  Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?


----------



## MikeK (Mar 24, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and  we have done so through our own narion’s History.


Of course you're right -- and it's a damn shame that the slightest effort must be made to remind or inform even a small number of American citizens of the importance and the value of our Nation's sovereignty and autonomy.

A peoples' nation is analogous to an individual's home in the way it must be defended against invasion or casual usurpation.  Because of the way the issue of _migration_ has evolved within the past decade an impression is being formed that, so long as they arrive unarmed and wearing civilian clothing, _certain_ people are entitled to remain in whatever country they choose to inhabit.   
While the mainstream media has chosen, for some as yet unknown but menacing reason, to ignore what in fact is the *invasion* and *occupation* of Western Europe by hordes of military-age, Middle Eastern and African men, many of whom choose to behave in a *criminally aggressive* manner which includes assault, forcible rape and sexual molestation, arson, rioting, property destruction and burglary, these are behaviors which for the most part resemble the conduct of undisciplined troops of a conquering military invasion force.

Why is the media silent about the methodical ruin of historic European cultures?  I don't know.  Nor do I know why the leadership of such historic cultures as England, France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, et al, allow such invasive ravaging to go on without forceful intervention.  But I do know it's not happening here in the U.S. and I believe the reasons why it's not happening here are the anti-immigration position of the Trump Administration and the *Second Amendment.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Just remember...it was “white trash” that built this nation and the welfare system that you and all your human cockroach buddies need to survive.



Um, no, it's the white trash that prevents us from evolving in to a social democracy...


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember...it was “white trash” that built this nation and the welfare system that you and all your human cockroach buddies need to survive.
> ...



You’ll have to take that up with our founders...they made the rules...good Americans just follow them. They knew what foreign filth was all about. My guess is, they met a few wetbacks back in the day and didn’t want American society polluted. Simple shit huh?...They were right along weren’t they?


----------



## MikeK (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, it's the white trash that prevents us from evolving in to a social democracy...


Do you mean like the unarmed and docile European _social democracies_ which have been invaded and occupied by the scum of the earth?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> You’ll have to take that up with our founders...they made the rules...good Americans just follow them.



Actually, their rules included slavery. 

Here's the thing. 

Brown people are native to this continent. 
White people are the invaders.   

All we are really seeing is the balance being restored.  



MikeK said:


> Do you mean like the unarmed and docile European _social democracies_ which have been invaded and occupied by the scum of the earth?



Okay, sure, if that's what you want to think.... Here's your official Trump Map of the world


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > You’ll have to take that up with our founders...they made the rules...good Americans just follow them.
> ...



You don’t want to play philosophy of retards do you? The British conquered and or bought this land..you should spend your days thanking God they did...that’s why you get your much needed free shit....Imagine what kind of shithole this place would be had your filthy brown people built this nation...look around the globe bud...Brown filth everywhere...they can’t run anything but their mouths.
Further....Ancient Siberian’s and wetbacks are not one and the same.


----------



## MikeK (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> [...]
> Brown people are native to this continent.
> White people are the invaders.
> 
> All we are really seeing is the balance being restored.


That is a notion which will lead to the eventual restoration of slavery as it once existed and for essentially the same reasons.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> You don’t want to play philosophy of retards do you? The British conquered and or bought this land..you should spend your days thanking God they did...that’s why you get your much needed free shit....Imagine what kind of shithole this place would be had your filthy brown people built this nation...look around the globe bud...Brown filth everywhere...they can’t run anything but their mouths.
> Further....Ancient Siberian’s and wetbacks are not one and the same.



Meh, I travel down south and see what the country looks like when the Anglo White Trash is left to its own devices...  It involves a lot of family trees that don't fork.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 24, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Mar 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > You don’t want to play philosophy of retards do you? The British conquered and or bought this land..you should spend your days thanking God they did...that’s why you get your much needed free shit....Imagine what kind of shithole this place would be had your filthy brown people built this nation...look around the globe bud...Brown filth everywhere...they can’t run anything but their mouths.
> ...



Isn’t Nicaragua, Mexico, Central and South America the incestual rape mecca of the world?
Don’t Joaquin and uncle Gustavo share daughters in the good ole boys clubs down there?
I mean fuck, those disgusting, subhuman savages hang people from bridges and behead each other with chainsaws...why wouldn’t they drill one another’s daughters...huh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Isn’t Nicaragua, Mexico, Central and South America the incestual rape mecca of the world?



Um, no, but tell yourself it is.. because you live in mortal fear of your Mexican neighbors.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 24, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




You know full well, I'm on neither side.  I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was.  And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC.  It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then *qualify to APPLY for the process* to become a United States citizen.  Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported.  An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under  Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” _as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization.  Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.



That's all good and everything, buddy... but the big problem is, ICE has already decided that it needs local and state support to enforce the laws. 

The thing is, that requires their assent. 

So the States can't force the government to be stricter on immigration, and the Feds can't get the states to do their job for them.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.
> ...



You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.   However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.  States can not oppose such an increase in Federal resources imposed on them, because then we are back on the “supremacy” issue. Nice try though.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Federal Income Tax was first imposed under President Lincoln to help fund the war efforts, when he then tried to reestablish it in the years that followed the Supreme Court deemed it unConstitutional.  As far as SS, I don’t support it either, as it was initially an effort enacted around the depression to allow the younger generation to find employment by giving a retirement strategy to older Americans.  Mathematically, social security is no longer self sustaining without additional government funding provided.  A fact I can prove on another thread for those who are interested in American History.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.



Okay, but making them do it, that's the trick, isn't it?  

Fact is, these communities exist in these states, and if you want the people in these communities to assist law enforcement in other matters, you can't have them terrified that they will be deported for doing the right thing. 



ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.



sure they could do that... but then you have the problem of local authorities tipping off communities and otherwise frustrating them.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.
> ...



Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law.  States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states. We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Under the law as envisioned and put into place by the founding fathers, you are wrong.  So, we live under a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral Federal - legislative Democracy and you're happy with it until it's one of* your* Rights at stake.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Son, why are you quoting me?  What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing.  Read this really slow.  Maybe it might come together for you

1)  "_Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization_"

2)  Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3)  You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4)  Congress has* no constitutional authority* to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are *invitees*.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



State’s rights ended in 1808, as well as the Constitution very clearly lists the roles of the Federal Government with the roles of the state (as outlined under the Constitution).  So you are incorrect


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Your point is off topic; I said I would debate such diversions in a separate thread, but bottom line:

The anti-immigrant lobby is responsible for the perpetuation of Socialist Security *AND* the continued use of the Socialist Surveillance Number .... my bad, "_Social Security Number_." 

We have an issue with foreigners coming into the United States; however the *strategies* the anti-immigrant lobby relies on are worse than the perceived problem they are trying to address.  It's tantamount to them advocating brushing your teeth with drano.  It will make your teeth white, but the poison will probably kill you.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



All one has to do is read a couple of the briefs filed in the legal wranglings by the state of California when they refused to enforce federal statutory law there to understand you are *100 percent wrong*.

On the immigration issue, California won.  

And, to show you how backward the anti-immigrant lobby really is for having fed you that manure, California won by using a precedent set in  a gun rights case that I helped both research as well as having pulled money out my own pocket.  

At issue is whether or not the federal government could force states to enforce federal statutory laws.  Hate to burst your bubble there, but states DO have rights.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government.  NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. *Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that*. Wake up.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



So you're advocating that the federal government rule by dictatorial intimidation?   *THAT* is why you will ultimately lose.

Your side has been employing the same strategy for twenty years.  In each instance, the "_solutions_" have had more adverse effects on the citizens than on the people you hate and despise so much.  And, to add insult to injury, you're no closer to resolving your issue than you were twenty years ago.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Show me verbatim where it states California has authority under the Constitution over the Federal Government regarding immigration policy. Liberal judges in California may THINK they are right, but we both know liberal judges (like the 4th district court) is the most overturned when it comes to correctly interpreting the Constitution.

Repost with a verbatim response to where the Constitution shows California has legal Constitutional footing over the Federal Government regarding illegal immigration or nationalization. The Constitution, not *state* liberal judges, is the law of the land in this country.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It’s the same supremacy clause of Federal Government over state that Arizona lost, oh my god get a clue. Immigration is a federally passed and enforceable Law not relinquished to the state - period!


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...




I went really slow for you and you are still arguing.  WTF, dude?  Let's try again:

1)  "_Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization_"

Why are you trying to argue with me?  

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

*PRIOR *to 1875, and while* ALL* the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States.  The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over *citizenship*.  

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens.  Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  *So*,  either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law)  Or *YOU ARE WRONG*.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress.  Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1)  Congress has *NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.  *Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2)  The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"_The court was also critical of the State of California, the *Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...




How about the next time you quote me, the response is in reference to something I said


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law. States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states.



"Congrats on your win in Federal court.  We still don't have the resources to do your job for you." 



ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.



Okay, you tell yourself that... you tell yourself that in a legal battle, you are going to get racially mixed juries that see our immigration laws as cruel...


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> Your point is off topic; I said I would debate such diversions in a separate thread, but bottom line:
> 
> The anti-immigrant lobby is responsible for the perpetuation of Socialist Security *AND* the continued use of the Socialist Surveillance Number .... my bad, "_Social Security Number_."



And you went into the crazy weeds here...


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > Your point is off topic; I said I would debate such diversions in a separate thread, but bottom line:
> ...



You need to study some history and law.  I am 100 percent RIGHT and the anti-immigrant lobby seems to try and sweep their bad strategies under the rug.  But it is what it is.  *THEY and they alone* brought down the constitutionalist / patriot movement that preceded them.  *They and they alone* did what the left could not do.  *They and they alone* helped prop up a plank from the Communist Manifesto because they don't have a clue when it comes to legal matters and political strategies.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



How are your personal attacks relevant to this subject?  Do you have any new material?


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Dost thou speak any English or do you just string words together hoping someone can make sense out of gibberish?  I know you mean to insult me, but you're simply going to have to try harder.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.  Why does the right Always seem to prefer their socialism on a national basis over applied Capitalism, every time this issue comes up?

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  A simple and applied capital fee for fine, can solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis and generate revenue at the same time.

The right wing never likes it. 

not enough socialism on a national basis for y'all?


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


don't worry, i am a guy; i know, practice makes perfect.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I'm convinced that other posters telling me you are not a guy might be more accurate.  I don't think you can come up with anything negative to say about me with regards to immigration, but you seem to need my attention.  So, if you want some kind of discourse, why not get off that kick of trying to be cryptic and posting stuff that makes NO SENSE????


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


dude; what do you believe my arguments have been about?  

why so much socialism on a national basis over applied capitalism, right wingers.  

let's come up with capital opportunities, for the People.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



For real, all I ever see you do is string words together that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.  If you have a point, it's hidden under the worst grammar I've ever been subjected to and you seem to want to insult me, but aren't able.

I have no idea what your argument is about since you fail to articulate it.  It might make sense in your mind.  To the rest of the people who bother to even reply to your desperate attempts to have never ending pissing matches, they are just as baffled as I am.

I don't have any idea what your argument is; you haven't made one.  Let's face it, if you're calling me a socialist, that would prove, unequivocally that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. and wtf kind of "_insult_" is capitalist right winger?  What in the Hell are you even talking about?

I believe in the free market.  Don't care about capitalism per se one way or another... and everything you don't like is *NOT* right wing fantasy.  I'm not on the right.  I'm a constitutionalist, so you parroting cheap insults have no meaning.  Repeating it over and over like a parrot won't make it come true.  So, did you have something you wanted to discuss?  Or do you just need some attention?


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

it is about applied capitalism versus applied socialism.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when  California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

*California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration* - none


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


apples and oranges.  

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808. 

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  A simple fee or fine can make that happen.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Immigrant entry (if that’s what your inferring in your response) is not an obligation of the United States.  As just two examples: in 1917 Congress approved a measure stating people who wished to settle in the United States had to pass a literacy test.  There is also the Immigration Act of 1924, that measure limited the overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality. There is nothing written in the Constitution whereby this nation is obligated to accept a certain quota of immigrants or refugees into this country.  If they decide to close it’s doors to further immigration for a period of time, where in the Constitution does it state the federal government can’t and MUST accept a certain figure of immigrants?  Can you state the Article and section?


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


you are still confusing the issue.  tourism is not immigration.  they have to apply for citizenship and get in line with everyone else.


----------



## miketx (Mar 25, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.


I went through all this years ago. I was very active in trying to get local politicians to do their jobs. I was overwhelmed with bullshit, page after page after page of documents that explained why they couldn't help me blah blah blah. They never would return calls, and I was respectful. This is a major reason why I am so disrespectful of these thugs today. It does no good to be nice to your enemy.I would have needed a full time staff to keep up with these bastards. Simple answer is they don't want to get rid of the illegals.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



California has no authority over citizenship.  In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone  *UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT *the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Congress can only legislate relative to naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  

How in the Hell can this be so hard to understand?  Let's do an analogy:

The right likes to say this immigration stuff is like a house.  You play daddy.  The left wing plays mommy.    In this analogy your _"house_" is the United States.  Do you get to tell your wife who she may and may not invite in to the house?  And if a guy comes in your door to court your daughter, do you demand he marry her right then and there?


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

miketx said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.
> ...



They have to be nasty to because you don't take the time to read and understand the intricacies involved.

Bottom line here: I manned the border in a civilian border patrol effort *before* most of my critics were a gleam in their daddy's eye. And I went from doing research to actually getting involved in immigration law full time for six years.  I've been on *EVERY* side of the coin.  Here are some truisms for you:

1)  For everything you gain, there is something lost.  And the reality is, the anti-immigrant lobby pissed away more Rights, Liberties and Freedoms in twenty years than the left could have taken away from them *in over 100 years *due to stupid strategies the anti-immigrant lobby employs

2)  You are not the numerical majority in this country

3)  If you go any further with these POLICE STATE strategies, the Republic is *FINISHED
*
4)  Even those in the system cannot work with people like you because your strategies don't work and they can't make them work... and there are those of us who would rather have foreigners than live in a dictatorship due to asinine strategies that *will not work*. 

You are not going to win with simple minded ideas and when the United States Supreme Court is forced to weigh in, *you will lose*.  Be careful of who you're picking for enemies.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2018)

Humorme said:


> You need to study some history and law.



You need to take your meds like the nice doctor said to. 



Humorme said:


> *THEY and they alone* brought down the constitutionalist / patriot movement that preceded them.



Or they were just a bunch of nuts to start with.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > You need to study some history and law.
> ...



So, you're projecting.  Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.

So, you're saying that the anti-immigrant lobby were dumb asses from the start?  I agree, but learned that from working with them.  When you keep employing the same strategies over and over thinking you're going to get a different result, it makes one ......  well, I won't be mean to them.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2018)

Humorme said:


> [QUOTE="ShaklesOfBigGov, post: 19581996, member:]
> 
> When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when  California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.
> 
> *California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration* - none



California has no authority over citizenship.  In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone  *UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT *the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.[/QUOTE]

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause.  States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government.  The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law.  The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong.  The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost.  This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders.  So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong. 


*Arizona v. United States, 
567 U.S. 387 (2012)*
Held:

     1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. 

  2. The *Supremacy Clause *gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but *state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances*. First, *States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.* See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, *state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.*” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 26, 2018)

Humorme said:


> So, you're projecting. Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.
> 
> So, you're saying that the anti-immigrant lobby were dumb asses from the start? I agree, but learned that from working with them. When you keep employing the same strategies over and over thinking you're going to get a different result, it makes one ...... well, I won't be mean to them.



i'm sure you can kind of benefit from drugs.  

But to the point, the anti-immigration movement is about bigotry. You didn't need to "work" with them to figure that out. 

Of course, they are dumb-asses, because they want to go after the immigrants doing the jobs they don't want to do rather than the rich people who refuse to pay decent wages for them.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 26, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...






humorme response
*I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.  What are you arguing about?  Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?.  What seems to by your major malfunction???*

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision.  Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship  Do you get that equation?  When a person comes to a country seeking *permanent residence*, that is the "_immigration_" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has *NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY* to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business.  One quick look back into history proves this.  If it were any other way, there would have been *no* Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been *no* Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did *EXACTLY *what was required of Congress.  They passed the first immigration statute.  It limited federal citizenship to whites.  Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws.  I never have.  What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it?  Is your own case that weak *OR* do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America.  Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state.  If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "_immigration_" officers to control the flow of people working in their state.  Those state "_immigration_" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization.    They had no jurisdiction at the federal level.  But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for *permanent residence*. Citizenship = Naturalization.  Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state _"immigration_" officers.  What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them.  You would argue that since bicycles are* prohibited on Interstates*,  city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city.  That is the sum total of your argument.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're projecting. Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.
> ...



Perhaps the left fails miserable to make a point because they think drugs are the cure-all for the ills of America.  

If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs.  They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.

At least both sides are equally misguided.  I will concede, however, that if Shackles is a representative example of those who have made a few, select immigration cases their religion, they will lose to potheads.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...




(1) My argument has *CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration*, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government.  Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional.  You can’t prove otherwise - save your integrity and move on


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...




(1) My argument has *CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration*, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government.  Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional.  You can’t prove otherwise.  Regardless of how you feel of what you THINK California can do, SCOTUS is very clear on their interpretation of a state’s rights over the Federal Government through their ruling and view of the supremacy clause.  Just save your time and effort ... move on


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 26, 2018)

Humorme said:


> If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.



Um... no. 

Nobody wants to do the jobs that illegals do... that's the thing. 

I think that if you made every nativist bigot do a miserable job that an illegal does for one year, they'd be all for immigration reform.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 26, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Save my integrity?  What are you selling?

You are destroying any credibility you thought you had  - and I more than anyone on this board hate to tell someone - you are making a freaking strawman argument.

Look dude, it would take someone very stupid to believe that anywhere in this thread that I have taken any position that any state has a fucking thing to say about _"immigration_."    The states don't have a damn thing to say about "_immigration_". I've put this stuff in caps, made the letters bigger.  And if you want to argue a strawman argument, then dude all you've told the people on this thread is that you're not smart enough to string enough words together to make a coherent argument in English.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.
> ...




Yeah, but the dolts that have made a religion out of select immigration laws they don't understand will continue to make bogus arguments - even trying to argue against things that only *THEY* see as being an argument.   

The day I find one that has an IQ higher than their shoe size, I'm going to lie flat of my back, raise my legs, lift my head up, and kiss my ass.  I'm going to make a video of it and post it on YouTube... which means that isn't going to happen.

They cannot understand that* Naturalization = citizenship*.    The feds have NO authority under the Constitution to tell a state who may come and go as a guest.  The limits of Congress applies to citizens (more specifically those wanting to live here permanently)  - *NOT* non - citizens who are engaged in lawful pursuits.  Who gives a rat's ass?

The anti-immigrant lobby wants to force everyone who washes up on our shores to become citizens.  Then within the next generation (20 to 25 years) the anti-immigrant lobby will be terribly outnumbered and voted out of office and then voted into oblivion.  All I see from them is a commitment to their own demise.  I just don't like being forced to march into Hell with them.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.
> ...


In what trade are illegals a majority of the workforce in? I'll answer for you - NONE, not a single one.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Give it up.

 “*state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law*, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress*”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
*
It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this.  I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law.  You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you.  Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 26, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.



Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks. 

Here's the real problem.  They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 26, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Another straw man argument.  You aren't arguing with me.  You're not getting anywhere with your arguments because you are not being honest nor ethical.  

I've not said what you claim.  And, the *United States Supreme Court* very recently upheld my positions very clear.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.
> ...



When the Sanctuary City supporters went to court and won, they relied on a case for their precedent that I was active in supporting both with financial donations and donated legal research.  Here is the* applicable ruling from the United States Court:
*
"T*he Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.*[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] *The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.*

*The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory*". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. *See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). *That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in _New York v. United States_ (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6]* Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]*As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.[6]

Justices O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate..."

_*Printz v. United States*_, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Add to that:

1)  Early in this country's history, state immigration officials decided who came and went to do business - *which don't have spit to do with citizenship*.

2)  The only thing that changed there was that the United States Supreme Court *granted plenary powers* over all aspects of "_immigration_" to Congress

3)  Passing through a state, doing business in a state, or visiting / touring is the state's prerogative no matter what any statute to the contrary says.  It's simple reality. Passing through a state or being a guest there is* not *related to the type of "_immigration_" that Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution is referring to

4)  There is *NO* provision for the United States Supreme Court to grant any power to any other branch of government; therefore, not only was the Court's ruling judicial activism, it is totally unenforceable.  And the current ruling is the feds cannot force states to enforce federal statutory laws.

In short - the public cannot force states to do anything when the majority have declared their state to be a sanctuary.   They don't have to arrest undocumented foreigners as it not a crime to be in the U.S. and the states don't have to enforce improper entry statutes in the USC.  You should thank God we have a separation of powers - even when you don't feel like you benefited off it.

The ironic thing is, that guy calls himself shackles of big Government... He's calling for the ultimate *POLICE STATE* so hes' advocating for bigger government; I'm urging people to support a smaller government.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.
> ...



Their opinion and $5.00?  Now we can say the same for Obamacare, let’s treat it the same way you all do towards illegal immigration.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 27, 2018)

[


Humorme said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



We have immigrants from Europe and Asia that don’t get *preferential treatment*, they go through the LEGAL process because they RESPECT our nation’s laws.  *Equal Protection means treating ALL immigrants that come here to aquire citizenship, no matter their nation of origin the same, without preferential treatment *just because they happen to be here as a result of crossing the border* Illegally.  *

I don’t need your crying  bloviated drama, because you are too thickheaded to undewrestand the view and interpretation of Supreme Courts ruling, or perhaps the fact you can’t comprehend looking at ALL immigrants that come here being treated the same in obtaining citizenship.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 27, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> [
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> ...



You have the unmitigated gall to call me thickheaded?  Why in the Hell can you not understand that *NOT EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO BE OR WANTS TO BECOME A CITIZEN?
*
Is there some reason you don't have enough common sense to figure it out?  I don't think that everybody who comes to the United States needs to become a citizen.  Everybody who comes here does not want to become a citizen.  There is no law on in the United States that demands a person become a citizen just because they enter the United States.  How in the Hell is it that you cannot understand that?

You're in a Hell of a bad position to be criticizing me...  except, as your board name states, ShacklesofBigGov, you're obsessed with human slavery and bondage.  

Dude, when I was younger, I went to Mexico several times.  Not one, single, solitary times did they or I think that citizenship was in the cards.  How it is that we have an *entire generation* of people that cannot get it through their pea brains that *not everybody who enters the United States does so with the intent to become a United States citizen*.

You keep begging for it and and one day, everybody that enters here *WILL* become a citizen.  Then they will outnumber people that think like you and we will all learn how to speak Spanish and you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.
> ...



The point I made is that the *United States Supreme Court has ruled* that the feds cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal statutory law.

Congress only has de jure authority over naturalization.  *Naturalization = citizenship*.  

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what that other guy thinks he's trying to convey.  I'm referring to a class of people who *do not want to become citizens*.  But, apparently, there is a political faction that thinks if we threaten the people who come here with forced citizenship it will make them run like a scalded dog back across the border.  How asinine can you get?

I don't want everybody who comes here to become a citizen.  Everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil doesn't want to become a citizen - they plan on going home at some point.  The government apparently don't want everybody to become a citizen.  Only this vocal minority, who think that *ONLY THEIR opinion and THEIR vote* counts wants to *force* every foreigner to become an American.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 27, 2018)

Humorme said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


It is the right wing who keep insisting on being legal to our laws.  All talk and no action, is all the right wing has.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 28, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I’m speaking on the issue of illegal immigrants and our nation’s laws of immigration , not documented workers carrying work visas.  Do you understand the difference? Do you actually need a definition to provide some clarity as to where my posts are directed? Apparently you have trouble following along.


The opinion of the United States Supreme Court States:

“*state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law*, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress*”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)*

States (like California) have no authority to enact laws to promote their own views of immigration when they conflict with Federal Law.  That’s not just my “opinion”, that’s the interpretation from the highest quote above.

What you don’t consider is that we have immigrants overseas that desire and seek citizenship, they endure the process, they work hard to even undergo classes to learn about our country with its rules and Constituional founding, they learn the language in order to participate in pursuing their goals (possibly even pursuing their own business) among the citizens of this country. They endure the process because they have respect for our nation’s and it’s laws.

Now we have an effort in this country , with proponents such as yourself, to instill another set of rules for those who circumvent the system, sneak across our borders, but demand we respect THEIR RIGHTS to be here when they have no respect for our nation nor it’s laws. We want to REWARD these illegal aliens (undocumented workers) whatever you choose to call them, while also enabling their behavior.  You don’t want to address the issue of what made them illegal in the FIRST place, you only want another special set of circumstances that allows THEM citizenship.  Yet no one wants to address or see the inequality of how we treat two different groups of immigrants. We want to give illegals rights to be citizens, while undermining and not respecting the rights of those LEGAL immigrants who choose to undergo the long enduring process twith heir hard efforts to become citizens. Interesting how that is.


----------



## Humorme (Mar 28, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...




At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.?  It is really beginning to become a nuisance.  Your walls of text that *don't apply to me *are wasted.  I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

*I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP.  I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.*

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has *NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY* to tell any state who they may invite in as a* NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR.  It is not in the Constitution, sir.*

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill.  Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "_quotas_" for workers.  Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.  What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell. 

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "_No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law_."  NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP.  Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek *permanent residence*.  If they *do not come here seeking permanent residence* and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 28, 2018)

Humorme said:


> At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.?  It is really beginning to become a nuisance.  Your walls of text that *don't apply to me *are wasted.  I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.
> 
> *I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP.  I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.*


Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.



Humorme said:


> The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has *NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY* to tell any state who they may invite in as a* NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR.  It is not in the Constitution, sir.*


States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.



Humorme said:


> The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill.  Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "_quotas_" for workers.  Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.


Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers  as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.



Humorme said:


> Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.  What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.


The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.



Humorme said:


> You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "_No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law_."  NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP.  Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek *permanent residence*.  If they *do not come here seeking permanent residence* and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.


You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 21, 2018)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.?  It is really beginning to become a nuisance.  Your walls of text that *don't apply to me *are wasted.  I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.
> ...



Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 21, 2018)

Means nothing; States have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.  

All foreign nationals in the US, should only be released after they have been federally id-ed.


----------



## Humorme (Apr 21, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



I'm not mixing *ANYTHING*.  You need to examine the facts.  If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law.  And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply. 

States have the* authority* under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to.  Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights.  No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 21, 2018)

Humorme said:


> I'm not mixing *ANYTHING*.  You need to examine the facts.  If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.
> 
> Bottom line here:
> 
> ...


What the Supreme Court has stated via other cases is: 



> Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.
> 
> This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. *The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.*


Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

A number of funds related to law enforcement the states receive can be with held if they do not provide the required information to the feds as per US law.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...




Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument. 

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that 

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country. 

(2) if this does not apply then you must be *born to parents who are U.S. citizens*, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship. 

(3) you can be a citizen through the *“naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing*, *a citizenship test*. 

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen *if one or both of your parents have been naturalized*. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

*Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.
*
 If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen.  In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.  

Second, the* United States Supreme Court *in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”. 

“*state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law*, *including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)*

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”.  All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds *567 U.S. 387 (2012).  *If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own?  If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”.  Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law.  Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you. 

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law.  There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven.  I have no dog in the fight except my own *unalienable* Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California* does not* have to enforce federal laws. 

_*Printz v. United States*_, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here.  Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation.  AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you,  WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me.  You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine.  My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans *WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM*. 

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 22, 2018)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not mixing *ANYTHING*.  You need to examine the facts.  If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.
> ...


we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.

And, the Guard should be in Puerto Rico manufacturing solutions, instead of on the Border, making excuses.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.
> 
> And, the Guard should be in Puerto Rico manufacturing solutions, instead of on the Border, making excuses.


California state law will not save you from federal law.

The Guard doesn't manufacture solutions, they simply follow orders.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.
> 
> If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law.  There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.


So you create your own dumb ass straw man claim? SMFH



Humorme said:


> I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven.  I have no dog in the fight except my own *unalienable* Rights.


It's not hard to forget things when you never knew them to begin with. What immigration law effects your unalienable rights? HINT: not a single one. watadumass



Humorme said:


> If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California* does not* have to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _*Printz v. United States*_, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)


Providing the required information is not enforcing federal law, Reno v Condon.



Humorme said:


> Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here.  Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation.  AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you,  WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?


Nobody but you has stated anything about immigrants becoming citizens. All illegals are subject to deportation, even legal immigrants are subject to deportation. Legal/illegal immigrants have limited protections via the Constitution.  There is only a need for the presumption of innocence if they are charged with an infamous crime, otherwise all they are entitled to is a hearing via a BP agent (Expedited Removal if here less than 2 years) or an IJ if legally entered or more than 2 years here).



Humorme said:


> That's where you have a problem with me.  You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine.  My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans *WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM*.
> 
> Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.


What immigration laws have effected your rights? The answer is, not a damn one.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 22, 2018)

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.
> ...


the right wing has no solutions.

We should send the Engineers of the Guard, to Puerto Rico to "refurbish" the island.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor.  I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare.  Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government?  So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”.  Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars.  It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant.  Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed. 


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process.  I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread.  So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”?  I could not find a more laughable statement.  You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”.   SCOTUS  laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012.  Now their  case knowledge you will never be able to match.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge.  An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here.  Do better.   By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> the right wing has no solutions.


Seems to be all the left wing can muster.



danielpalos said:


> We should send the Engineers of the Guard, to Puerto Rico to "refurbish" the island.


Maybe Puerto Rico could use their own Engineers of their Guard to do the same job. imjusayn


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 22, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



*After Closing of Navy Base, Hard Times in Puerto Rico*

Roosevelt Roads was a support base for American invasions of the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983 and Haiti in 1994. But its main purpose in recent years was to oversee bombing exercises on nearby Vieques island. The exercises provoked *protests that contributed to the American decision to end maneuvers on Vieques in 2003 and close Roosevelt Roads a year later*.

An ambitious plan to turn the empty base into a cruise ship dock, commercial airport, tourist resort and light industrial park cannot get under way until an environmental study is completed.

SOURCE: After Closing of Navy Base, Hard Times in Puerto Rico



Puerto Rico is the reason why there is no  system in place to adequately allow supplies to get in, and (with the last base closing in 2003) our troops have no base to which to operate from. Talk to Government and people of Puerto Rico about that problem.


----------



## pismoe (Apr 22, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.


---------------------------------------------    i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million .   [IMO]   BrokeLoser .


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the  United States Constitution, Congress has the _power_ "_*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*_."

That power consists of seven little words.  Naturalization = citizenship.  That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration.  That is it.  Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state *AND the state has no problem with it *the federal government has no constitutional remedy* except that IF* that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white.  Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that *does not exist*, BTW) and wait for admittance.  Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.  

Then, back to that _"illegal_" B.S.  If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you *suspect *came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

pismoe said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.
> ...



You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "_love_" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "_do it the right way_" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America.  We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.  Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle?  There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide.  That is a good summation of the right's current "_solution_" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who *agree an issue exists*, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table.  So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on.  My comments are in red  Here it is:

*"Held:*

     1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . *Federal governance is extensive and complex*. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and *specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so*,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States.  That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. *Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one)  * and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by *immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all*.     (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) *Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens.   *(It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.)   It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law.  Nobody is interfering with the government's duties. 

Now, let me quote a *2017* article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The _Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative* Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.”* That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity_.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

*NOBODY* is interfering with the federal government's objectives.  The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...





Humorme said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...





Humorme said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Damn bud...spare us all the rhetorical, courtroom mumbo-jumbo and spit it the fuck out already...nobody here is impressed with your bullshit. You’re trying way too hard.
You have wrote novels yet you have said very little that matters....Nobody gives two fucks about what laws are on the books and or what precedent has been set....good Americans are finally saying...enough is enough... MAKE AGGRESSIVE FUCKING CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND RUN ALL ILLEGAL WETBACKS OUT TODAY....PERIOD!
What part of that don’t you understand?
What part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from and how long have you been fucking good Americans over?


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 22, 2018)

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > the right wing has no solutions.
> ...


You simply don't understand the nature of the problem, or the general welfare issues involved.

We should simply dispatch a Corp of Engineers of the Guard, to solve the problems of that island.


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Why don't you mind your own damn business?  If I respond to another poster you don't have to read it.  He bitched because I didn't throw up walls of text laced with courtroom cases and you are bitching because I gave two links?  

Climb back in your cave caveman and if fifth grade civics is above your head, go back to school until you can learn how to communicate.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...



Haha...see how easy I made that for you...see how quickly I communicated my point? 
This isn’t about all the bullshit...it’s about what good Americans want and the legislative changes needed to give them what they want. Remember, it’s We The People...there’s a revolution taking place, Americas best want their country back and they have a right to that...get onboard with your fellow countrymen or get run over...30 states and 2,623 counties have spoken. Sucks for you and all the wetback lovers huh?


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Apr 22, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.
> ...


*You are talking about the Progressives and Judges.*


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on.  My comments are in red  Here it is:
> 
> *"Held:*
> 
> ...


Maybe you should go back and read the section you are quoting as it refers to legal entrants. SMFH



Humorme said:


> Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law.  Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.


All the feds want is what is required by way of information, they haven't asked the localities to perform any of the feds duties. SHRUG



Humorme said:


> Now, let me quote a *2017* article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:
> 
> ,
> "The _Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.
> ...


Let me quote an article from the LA Times that points out your articles ignorance.

_But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.


Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


*This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. *For example,* in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.*_
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.


----------



## DOTR (Apr 22, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.



   Illegal immigration is already illegal. The citizens have spoken and so we have done all we can within and through democratic means. Electing Trump was a good step but I suggest bringing back the concept of "outlawry" for politicians and judges who refuse to follow the law...an extreme punishment which withdraws the protection of law from those who spurn its workings.

_ "In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" made the pronouncement Caput lupinum...equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law: Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law, being outside the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal."_


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.
> 
> You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.


SMFH plagiarizing your work and sentiments?  LMFAO



Humorme said:


> Here it is for you:
> 
> According to the  United States Constitution, Congress has the _power_ "_*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*_."
> 
> That power consists of seven little words.  Naturalization = citizenship.  That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration.  That is it.  Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.


SMFH Yet you cite US vs Arizona which says otherwise, that Congress has authority over immigration. gofigur



Humorme said:


> When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state *AND the state has no problem with it *the federal government has no constitutional remedy* except that IF* that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.


In order to come to the USA they must apply to enter, as your own citation of US vs Arizona states. Surely your not disregarding your own citation, are you? 



Humorme said:


> Even then, the law cannot be black and white.  Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that *does not exist*, BTW) and wait for admittance.  Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.


Immigration law is pretty much black and white. SHRUG
A person fleeing persecution or war must state such at the time of entering through a check point. A sick or dying relative doesn't constitute a person needing to enter illegally, nor does it grant authorization to enter legally. SCOTUS would say nothing regarding the 8A in regards to what you are ignorantly trying to portray. SMFH



Humorme said:


> Then, back to that _"illegal_" B.S.  If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you *suspect *came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.


That civil misdemeanor is a criminal violation, a second one amounts to a criminal felony. What immigration laws have effected your constitutional protections or your rights in general?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.


You've already posted what you think, you have done so by mis-understanding basic law. 



Humorme said:


> What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "_love_" of our laws and people...


As every economist out their states, unskilled illegal labor costs us money, skilled legal labor doesn't. justhatsimple



Humorme said:


> In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "_do it the right way_" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America.  We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.


Following immigration law doesn't equate to citizenship, you repeating this ignorance doesn't make your stupidity true. There are numerous visas that don't allow change of status to LPR. The only idiot claiming stupid things seems to be you, all based on your ignorance of basic law.



Humorme said:


> So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.  Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.


Would not those illegals who have children here do the same thing via their children? SMFH



Humorme said:


> Can't you hear the death rattle?  There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide.  That is a good summation of the right's current "_solution_" (if you can call regression a solution.)


 Do you really think your "idea" wouldn't do the same thing you are railing about? Really?



Humorme said:


> The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who *agree an issue exists*, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table.  So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.


Talk about being far too stupid, have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you really think you have any answers? What you have already posted shows your as dumb as you sound.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 22, 2018)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on.  My comments are in red  Here it is:
> ...


The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state, since 1808?  

What is the basis for cutting funding?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...


Why then did states put in their Constitutions to deny entry to vagabonds, paupers, etc, even after 1808?

Denial of the requested information, duh!


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Humorme said:
> ...





BrokeLoser said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...





BrokeLoser said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...



Yeah, it's we, the people.  And you don't have a damn clue.  As one lefty put it, you are causeless and clueless.

If it's "_we_" the people, then "_we_" should have a say in it.  But, the misguided hatemongers are convinced that theirs is the only voice that should be heard.

Well, champ, every time you roll up into some business that hires, sells to buys from, or otherwise does business with people from south of the border, then they've spoken.  AND, adding insult to injury, when your side is being handed one defeat after another in the United States Supreme Court, it should give you a clue... and, BTW, Democrats are polling higher in EVERY state in U.S. Senate polls.  I can't imagine why.

Supreme Court Hands Trump Defeat on Deporting Criminal Immigrants – Gorsuch Sides With Liberals on Court

Gorsuch, a conservative / constitutionalist voted against you.  You need to focus:  There *IS* an issue, but your interpretation of the law is wrong; your strategies are failing you; you are going to lose unless you decide to pull your head out of your ass.

Note:  Have no idea how danielpalos was quoted, but the response is clearly intended for a different poster.


----------



## pismoe (Apr 22, 2018)

little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague .  Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way .    Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme .   ------------   just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .


----------



## Humorme (Apr 22, 2018)

pismoe said:


> little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague .  Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way .    Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme .   ------------   just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .



Just so you know -

I have full time trolls that follow me from board to board trying to undermine everything I say.  Yet I've called *EVERY* Supreme Court immigration decision right over the past decade* BEFORE* the case was ruled on.

That's something the anti-immigrants cannot accept.  And, each time, I tell them while there *is* an issue, it is the solution (if you can call regression a solution) they are looking in the wrong places for the *correct solution*.

We can theorize about who does what and why, but nobody out there has a track record of calling it *before *the court rules like I have.  And, following their line of B.S. to its final conclusion, it won't be long before this discussion will be moot. That does not make me a liberal; it only means I've studied the Justices and have a pretty good read on them... AND as that one decision noted, immigration law is complex.  If you want to REALLY know what's real and what isn't, work in immigration law.  It will open your eyes.

And if these other keyboard commandos were right, they should be able to show one of the many amicus curaie briefs they've submitted to the courts in support of their positions.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> Just so you know -
> 
> I have full time trolls that follow me from board to board trying to undermine everything I say.  Yet I've called *EVERY* Supreme Court immigration decision right over the past decade* BEFORE* the case was ruled on.
> 
> ...


Where is your track record you speak of recorded at? You haven't called anything other than the obvious. You appeal to authority as if you are some sort of psychic with all the knowledge. You have never worked in immigration law. LMFAO

Wow, an amicus curiae brief, oh my (maybe you should learn how to spell it before you claim to have done it, imjusayn). Anybody can write and submit one, it is up to the court to choose to consider it or not. SMFH


----------



## BrokeLoser (Apr 22, 2018)

Humorme said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague .  Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way .    Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme .   ------------   just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .
> ...



We get it bud...you’re super awesome, you’re super amazing, you’re always right...YOU ARE IMMIGRATION LAW....just ask YOU....haha, funny shit.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2018)

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...


right wing, "hate on the poor".


----------



## Humorme (Apr 23, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



You're being a smart ass because you don't have a credible reply.  The fact is, one court or another - and even Gorsuch has voted down your view of what the law is.  Hard for you to admit you're wrong, isn't it?

And you lack credibility because the keyboard commandos you associate with cannot show you where they have submitted* any* briefs to ANY court in support of your position.  Then to try and troll me... Now that *IS* funny shit.

Maybe you might want to ASK me what the right strategy is once you get your head out of your ass.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.


It's the lowest it's been in many decades.

So how about concentrating on poverty in Appalachia?


----------



## BrokeLoser (Apr 23, 2018)

deanrd said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.
> ...



Appalachia is made up of REAL Americans...theyre being taken care of...our concern lies with the illegal human cockroaches from Mexico...we’re done funding those filthy fucks...we want to steer the funds being wasted on illegals and their silver tooth money trees toward helping more REAL Americans...sucks huh?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 23, 2018)

Humorme said:


> You're being a smart ass because you don't have a credible reply.  The fact is, one court or another - and even Gorsuch has voted down your view of what the law is.  Hard for you to admit you're wrong, isn't it?


Psychic ability or more appeal to authority BS? You decide.  SMFH



Humorme said:


> And you lack credibility because the keyboard commandos you associate with cannot show you where they have submitted* any* briefs to ANY court in support of your position.  Then to try and troll me... Now that *IS* funny shit.


So writing and submitting an amicus curiae would grant credibility exactly how? 



Humorme said:


> Maybe you might want to ASK me what the right strategy is once you get your head out of your ass.


Only you have the "right' strategy? Why is it your "strategy" has been overlooked or dismissed by so many? gofigur


----------



## Humorme (Apr 23, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > BrokeLoser said:
> ...



I'd like to inquire what it is *YOU* do, *you* specifically, to help "REAL Americans?"


----------



## Humorme (Apr 23, 2018)

BrokeLoser said:


> Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.



BrokeLoser,

I'm going to restart this conversation with you in light of what JoeB131 said in post # 10 on this thread:

"..._again, talk to your fellow white people who hire them to pick their lettuce and clean their toilets and watch their kids_."

First, I do not understand the obsession with so - called "_illegal immigrants_" as you love to call them.  What difference does it matter whether or not an individual has human registration papers, certified by a corrupt and unconstitutional government?  If the issue were about taxes, you'd get the federal government *OUT* of the welfare and education funding business.  Instead of continuing to build a bigger and more intrusive government, you'd be looking for ways to bring issues closer to the state and county level.  

Surely this is not about jobs because I've pointed out so many times my experiences at trying to hire white entrepreneurs for gigs around the house.  Try it some time.  Want some white kid to come along a couple of times a month and cut your lawn?  You'll see Santa Claus before you see that.

Advertise on Craigslist for some guy to come along and cut the grass, you will end up with Bubba and his 6 mph truck with the licensed, insured, background checked, staff with their spiffy uniforms at a cost of a couple hundred bucks OR let the Mexican cut your lawn for $35.

That's free enterprise.  There are many opportunities for Americans.  They won't apply for the job.  Personally, I think some people have become addicted to bitching about the situation.

When you make this case about getting rid of the so - called _"illegal alien_," you leave the door open for any and every kind of foreigner to come here, become a citizen.... and make your arguments moot.

Ecclesiasticus (Apocryphal) 11:34 warns:

"_Receive a stranger into thine house, he will disturb thee, and turn thee out of thy own_."


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2018)

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------

