Is it really "illegal?"

[Contumacious]

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

Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:

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

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

Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.

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



.

 

[BuddyColt]

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

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

^ Utter imbecility.

People moving illegally to America costs all of us money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

 

[BuddyColt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

you demand anything short of the death penalty.

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

Fuck you, and fuck all of your straw men.

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

I am opposed to calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing

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

 

[BuddyColt]

I am opposed to calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Annie]

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

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

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

 

[Annie]

I am opposed to calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

 

[BuddyColt]

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

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

I am opposed to calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing

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

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

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

You're fucking with someone giving you sound advice. .

You have no "sound advice" to give anyone, you stupid hack.

 

[BuddyColt]

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

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

Any time you don't care about what I have to say, stay the hell off my threads and leave me the hell alone. We would get along fine then.

As far as being of low character, I resemble that remark. Before I started working in immigration law, I'd have been your best friend. Yet the more active I became, the more problems I had. Effectiveness has a price. When I learned what the guys making the decisions know, I was able to do more than bitch about the status quo.

But, then I found out that big money and people in high places were the problem, not the foreigners. They are a distraction to hide the bigger issue. So, advancing beyond where you are, I'm the enemy, but if I had not been an asshole like you, the powers that be would not have pursued in the manner they did back then.

I doubt you have much to worry about as long as you can sit on your office chair throne and rule the world on a single discussion board where people equally uninformed look up to you as their guru... while others know what you really stand for.

 

[Unkotare]

... trust this... you would LOSE in the Supreme Court. You want me to tell you why you would lose, but if you know so damn much about the law, prove it. Tell us the reasons you think your position would fly in the Supreme Court. THEN I'll explain why you would lose there.

Come back when you have something to say that doesn't require the repeated use of the Conditional form. Until then, shut the fuck up you wannabe loser.

 

[Annie]

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

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

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

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

No it's not, or if it is it's lost in the bellicosity. Which post, since you only need to ID one of four?