Is it really "illegal?"

[Unkotare]

Talk is cheap. The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face. .

Ok, tough-guy, I believe I asked you before if you wanted to use your AARP frequent flyer miles and I believe you ran away AGAIN.

Is this some little drama-club exercise for you? If so, it is getting pretty boring and repetitive. Do something with this or take your high heels off and shut the fuck up already.

 

[Douger]

Moving TO duh US(without force) should mandate a psychological examination.

 

[Unkotare]

(and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).

What in your little pea brain gives you the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word "Sovereignty," idiot?

 

[Unkotare]

Moving TO duh US(without force) should mandate a psychological examination.

You are more than welcome to stay the fuck away, loser.

 

[Unkotare]

I've entertained you for free.

Not very well, idiot, not very well.

Remember this part?
The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.


That's the part you need to remember, missy.

 

[BuddyColt]

Talk is cheap. The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face. .

Ok, tough-guy, I believe I asked you before if you wanted to use your AARP frequent flyer miles and I believe you ran away AGAIN.

Is this some little drama-club exercise for you? If so, it is getting pretty boring and repetitive. Do something with this or take your high heels off and shut the fuck up already.

I'm not that old. Fact is, I'm going to do a two mile jog and when I return, you'll still be here with that litany of idiot this and liar that. Know this: you can taunt people from afar, but most sensible people that read this will figure you out for who and what you are.

You sit on your ass all day picking Internet fights with a host of people, trying to make each point they make a personal issue between them and yourself.

I think that the people of this board should take up a collection until we get about fifty dollars. We ought to buy you a dog and give it to you. You could name it Life. That way you could say you had one.

 

[Unkotare]

Talk is cheap. The best way to figure out what a man is all about is face to face. .

Ok, tough-guy, I believe I asked you before if you wanted to use your AARP frequent flyer miles and I believe you ran away AGAIN.

Is this some little drama-club exercise for you? If so, it is getting pretty boring and repetitive. Do something with this or take your high heels off and shut the fuck up already.

I'm not that old. Fact is, I'm going to do a two mile jog .

LOL! Wow, a two mile jog! What a fucking hardass! You really are a tough-guy! Stop humiliating yourself, gramps. Shut the fuck up and eat your pudding.

 

[Contumacious]

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?



.

 

[Liability]

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?



.

I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.

If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.

That dopey ignorant dipshit dishonest twats such as you and your willfully ignorant "open border fantasy" cadre cannot see the obvious connection between naturalization and immigration is your problem -- entirely.

Meanwhile, no matter how often you evade it, the point is crystal clear and has been for a long time. The Federal Government has the authority under both the incidents of sovereignty and as implied powers from the Constitution itself OVER immigration.

I believe what you are attempting (however inarticulate you have been) to grunt out is that "naturalization" is not synonymous with "immigration." And that's true enough.

An interesting article that explores (and disputes to a large extent -- thus consistent with YOUR view) the validity of the claim of Federal Preemeption over immigration may be found here: http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/vanderbilt-law-review/download.aspx?id=2727

A more clear cut statement from SCOTUS is found here:

. . . [O]ur cases have also been at pains to note the substantial limitations upon the authority of the States in making classifications based upon alienage. In Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, supra, we considered a California statute that precluded aliens who were "ineligible for citizenship under federal law" from obtaining commercial fishing licenses, even though they "met all other state requirements" and were lawful inhabitants of the State. 334 U.S. at 334 U. S. 414. [Footnote 15] In seeking to defend the statute, the State

Page 458 U. S. 11

argued that it had "simply followed the Federal Government's lead" in classifying certain persons as "ineligible for citizenship." Id. at 334 U. S. 418. We rejected the argument, stressing the delicate nature of the federal-state relationship in regulating aliens:

"The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization. Under the Constitution, the states are granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid."

Id. at 334 U. S. 419 (emphasis added) (citation and footnote omitted). [Footnote 16]

-- Toll v. Moreno - 458 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1982). [My emphases are added.] The case opinions may be read at: Toll v. Moreno - 458 U.S. 1 (1982) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center {As a side note, Justice Brennan's "footnote 16" is remarkably rude for language about a dissenting contention.}

As to the contention that exclusion of aliens is an incident of sovereignty, the SCOTUS has already said as much:

. . . t does not require war to bring the power of deportation into existence, or to authorize its exercise. Congressional apprehension of foreign or internal dangers short of war may lead to its use. So long as the alien elects to continue the ambiguity of his allegiance, his domicile here is held by a precarious tenure.

That aliens remain vulnerable to expulsion after long residence is a practice that bristles with severities. But it is a weapon of defense and reprisal confirmed by international law as a power inherent in every sovereign

Page 342 U. S. 588

state. [Footnote 14] Such is the traditional power of the Nation over the alien, and we leave the law on the subject as we find it.

* * * *

[Footnote 14]

". . . n strict law, a State can expel even domiciled aliens without so much as giving the reasons, the refusal of the expelling State to supply the reasons for expulsion to the home State of the expelled alien does not constitute an illegal, but only a very unfriendly, act."

1 Oppenheim, International Law (3d ed., Roxburgh, 1920), 498-502 at 499. But cf. 1 Oppenheim, International Law (7th ed., Lauterpacht, 1948), 630-634 at 631. See also 4 Moore, International Law Digest, 67-96, citing examples; Wheaton's International Law (6th ed., Keith, 1929) 210-211; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698.

-- Harisiades v. Shaughnessy - 342 U.S. 580, 587-588 (1952). [Emphases added.] Opinions (with footnotes) may be found at: Harisiades v. Shaughnessy - 342 U.S. 580 (1952) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In short, whether guys like Confusedatious like it or not (or are willing to admit reality or not), the FACT remains: just as the explicit grant of power over naturalization is given to the Federal Government in the very words of the Constitution itself, so too the implicit authority of the Federal Government over immigration and removal is an incident of our nation's sovereignty (a concept, as noted, which is rooted in international law) and is derived from the various grants of authority given to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Denying that will not make it go away.

,

;

,

 

[starcraftzzz]

(and since you do not know the definition of the word sovereignty go look it up).

What in your little pea brain gives you the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word "Sovereignty," idiot?

Because you think people moving to America, paying taxes and making the US government richer makes the US government less powerful. I already explained this 3 timers So perhaps you should get your mom to read it for you so she can tell you what it means

 

[starcraftzzz]

I've entertained you for free.

Not very well, idiot, not very well.

Remember this part?
The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.


That's the part you need to remember, missy.

Perhaps when ALL your posts are, “you idiot” it’s you whose the idiot

 

[Liability]

I've entertained you for free.

Not very well, idiot, not very well.

Remember this part?
The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.


That's the part you need to remember, missy.

Perhaps when ALL your posts are, “you idiot” it’s you whose the idiot

Ironic post is ironic.

Starrjizz doesn't see why.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Not very well, idiot, not very well.

Remember this part?
The US will never embrace your asinine fantasy of open borders no matter how much a fool you make of yourself here playing Cliff Clavin.


That's the part you need to remember, missy.

Perhaps when ALL your posts are, “you idiot” it’s you whose the idiot

Ironic post is ironic.

Starrjizz doesn't see why.

Thx for proving my point.

 

[Liability]

Perhaps when ALL your posts are, “you idiot” it’s you whose the idiot

Ironic post is ironic.

Starrjizz doesn't see why.

Thx for proving my point.

I didn't. But you have conclusively proved that you don't know what you are attempting to talk about.

 

[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?



.

I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.

If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.

Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:

Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:


"Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);


Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution

SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)



But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations

.

 

[Liability]

Mr Grand Wizard, Sir:

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

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

Which Federal Agency "legalized" aliens before 1888.

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



.

I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.

If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.

Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:

Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:


"Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);


Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution

SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)



But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations

.

Ass-muncher, first step. Wipe the spittle off your chin.

Second step. Take a Midol, bitch.

Third step. TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).

Answer WHAT "questions?"

I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.

You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.

Stop thinking you're slick. You're not. You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.

IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once. Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit. Set it up like a coherent syllogism: Premise. Premise. Logical contention. Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention. Conclusion.

Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."

I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before. But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.

Word.

,

;



,

 

[starcraftzzz]

I leave all "retarded" commentary to you and assholes like DuddyDolt.

If Naturalization is the exclusive province of the Federal Government -- under the Constitution itself -- and it is, then the MANNER in which it may be granted is also up to the Federal Government ENTIRELY.

Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:

Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:


"Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);


Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution

SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)



But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations

.

Ass-muncher, first step. Wipe the spittle off your chin.

Second step. Take a Midol, bitch.

Third step. TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).

Answer WHAT "questions?"

I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.

You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.

Stop thinking you're slick. You're not. You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.

IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once. Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit. Set it up like a coherent syllogism: Premise. Premise. Logical contention. Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention. Conclusion.

Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."

I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before. But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.

Word.

,

;



,

Ah the spoiled baby shit his pants again. Someone get a diaper so we can throw her spoiled pampers in the trash

 

[Liability]

Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:

Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:


"Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);


Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution

SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)



But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations

.

Ass-muncher, first step. Wipe the spittle off your chin.

Second step. Take a Midol, bitch.

Third step. TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).

Answer WHAT "questions?"

I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.

You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.

Stop thinking you're slick. You're not. You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.

IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once. Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit. Set it up like a coherent syllogism: Premise. Premise. Logical contention. Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention. Conclusion.

Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."

I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before. But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.

Word.

,

;



,

Ah the spoiled baby shit his pants again. Someone get a diaper so we can throw her spoiled pampers in the trash

As always, starrjizz has nothing of any merit to contribute.

Check.

 

[Contumacious]

Quit stonewalling and answer the questions:

Even the case you cited , admits that the FEDERAL authority to deport is based on the fact that , at least , 5 Supreme Court "Justices" are racist white motherfuckers:


"Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889);


Courts, not the founding father nor the Constitution

SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI, 73 S. Ct. 625, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 03/16/1953)



But you and your ilk are willing to allow white judges to perpetrate crimes because it suits your racist inclinations

.

Ass-muncher, first step. Wipe the spittle off your chin.

Second step. Take a Midol, bitch.

Third step. TRY to use your brain (assuming yours even works).

Answer WHAT "questions?"

I have already provided you with case law and VALID (not your hyperbolic bullshit) Constitutional analysis.

You have made the choice to refuse to admit it or acknowledge it.

Stop thinking you're slick. You're not. You're just a fucking douche bag imbecile.

IF you imagine you have some coherent argument to make, try to stop being such a cluster-fuck for once. Boil it down, ya stupid fuckwit. Set it up like a coherent syllogism: Premise. Premise. Logical contention. Application of the premises to the supposedly logical contention. Conclusion.

Until then, I decline to wade through your unintelligible gibberish to try to figure out FOR YOU whatever it is you erroneously believe you are "saying."

I realize you cannot dispute what I posted before. But your pathetic ranting "response" does make you you come across as even more ridiculous.

Word.

,

;



,

Ah the spoiled baby shit his pants again. Someone get a diaper so we can throw her spoiled pampers in the trash

It won't be long before he quotes nazi judges opinion that gassing/exterminating Jews was constitutional.

.

 

[BuddyColt]

Contumacious and starcraftzzz,

You guys may as well hang it up. Liability can type in big, bold and colorful letters along with put pictures into his posts. His comrade can call you all kinds of names as he hears them on Comedy Central.

There is no doubt that the federal government CAN do a lot of things that these guys claim relative to naturalization. The fact is, they do not actually do it. In most instances, you'd be hard pressed to find a law addressing the need and fact situations. Between the three of us, we can understand the difference between naturalization and immigration - or more accurately just people being GUESTS. Forget it guys, it's a concept that these NSM types cannot grasp.

The reality is, the xenophobes will argue against every ruling all the way to hell, knowing they are wrong. Let's take one of their arguments:

"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."

Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I don't get to say who visits my house? Private employers don't have the right to hire who they want - be sovereign over their business?

Who do you wish to be sovereign in this context? The people or the government?

Liability and his bitch hate foreigners. The only way they see for people to live is to sell their soul, wait twenty years standing in some imaginary line where they can become citizens. In the process, if that situation creates a bad precedent that you and I will be judged by, they are content to destroy American Liberty to rid this country of the brown people.

Yet, for all their bravado, neither of those men have ever volunteered to man the border. Neither of them has shot one of these people they claim are criminals. Neither of them has done anything except look for excuses to wage war at a cost to your Liberties and mine. Then they expect someone else to do their wet work. The only reason we are obliged to waste time on them is the hopes that they will offend the wrong bureaucrat and be hauled in for treason.

I don't care one way or another about the people from south of the border. I'm not related to them. I fight for their rights because I believe in Liberty. I am doing for them the things I would want them to do for me in a similar circumstance. Further, I am protecting my Liberty. As one of our founding fathers so aptly put it:

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

The price we're paying is for protecting others from oppression. The tyrants here will be held accountable at some point.