Is it really "illegal?"

[Unkotare]

You don't care about...what?

I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?

BUT WHYYYYYY don't you CAAAAARE about what SHE "knows?"

How careless of me.

 

[Liability]

I don't care what you know about this issue. That was pretty clear. Is English your first language?

BUT WHYYYYYY don't you CAAAAARE about what SHE "knows?"

How careless of me.

It's not even carelessness -- unless -- hey!

You wouldn't happen to mean that you couldn't possibly care less?



Anyway, the point is -- ok. There is no point.

But clearly MaryL feels all cheated out of satisfaction regarding her obvious DEMAND for your ATTENTION!

 

[Liability]

Oh. And just to clarify:

Is it really "illegal?"

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I've already discussed the FACT that foreigners create jobs.

That's excellent! They should create them in their own country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

You aren't bitching about the employer that hires the foreigner because if you pursued them the same way, soon, companies would be shut down and there would be no jobs for anybody.

I do bitch about the employer that hires illegals.
Companies should be required to use E-Verify.
If they don't, and hire an illegal, they should be fined.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.

There is an unalienable right to emigrate?

 

[Liability]

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.

Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.

There is an unalienable right to emigrate?

There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.

In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."

In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.

Todd is right. Dudley is lying. That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.

 

[Contumacious]

Bud,

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

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



Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration

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

.

What do Americans have against open borders?


Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.

Pure Bullshit

The Supreme Court USURPED the power to control immigration in 1889 not because the Chinese were a danger to society, or a burden on the public fisc, or using hospital emergencies rooms excessively, not because they were here "illegally" - no sireee bob - it was because "our people" could not compete against them , they were too skillful, and the California mine owners preferred them.

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

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


U.S. Supreme Court

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


.

 

[IndependntLogic]

That's not the question.

The question is HOW they come here.

Legally or illegally.

I don't care how they come here. Only why. If they coe here to work and make a better life for themselves, I'm good with it. If they come here to make a living on the drug trade or otherwise hurt people, I'm not good with it.

I care why they come here, too; but I definitely care that they come here legally.

If their purpose is to commit drug crimes, the legality of their entry doesn't trump the illegality of their behavior while here.

If they are simply working and violating no other laws, but entered without compliance with our Immigration Law, then their very first act here was a criminal act. They get no brownie points just because they thereafter follow the law. And they are not entitled to jump in front of the line OVER those who ARE complying with our Immigration Law.

That's a perfectly reasonable view and probably the view of the majority. I just don't always agree with the majority.

 

[BuddyColt]

^ 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.

I've already discussed the FACT that foreigners create jobs.

That's excellent! They should create them in their own country.

They do. Check this out:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E25UHyXMpSw]Ron Paul on Immigration, Communism, and Drugs (1988) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bud,

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

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



Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration

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

.

What do Americans have against open borders?


Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.

Pure Bullshit

The Supreme Court USURPED the power to control immigration in 1889 not because the Chinese were a danger to society, or a burden on the public fisc, or using hospital emergencies rooms excessively, not because they were here "illegally" - no sireee bob - it was because "our people" could not compete against them , they were too skillful, and the California mine owners preferred them.

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

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


U.S. Supreme Court

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


.

Aww, that's awful. So what?
We're perfectly within our rights to close the border and evict the illegals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've already discussed the FACT that foreigners create jobs.

That's excellent! They should create them in their own country.

They do. Check this out:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E25UHyXMpSw]Ron Paul on Immigration, Communism, and Drugs (1988) - YouTube[/ame]

That's great, then they don't need to come here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bud,

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

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



Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration

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

.

What do Americans have against open borders?


Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.

Why address me? Your mind is made up. Welfare fraud is the least expensive item in the federal budget and every study concludes that the undocumented immigrant pays as much in taxes as they receive in benefits. But, this is a popularity contest, not a quest for the truth.

BTW, your quote is a bastardized quote from Milton Friedman which, when he said it, means 180 degrees opposite of what you are trying to sell here.

The welfare state includes free education and emergency room treatment.
Every study? That's funny.
Yeah, those low income, EITC illegals are paying lots of taxes. LOL!
No, Friedman's meaning was not 180 degrees opposite.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.

People have an inherent Right to Travel

They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.

Damn... another illiterate. So, what is Liberty? A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?

Here is my response:

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

Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea?
You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!

 

[Unkotare]

Unalienable Rights mean that you were born with Rights and no man can pass a law to criminalize the Liberties and Rights you were born with.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about sneaking into the US. Sorry.

People have an inherent Right to Travel

They don't have an inherent right to enter the US.

Damn... another illiterate. So, what is Liberty? A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?

Here is my response:

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

Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea?
You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!

The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.

 

[BuddyColt]

Damn... another illiterate. So, what is Liberty? A privilege that is doled out to you by Government / God?

Here is my response:

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

Liberty means you can cross the border into North Korea?
You're an idiot. Send me a postcard from North Korea. LOL!

The harder trick is crossing the border OUT of North Korea.

If your wish comes true, that will be true about America too.

 

[BuddyColt]

What do Americans have against open borders?


Open borders don't work with a massive welfare state.
Reduce the welfare state to what it was in the 1950s and then we can discuss open borders.

Why address me? Your mind is made up. Welfare fraud is the least expensive item in the federal budget and every study concludes that the undocumented immigrant pays as much in taxes as they receive in benefits. But, this is a popularity contest, not a quest for the truth.

BTW, your quote is a bastardized quote from Milton Friedman which, when he said it, means 180 degrees opposite of what you are trying to sell here.

The welfare state includes free education and emergency room treatment.
Every study? That's funny.
Yeah, those low income, EITC illegals are paying lots of taxes. LOL!
No, Friedman's meaning was not 180 degrees opposite.

I've read your shit and you are an absolute and utter moron, about as unintelligent as LIE Ability. You use a bastardized form of a quote that you didn't even know who made it and then tell us it means .... what??? You sure as Hell didn't know. I listened to both sides and it was one of the few times the liberals got it right:

Classically Liberal: What Milton Friedman really said about immigration.

I know, after I do the work, you'll become an instant authority on the subject. You dumb ass. You didn't even know where the quote came from.

 

[BuddyColt]

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.

Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.

There is an unalienable right to emigrate?

There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.

In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."

In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.

Todd is right. Dudley is lying. That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.

Spoken like a true Nazi. You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you. Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.

 

[BuddyColt]

Secondly, due to the fact that unalienable Rights trump statutory laws, there could be no crime criminalizing immigration.

There is an unalienable right to emigrate?

There is not now and never has been ANY unalienable "right" [sic] to enter the land of any other country without the permission and authority of the country being entered.

In time of war, the act is known as an "invasion."

In time of peace, it's known as "improper entry," which IS a "crime" despite the false denials of the dishonest "open borders" idiot, DuddyDolt.

Todd is right. Dudley is lying. That's the true state of facts, and it isn't changing.

Spoken like a true Nazi. You know, LIE Ability, if you say it enough times, it might be accepted as true, just as your leader, Adolph Hitler, taught you. Seig freaking Heil motherfucker.

Improper entry is not a crime except in a National Socialist utopia led by Lie Ability and those with a low enough IQ to buy into his endless posts. You can't do one post, make your points and STFU can you? You know you're wrong, but telling the lie over and over might..... It won't Lie Ability. You will lose in the end. You will lose.