Know Your Anti-Immigrant

[Correll]

Supporting a policy is not a religion.

It is when it consumes you to the point that you cannot divorce that issue from the big picture, Correll.

NO, still not really. Could just be a partisan motivation for one example. Partisanship is not religion.

Partisanship is a prejudice / bias in favor of something. Prejudice is predicated on having an opinion without thought, knowledge, or reason.

Just because I dare to challenge the status quo, the wallists have utilized that prejudice to say stuff to me that not a single one of them would have the courage to say to my face. How do I know? I manned the border; I spoke out; I'm an activist. These phony poseurs on the Internet aren't.

They've done nothing but lose over the last decade and a half plus. I've found it hard to make a point on the Internet since Facebook, Twitter, and most podcast servers don't want to be faced with uncomfortable truths. So, the message gets censored and I'm not entering any of those arenas when I at least KNOW they are opposed to anything that is opposed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

These guys may have you hoodwinked, but take a look at post # 46. Here is a poster who wants you to believe he is the biggest negrophilist among you. Then in post # 66, the same guy is talking about "Brown" people - which is kind of code for what a white racist would say. These guys are minor league political propagandists, but they will work with either side - left or right for the wall. THAT is their religion. Learn how to read between the lines, son.

WTF are you babbling about?
The US has become the default garbage receptacle of the world.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

America has become the world's cesspool because we choose to naturalize a million new citizens each year. Within a generation those human leeches begin destroying our country and turning it into a dangerous shithole. Let me give you a few examples:
.....

I agree that Third World immigration is a mistake. I want a generations long ban on it. At least.

 

[pismoe]

It is when it consumes you to the point that you cannot divorce that issue from the big picture, Correll.

NO, still not really. Could just be a partisan motivation for one example. Partisanship is not religion.

Partisanship is a prejudice / bias in favor of something. Prejudice is predicated on having an opinion without thought, knowledge, or reason.

Just because I dare to challenge the status quo, the wallists have utilized that prejudice to say stuff to me that not a single one of them would have the courage to say to my face. How do I know? I manned the border; I spoke out; I'm an activist. These phony poseurs on the Internet aren't.

They've done nothing but lose over the last decade and a half plus. I've found it hard to make a point on the Internet since Facebook, Twitter, and most podcast servers don't want to be faced with uncomfortable truths. So, the message gets censored and I'm not entering any of those arenas when I at least KNOW they are opposed to anything that is opposed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

These guys may have you hoodwinked, but take a look at post # 46. Here is a poster who wants you to believe he is the biggest negrophilist among you. Then in post # 66, the same guy is talking about "Brown" people - which is kind of code for what a white racist would say. These guys are minor league political propagandists, but they will work with either side - left or right for the wall. THAT is their religion. Learn how to read between the lines, son.

WTF are you babbling about?
The US has become the default garbage receptacle of the world.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

America has become the world's cesspool because we choose to naturalize a million new citizens each year. Within a generation those human leeches begin destroying our country and turning it into a dangerous shithole. Let me give you a few examples:
.....

I agree that Third World immigration is a mistake. I want a generations long ban on it. At least.

------------------------------- i want a PERMANENT Ban on ALL importation of third world and ALL importation of imported 'foreign uman units' . USA already has about 310 - 320 million legal residents in '2010' Census plus millions of illegal aliens in Americans midst . ------------- just saying as a reminder !!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The one thing I don't have is thin skin. There are half a dozen phonies attacking me on this thread and NONE of them have done anything save of proving my observations of who and what they are.

What is there to discuss when they continue to prove my point? What is there to debate? My points are simple:

* Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
* America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet
* For every drug addict in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 in prison
* Children in the United States are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over children in the UK

Unless and until you are a strong, healthy, vibrant, educated, and committed people seeking independence, while wanting to be Free, self sufficient and self reliant, you cannot change the dynamic of America. You have to take ownership in your part of the status quo.

So you are saying it is up to the individual to change these things at whatever level as opposed to a political party offering solutions?

The political parties are united in giving you a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Take a look at post # 5. Donald Trump is a friend of Rupert Murdoch:

Frenemies with benefits: A brief history of the Trump-Murdoch relationship

Murdoch is the primary stockholder in Fox News (see above link) and Murdoch is on the Board of Directors for the Council on Foreign Relations:

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia

Do you really think Fox News is going to support an effort that leads America back to constitutional principles? Do you know what psychopolitics consists of?

Most real solutions begin at the local level. But be warned. The globalists have NO intention of allowing you to win this issue. BEFORE the wallists screwed the pooch, the right did a have a plan to incrementally get out of this. That is why the FAIR Tax originated in my neighborhood - my former Congressman introduced it. That bill would have eliminated the IRS, the income tax, and nullified the illegally ratified 16th Amendment.

On immigration, if you don't out think the globalists, they will continue to win until there is no more America.

Sean Hannity put his career on the line by endorsing Trump.
Fox did not want Trump to win and the fact that you don’t know this is no surprise to me.
Your echo chamber is apparent to all.

You are simpleton that don't bother reading what I post or looking at the links. That bullshit reply was answered in one of the links.

Your self-indulgent run on posts are not worth reading after the first paragraph.
You proudly insist that everyone who sets foot on American soil is an American and you complain that the globalists say the same thing.
Get to the point in one paragraph and stop boring us to laughter.

You area a pathological liar that wouldn't say that shit if you were publicly held accountable. If you're bored, check out. You've already been exposed if anyone has an IQ higher than their shoe size.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So guys and gals, we seem to have a psycho here who wants open borders and claims the entire world is Americans and yet doesn’t want these people to cross our border to become naturalized.

Did I mention he’s a hypocritical psycho?

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Supporting a policy is not a religion.

It is when it consumes you to the point that you cannot divorce that issue from the big picture, Correll.

NO, still not really. Could just be a partisan motivation for one example. Partisanship is not religion.

Partisanship is a prejudice / bias in favor of something. Prejudice is predicated on having an opinion without thought, knowledge, or reason.

Just because I dare to challenge the status quo, the wallists have utilized that prejudice to say stuff to me that not a single one of them would have the courage to say to my face. How do I know? I manned the border; I spoke out; I'm an activist. These phony poseurs on the Internet aren't.

They've done nothing but lose over the last decade and a half plus. I've found it hard to make a point on the Internet since Facebook, Twitter, and most podcast servers don't want to be faced with uncomfortable truths. So, the message gets censored and I'm not entering any of those arenas when I at least KNOW they are opposed to anything that is opposed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

These guys may have you hoodwinked, but take a look at post # 46. Here is a poster who wants you to believe he is the biggest negrophilist among you. Then in post # 66, the same guy is talking about "Brown" people - which is kind of code for what a white racist would say. These guys are minor league political propagandists, but they will work with either side - left or right for the wall. THAT is their religion. Learn how to read between the lines, son.

Partisanship is a bias in favor of a certain side. That is NOT predicated on "without thought, knowledge, or reason"


I could go on for DAYS for my thoughts knowledge and reasons of being a partisan republican.


DIdn't get your point about post 46. I have some people on ignore. Perhaps, my post count is different than yours?

"Partianship - NOUN prejudice in favor of a particular cause; bias."

partisanship definition - Bing

"Prejudice- an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

Definition of prejudice | Dictionary.com

Post # 46 deals with a poster who, in one post would have you believe he is sucking up to the multiculturalists while, later on, he rails against "Brown" people in another posting (trying to appeal to the racists.)

In another thread you have admitted you are no student of the history or laws, so the definition is what it is. That is the advantage I will always have over you. I know the left and right positions better than they know them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It is when it consumes you to the point that you cannot divorce that issue from the big picture, Correll.

NO, still not really. Could just be a partisan motivation for one example. Partisanship is not religion.

Partisanship is a prejudice / bias in favor of something. Prejudice is predicated on having an opinion without thought, knowledge, or reason.

Just because I dare to challenge the status quo, the wallists have utilized that prejudice to say stuff to me that not a single one of them would have the courage to say to my face. How do I know? I manned the border; I spoke out; I'm an activist. These phony poseurs on the Internet aren't.

They've done nothing but lose over the last decade and a half plus. I've found it hard to make a point on the Internet since Facebook, Twitter, and most podcast servers don't want to be faced with uncomfortable truths. So, the message gets censored and I'm not entering any of those arenas when I at least KNOW they are opposed to anything that is opposed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

These guys may have you hoodwinked, but take a look at post # 46. Here is a poster who wants you to believe he is the biggest negrophilist among you. Then in post # 66, the same guy is talking about "Brown" people - which is kind of code for what a white racist would say. These guys are minor league political propagandists, but they will work with either side - left or right for the wall. THAT is their religion. Learn how to read between the lines, son.

WTF are you babbling about?
The US has become the default garbage receptacle of the world.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

America has become the world's cesspool because we choose to naturalize a million new citizens each year. Within a generation those human leeches begin destroying our country and turning it into a dangerous shithole. Let me give you a few examples:
.....

I agree that Third World immigration is a mistake. I want a generations long ban on it. At least.

I think the Preamble to the Constitution is the best solution. America is not and cannot be everything to everybody. When even a small number of people figure out what the founders said when they wrote that Preamble will they understand it is not a multicultural statement applicable to everybody on earth.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

NO, still not really. Could just be a partisan motivation for one example. Partisanship is not religion.

Partisanship is a prejudice / bias in favor of something. Prejudice is predicated on having an opinion without thought, knowledge, or reason.

Just because I dare to challenge the status quo, the wallists have utilized that prejudice to say stuff to me that not a single one of them would have the courage to say to my face. How do I know? I manned the border; I spoke out; I'm an activist. These phony poseurs on the Internet aren't.

They've done nothing but lose over the last decade and a half plus. I've found it hard to make a point on the Internet since Facebook, Twitter, and most podcast servers don't want to be faced with uncomfortable truths. So, the message gets censored and I'm not entering any of those arenas when I at least KNOW they are opposed to anything that is opposed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

These guys may have you hoodwinked, but take a look at post # 46. Here is a poster who wants you to believe he is the biggest negrophilist among you. Then in post # 66, the same guy is talking about "Brown" people - which is kind of code for what a white racist would say. These guys are minor league political propagandists, but they will work with either side - left or right for the wall. THAT is their religion. Learn how to read between the lines, son.

WTF are you babbling about?
The US has become the default garbage receptacle of the world.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

America has become the world's cesspool because we choose to naturalize a million new citizens each year. Within a generation those human leeches begin destroying our country and turning it into a dangerous shithole. Let me give you a few examples:
.....

I agree that Third World immigration is a mistake. I want a generations long ban on it. At least.

------------------------------- i want a PERMANENT Ban on ALL importation of third world and ALL importation of imported 'foreign uman units' . USA already has about 310 - 320 million legal residents in '2010' Census plus millions of illegal aliens in Americans midst . ------------- just saying as a reminder !!

Your math skills would cause you to lose big on the show Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader.

Be that as it may, third world immigration is no worse than the dumb asses that want to import rich and educated foreigners to take up seats in our colleges and universities. We end up working for them; they have real political power and ultimately big corporations pay meager wages to mindless idiots who think its's an honor to work for businesses that thrive best in socialist atmospheres.

We should be wanting those college seats. We should be the ones wanting to be doctors, scientists, tradesmen, craftsmen, etc. Delivery driver for the pizza place or lifting boxes in a warehouse is NOT a skill.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

Immigrants are not trespassers.
We have laws for both.

Your avatar fits you.

In 2003 when the wallist religion was being developed, some Salvadorans tried to effect an improper entry by trespassing over private land. The Salvadorans were intercepted by a border patrol group called Ranch Rescue. In the altercation the Salvadorans lost, but in court the Salvadorans won. The border patrol guys went to prison; the landowner lost his ranch.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

I would rate your criticism half right. For if we say that those foreigners were not trespassers, they were legally right in being able to sue the property owner and having the court uphold the foreigners "civil rights."

You're right on that count, except had the members of Ranch Rescue listened to me, I would have appealed that decision and argued heavily in favor of a property owner to be able to defend their property against trespassers. I do concede to your point.

The flip side to Indeependent's argument is that the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States. Put into the correct analogy, if you make an improper U Turn and the cops don't see you do it, then you're not an "illegal driver." Don't blame me. I didn't write the freaking laws. Neither do I agree with the stances you take once we look at where its logical conclusion goes.

I was a member of Ranch Rescue and knew Casey Nethercott the man whose property was taken.

As a result of this legal travesty Arizona passed a law prohibiting punitive damages from being awarded to any one illegally present in this country so that this kind of financial rape doesn't happen again.

Limit on illegal-immigrant lawsuits faces test of constitutionality

 

[Indeependent]

So guys and gals, we seem to have a psycho here who wants open borders and claims the entire world is Americans and yet doesn’t want these people to cross our border to become naturalized.

Did I mention he’s a hypocritical psycho?

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

I just read the 14th Amendment and you’re inferring what isn’t there.
What is the definition of “Naturalized”?

 

[Indeependent]

So guys and gals, we seem to have a psycho here who wants open borders and claims the entire world is Americans and yet doesn’t want these people to cross our border to become naturalized.

Did I mention he’s a hypocritical psycho?

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

Not to mention that the 2nd sentence of the 14th is dependent on the 1st sentence.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

Immigrants are not trespassers.
We have laws for both.

Your avatar fits you.

In 2003 when the wallist religion was being developed, some Salvadorans tried to effect an improper entry by trespassing over private land. The Salvadorans were intercepted by a border patrol group called Ranch Rescue. In the altercation the Salvadorans lost, but in court the Salvadorans won. The border patrol guys went to prison; the landowner lost his ranch.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

I would rate your criticism half right. For if we say that those foreigners were not trespassers, they were legally right in being able to sue the property owner and having the court uphold the foreigners "civil rights."

You're right on that count, except had the members of Ranch Rescue listened to me, I would have appealed that decision and argued heavily in favor of a property owner to be able to defend their property against trespassers. I do concede to your point.

The flip side to Indeependent's argument is that the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States. Put into the correct analogy, if you make an improper U Turn and the cops don't see you do it, then you're not an "illegal driver." Don't blame me. I didn't write the freaking laws. Neither do I agree with the stances you take once we look at where its logical conclusion goes.

I was a member of Ranch Rescue and knew Casey Nethercott the man whose property was taken.

As a result of this legal travesty Arizona passed a law prohibiting punitive damages from being awarded to any one illegally present in this country so that this kind of financial rape doesn't happen again.

Limit on illegal-immigrant lawsuits faces test of constitutionality

And the principal parties still refused to appeal the case. So, the precedent that people are bitching at me about is the fault of Ranch Rescue. The fact that any judge would say that undocumented foreigners have "civil rights" that trump an owner's private property Rights shows the corrupt the system is.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

reagan and the shown 'bush' started the whole problem Porter . I didn't look at your link yet Porter . Don't know if i can stomach it but maybe later Porter .

Whatever you say. As the critics observe, the wallists are usually uneducated, blue collar whites that have no concept of history or the law.

Neither Bush nor Reagan were anywhere near public office when the failed "Operation Wetback" was conceived.

-------------------------- reagan and bush , both repubs did amnesty in 1986 and are the cause of todays border problems Porter .

Horseshit.

Between 1986 and 2001 the United States offered SEVEN "amnesty" periods. That is code for forced citizenship. When you are arguing to "enforce existing laws" that is exactly the path that the so - called "amnesties" take.

Whether Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal, the belief that the only proper "in" to come to America is via citizenship is a primary cause of your problem. You can't have a million new citizens being naturalized a year and avoid a flood-tide of foreigners.

---------------------------------- i want no new importation of foreigners Porter . I want ALL immigration STOPPED and i think that USA Military should be used to forcefully stop all illegal and legal importation of invaders Porter .

You have totally unrealistic expectations, which is typical of the uneducated.

 

[Indeependent]

Full disclosure: I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. The evil I got was one I did not want. Trump has to be the first president that could violate the Constitution three different ways with one Executive Order.

Having said that, I've done a number of threads here that have gotten a record number of responses. Mostly I expose the wallists (those who have made a religion out of militarizing the southern border) as their proposed solutions violates MY RIGHTS. We definitely have a problem with foreigners coming here; however, the leadership that is forming the proposed solutions, introducing the legislation, and parroting the talking points are not who you think they are. So, here is a classic example of the kinds of people the Trump machine attracts:

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

Immigrants are not trespassers.
We have laws for both.

Your avatar fits you.

In 2003 when the wallist religion was being developed, some Salvadorans tried to effect an improper entry by trespassing over private land. The Salvadorans were intercepted by a border patrol group called Ranch Rescue. In the altercation the Salvadorans lost, but in court the Salvadorans won. The border patrol guys went to prison; the landowner lost his ranch.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

I would rate your criticism half right. For if we say that those foreigners were not trespassers, they were legally right in being able to sue the property owner and having the court uphold the foreigners "civil rights."

You're right on that count, except had the members of Ranch Rescue listened to me, I would have appealed that decision and argued heavily in favor of a property owner to be able to defend their property against trespassers. I do concede to your point.

The flip side to Indeependent's argument is that the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States. Put into the correct analogy, if you make an improper U Turn and the cops don't see you do it, then you're not an "illegal driver." Don't blame me. I didn't write the freaking laws. Neither do I agree with the stances you take once we look at where its logical conclusion goes.

I was a member of Ranch Rescue and knew Casey Nethercott the man whose property was taken.

As a result of this legal travesty Arizona passed a law prohibiting punitive damages from being awarded to any one illegally present in this country so that this kind of financial rape doesn't happen again.

Limit on illegal-immigrant lawsuits faces test of constitutionality

And the principal parties still refused to appeal the case. So, the precedent that people are bitching at me about is the fault of Ranch Rescue. The fact that any judge would say that undocumented foreigners have "civil rights" that trump an owner's private property Rights shows the corrupt the system is.

That comes down to individual ideology and a vagrant rape of the written law.
Liberals judges would grant citizenship to someone who never touched US soil.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

So, either you are a National Socialist OR you are ignorant and need to research this issue before engaging in this discussion.

The latter. It's always going to be the latter. Many posters in here are pretty old and disseminate pretty obsolete opinions.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

and here i thought that i was being IGNORED .

The shmuck doesn’t realize my son-in-law’s parents are from Cuba and Columbia and want a wall.

Whoopee. Anecdotes are meaningless.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So guys and gals, we seem to have a psycho here who wants open borders and claims the entire world is Americans and yet doesn’t want these people to cross our border to become naturalized.

Did I mention he’s a hypocritical psycho?

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

I just read the 14th Amendment and you’re inferring what isn’t there.
What is the definition of “Naturalized”?

What does Naturalized have to do with my point? Let's check out the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If a person is born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are citizens. The child of - let us say a diplomat could be born here, but retain the citizenship of their parents and NOT be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With respect to citizens: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens..."

There is the difference. ALL persons are
guaranteed life, liberty, property, due process, and the equal protection of the laws. If a person is within the our jurisdiction, they are subject to its laws. I already know the wallist position and it would embarrass an 8th grader to repeat it. It's the bullshit line that foreigners without papers are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What idiocy!

If a wallist were the prosecutor and a first year law student the defense attorney for the foreigner, he'd just say, you have no jurisdiction over my client so motion to dismiss... and the judge would be legally bound to do so.

The moment a foreigner's feet hit American soil, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Their immigration status will NOT save them from any criminal prosecution because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. Period.

Now, if you'll read real close, you'll see where citizens were guaranteed "privileges and immunities." THAT was an assault on your God given, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and absolute Rights that the Bill of Rights sought to guarantee by limiting the power of government.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So guys and gals, we seem to have a psycho here who wants open borders and claims the entire world is Americans and yet doesn’t want these people to cross our border to become naturalized.

Did I mention he’s a hypocritical psycho?

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

Not to mention that the 2nd sentence of the 14th is dependent on the 1st sentence.

No relevancy

 

[Indeependent]

So guys and gals, we seem to have a psycho here who wants open borders and claims the entire world is Americans and yet doesn’t want these people to cross our border to become naturalized.

Did I mention he’s a hypocritical psycho?

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

I just read the 14th Amendment and you’re inferring what isn’t there.
What is the definition of “Naturalized”?

What does Naturalized have to do with my point? Let's check out the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If a person is born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are citizens. The child of - let us say a diplomat could be born here, but retain the citizenship of their parents and NOT be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With respect to citizens: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens..."

There is the difference. ALL persons are
guaranteed life, liberty, property, due process, and the equal protection of the laws. If a person is within the our jurisdiction, they are subject to its laws. I already know the wallist position and it would embarrass an 8th grader to repeat it. It's the bullshit line that foreigners without papers are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What idiocy!

If a wallist were the prosecutor and a first year law student the defense attorney for the foreigner, he'd just say, you have no jurisdiction over my client so motion to dismiss... and the judge would be legally bound to do so.

The moment a foreigner's feet hit American soil, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Their immigration status will NOT save them from any criminal prosecution because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. Period.

Now, if you'll read real close, you'll see where citizens were guaranteed "privileges and immunities." THAT was an assault on your God given, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and absolute Rights that the Bill of Rights sought to guarantee by limiting the power of government.

And that’s why we have tons of legislation that sends non-citizens back home the second their visit comes to a pre-determined end.
No one is saying we have the right to abuse trespassers.
We have the right to send them back home...immediately.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Did you also mention that you are a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot? FWIW this is the same POS that plays negrophilist one moment and racist the next. On this thread he factually has at least TWO personalities and not a damn fact to back his personal attacks with me.

The wallist religion is the most dangerous position on this planet.

Open borders my ass... you love that wholesale citizenship shit. You missed that post too. You're about the dumbest, non-reading troll alive.

Answer Yes OR No...
You have stated that anyone who steps on US soil shall be treated as a US citizen.

Hell NO nor have I suggested any such thing. What I said is that the moment their feet hit U.S. soil, the federal government is obligated to extend to them both Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. You can thank the 14th Amendment (which I believe to have been illegally ratified) and the United States Supreme Court (which I think over-steps their constitutional role) for the status quo. Who in the Hell do you think I am? I didn't write the law and have no power in its interpretation or enforcement.

Still, it is the law and you can't change constitutional Amendments NOR United States Supreme Court RULINGS with a popularity vote or Executive fiat. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of who is dispensing their brand of "justice."

I just read the 14th Amendment and you’re inferring what isn’t there.
What is the definition of “Naturalized”?

What does Naturalized have to do with my point? Let's check out the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If a person is born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are citizens. The child of - let us say a diplomat could be born here, but retain the citizenship of their parents and NOT be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With respect to citizens: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens..."

There is the difference. ALL persons are
guaranteed life, liberty, property, due process, and the equal protection of the laws. If a person is within the our jurisdiction, they are subject to its laws. I already know the wallist position and it would embarrass an 8th grader to repeat it. It's the bullshit line that foreigners without papers are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What idiocy!

If a wallist were the prosecutor and a first year law student the defense attorney for the foreigner, he'd just say, you have no jurisdiction over my client so motion to dismiss... and the judge would be legally bound to do so.

The moment a foreigner's feet hit American soil, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Their immigration status will NOT save them from any criminal prosecution because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. Period.

Now, if you'll read real close, you'll see where citizens were guaranteed "privileges and immunities." THAT was an assault on your God given, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and absolute Rights that the Bill of Rights sought to guarantee by limiting the power of government.

And that’s why we have tons of legislation that sends non-citizens back home the second their visit comes to a pre-determined end.
No one is saying we have the right to abuse trespassers.
We have the right to send them back home...immediately.

I don't think that by confronting trespassers on your property you are abusing them if you use force to drive them away. Maybe our former Ranch Rescue member that posts here will tell us whether the amount of force was justified by the amount of resistance encountered.

Where I live, if you can make a case for your life or limb being (or that of family / loved ones) on your property being in imminent danger, you can use deadly force. You can't shoot an unarmed man in the back, but you could put a round through their head if they were advancing on you and you were in danger of being killed or maimed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I got $2 sez "Porter Rockwell" is Guno.

I don't know what guno is, but I have a thousand dollars in cash that says you're a loud mouthed, ignorant, chicken shit that runs from his own shadow.

The upside is, you've proven what I've said about wallists on this thread.

Sure ya do, you ain't got $40, STFU with your bullshittin' ass!

The real deal is, most intelligent people realize that I've got more money in my wallet than you have in the bank. Forty bucks is a quick lunch for the wife and I.

I call your bluff. The rest of that conversation belongs in PM...

You got $4900 in your wallet, lying bitchass? No? Well, you're not me then. It ain't even in my wallet, it's just in my pocket. I got more money in my pocket than you have ever had in the bank, bitch. You got the right one now, come get some! Fuck your punkass bitch self, turd.