Right wing militia detains 200 migrants at gun point on New Mexico!! HELL YEAH!

[Porter Rockwell]

Oops!

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins

It appears at least one dumb ass don't understand the law and gives the militia a black eye during an exercise in futility and a demonstration of stupidity by some who have never read the Constitution.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Oops!

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins

The FBI: Instantaneous in arresting a two bit New Mexico militia leader.
Taking down the Marxists in Chicago who engineered the invasion on our Southern border?....Not so much at all.

These are the things that erode confidence in our government.

 

[Rigby5]

Again, militias operate through the state to combat federal usurpers. That's it. If you wanna talk about the states' authority in terms of immigration, start a topic and I'll be glad to contribute to it. This thead is about an non sate sanctioned militia operating outside of the parameters of what a militia is supposed to do in order to justify its status as legitimate militia.

Does Texas or Arizona reject a militia like this? If they don't but New Mexico does then it raises lots of questions about
how a pro sanctuary governor is politicizing the issue and thus, making her threats and actions politically motivated and
thereby not valid or truly legal.

I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property.

Anything else is in violation of AZ law.

At first I though of disagreeing, since anyone defending their home is a militia, a posse raised by a municipality to catch bank robbers is a militia, etc. But since immigration is federal law, then the only militia that could act under the jurisdiction of those federal immigration laws would be the state militia under the command of the governor, which is what you are saying.
So then I realized I was agreeing.

 

[Rigby5]

I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property.

Anything else is in violation of AZ law.

I haven't disputed that...only the propriety of a sanctuary state governor outlawing a militia purely because she believes
she has the right to ignore federal law and do whatever the fck she wants, just like Jim Crow era governors.

The hypocrisy and sanctimony stinks like a skunk carcass left out in the midday sun.

It is not a question of outlawing a militia, but that only those appropriately authorized by the governor's chain of command can enforce federal law when the federal government requests it.
Militias have no authority or jurisdiction under federal law otherwise.
Anyone can defend themselves or arrest a bank robber, but immigration is not a question of individual defense.

 

[Rigby5]

what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?

Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.

Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.

No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders

Mexicans are not invaders.
When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.

Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so

We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.

 

[Rigby5]

Mexicans are not invaders.

The ones illegally crossing our border and residing in the U.S. are. Reconquista, amigo.
Wise up.

When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.

All Mexican citizens are free to enter the country legally as much as they wish. They are NOT free to illegally enter the country or stay here without
obtaining citizenship or some other legal authorization.

I'll bet you thought you really had a clever point when you made your post, didn't you. LOL...

I have no problem with Mexicans having to follow legal procedures when crossing the border.
But there really can be no restrictions on temporary agricultural workers, visitors, etc., and there were about half a million Mexicans murdered or illegally chased off their land in what is now the US, but used to be Mexico.
The clever point is that people need to remember that CA, AZ, UT, NV, CO, NM, TX, etc., were once part of Mexico, and that Mexicans must still be able to freely access these states. The Mexican citizens who owned land in these states, (almost all of the land in these states), were not required to become US citizens.
The point is that those looking at this like a Mexican invasion have it wrong.
By law these states are supposed to retain almost exclusive land ownership by Mexicans.

 

[Rigby5]

what is so hard about the rule of law.

one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.

it is that simple

It is not that simple.
The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.

But while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity. A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.

 

[ozro]

what is so hard about the rule of law.

one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.



it is that simple

It is not that simple.
The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.

But while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity. A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.

I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues

edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When the invaders approached the militia intending to ask for asylum they should have been ignored. The BP shouldn't have been told they were there.

 

[Crepitus]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

So, turns out the lease is a felon illegally possessing firearms as well as a nut-bar conspiracy theorist pushing this q-anon bullshit.

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....almost 50 pages in 24 hours on this thread!

Some are pooping their pants. We know who's not!!

Alot more Larry's out there sons!

 

[Rigby5]

what is so hard about the rule of law.

one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.



it is that simple

It is not that simple.
The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.

But while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity. A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.

I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues

edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.

What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers. It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.

Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state. If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own. Period.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Oops!

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins

The FBI: Instantaneous in arresting a two bit New Mexico militia leader.
Taking down the Marxists in Chicago who engineered the invasion on our Southern border?....Not so much at all.

These are the things that erode confidence in our government.

You are mixing oranges with apples.

The average brainwashed, deluded, misguided, and misinformed proselytes to socialism have been making these ridiculous arguments for over fifteen years now. It's time you pull your head out of your ass.

At a very early age the average American is taught by our system a set of humanist, secular, and counter-productive measures designed to con them into participating in their own genocide.

To that end, misguided parents, school officials, the government, doctors, and Big Pharma begin making drug addicts and mommy dependent children. The aforementioned parties start their kids on drugs of NONEXISTENT conditions and give them Adderall and Ritalin. Those kids then advance to opioids - whether legal or illegal and then into illegal drugs.

You create a worthless generation who thinks the world owes them a living and it results in Americans consuming 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, having more people in prisons and jails than any nation in the world and an entire generation - FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION - being less affluent, living shorter lives, and being less healthy than their parents.

That being the case, employers WELCOME foreign workers. You aren't being invaded. The American people are sitting on their ass, giving the country away. Adding insult to injury, it is of no big consequence to most of the people in the U.S. since we are at what economists consider to be statistical ZERO unemployment.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.

Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state. If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own. Period.

Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?

Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.

Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.

No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders

Mexicans are not invaders.
When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.

Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so

We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.

I don't know if that is really relevant.

In the 1950s, the United States began a program called Operation Wetback. It was put into place in 1953 and in 1954 the government rounded up every Hispanic they could find and deported them.

In less than five years, our unemployment rate DOUBLED! Adding insult to injury, America's unemployment rate would not be at those 1950s level again until now. The wallists are arguing economics and history testifies against them.

Furthermore, the federal government, under the Constitution has little de jure / constitutional authority on this issue. So, we would need to study the Rule of Law in order figure out what it would take for those drunk on the liberals Kool Aid to listen to a legitimate method of addressing the issue. This is clearly a question of jurisdiction and the wallists are abusing the Hell out of it AND being put on notice that the blade will cut both ways. One day the Democrats will come back to power and the precedents being set by the wallists will be fodder for their own genocide.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Mexicans are not invaders.

The ones illegally crossing our border and residing in the U.S. are. Reconquista, amigo.
Wise up.

When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.

All Mexican citizens are free to enter the country legally as much as they wish. They are NOT free to illegally enter the country or stay here without
obtaining citizenship or some other legal authorization.

I'll bet you thought you really had a clever point when you made your post, didn't you. LOL...

I have no problem with Mexicans having to follow legal procedures when crossing the border.
But there really can be no restrictions on temporary agricultural workers, visitors, etc., and there were about half a million Mexicans murdered or illegally chased off their land in what is now the US, but used to be Mexico.
The clever point is that people need to remember that CA, AZ, UT, NV, CO, NM, TX, etc., were once part of Mexico, and that Mexicans must still be able to freely access these states. The Mexican citizens who owned land in these states, (almost all of the land in these states), were not required to become US citizens.
The point is that those looking at this like a Mexican invasion have it wrong.
By law these states are supposed to retain almost exclusive land ownership by Mexicans.

I guess I could agree with you to a point, but it is far broader. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to limit who each state government can invite into their respective states.

The federal government has only one constitutional area of operation on this matter:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution)

When Trump finally said, okay let the Sanctuary Cities take in all the foreigners they wanted, it was brilliant. The people in other states are not responsible for the people Sanctuary Cities bring in, so the federal government can deny federal funds to help subsidize the presence of foreigners. When we act according to the law, any perceived problem will work itself out.

 

[ozro]

what is so hard about the rule of law.

one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.



it is that simple

It is not that simple.
The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.

But while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity. A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.

I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues

edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.

What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers. It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.

2 things, one is the concept of land ownership in mexico at the time of the hildago purchase was nothing like our concept of ownership in modern america.
two, even if it was, the mexican government itself nulified most nonchurch land grants from spain when they pitched spain out.
land was owned by a quasinoble and everyone else lived and worked on his land at his pleasure. in other words, a fuedal system.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.

Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state. If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own. Period.

Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!

I think you have me confused with someone else. I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987. The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined! That's not bragging; that is fact.

IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow. No point in criticizing it. I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:

How do we effect change?

The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.