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

[Jitss617]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

 

[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.

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.

The land in these states were based on Spanish land grant to nobles, but so were plantations and farms in all colonies that ended up being in the US. Nor were any land grants ever "pitched". I live in New Mexico, and Spanish land grants have consistently been ruled as valid under US law. The only exceptions are when they have been abandoned. There is no way for any new legal system to void the land grants of previous systems. That would be a violation of the ex post facto principle.
Even in Mexico, land reform is still a big deal in the Yucatan because of the patron land grant monopoly from 400 years ago.

 

[ozro]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

That is ignorant. The president does not and cannot have militias.

talk about ignorant.

militias belong to the states dumbass

 

[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.

The land in these states were based on Spanish land grant to nobles, but so were plantations and farms in all colonies that ended up being in the US. Nor were any land grants ever "pitched". I live in New Mexico, and Spanish land grants have consistently been ruled as valid under US law. The only exceptions are when they have been abandoned. There is no way for any new legal system to void the land grants of previous systems. That would be a violation of the ex post facto principle.
Even in Mexico, land reform is still a big deal in the Yucatan because of the patron land grant monopoly from 400 years ago.

yep, but those claims are a big deal because they were negated. read about pancho a bit.

it created havoc with land deeds ect because it changed an entiire system. also some grants remained occupied by folks that to this day have stronger forces than the government can muster.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Doesn't stop it from being investigated. As I said.

You can investigate whether Donald Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby or not. That doesn't mean it's a good use of time or money. On it's face there was no "kidnapping" of illegals on American soil.

Now. Militias. They have one role. And only one role, And that is to be formed and called upon by the states in order to defend against federal usurpers.

There is no other constitutional support for militia other than that.

They had no business patrollingthe border. That;s the role of the federal government.

This is a conundrum caused by the illegal practice of sanctuary policy and of course if a sanctuary governor (Lujan-Grisham) doesn't want anyone stopping the flow of illegals in her sanctuary haven then it's her call to stop militias from attempting to assist in enforcement of US immigration law (even though she is tacitly aiding criminals in her state break the law),

There is no doubt she has the authority to do what she has done. There is also no doubt her authority is being misused and in a sane country she herself would be removed from office for being a complicit in the crime of illegal immigration.

But I suppose since George Wallace and Lester Maddox got away with defying US law there is little hope she will be paying for her ala carte enforcement of the law. Sanctuary politicians are the ideological step children of Jim Crow governors.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

That is ignorant. The president does not and cannot have militias.

talk about ignorant.

militias belong to the states dumbass

The states are supposed to create militias that the federal government can call up.
Anyone and everyone can create militias, but states are on the hook of being required to provide militias if the federal government requests their use for some legal need.

 

[Jitss617]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

That is ignorant. The president does not and cannot have militias.

talk about ignorant.

militias belong to the states dumbass

I said deputize

 

[ozro]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.

i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
gee if i could only remember who that was

 

[Jitss617]

The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way

 

[ozro]

The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way

we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.

 

[Jitss617]

The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way

we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.

Wow,, where is my coffee

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree. It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.

Yeah....illegal immigrants are all benefit with no downside. Illegal Immigration: The True Cost to The American Taxpayer
That's certainly the view of uninformed imbeciles, anyway.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The land in these states were based on Spanish land grant to nobles, but so were plantations and farms in all colonies that ended up being in the US. Nor were any land grants ever "pitched". I live in New Mexico, and Spanish land grants have consistently been ruled as valid under US law. The only exceptions are when they have been abandoned. There is no way for any new legal system to void the land grants of previous systems. That would be a violation of the ex post facto principle.
Even in Mexico, land reform is still a big deal in the Yucatan because of the patron land grant monopoly from 400 years ago.

yep, but those claims are a big deal because they were negated. read about pancho a bit.

it created havoc with land deeds ect because it changed an entiire system. also some grants remained occupied by folks that to this day have stronger forces than the government can muster.

Big subject and I know little about land reform in Mexico. But I believe it was changes in tax laws and the fact land grants were not being inhabited and used by owners that allowed for legal land reform?
{...
During the presidency of liberal general Porfirio Díaz, the situation of landless Mexicans became increasingly worse, since the economic boom of the late 19th century meant that haciendas expanded and actively utilized more of its land, displacing squatters who were not a problem when land was not needed. By the end of the Porfiriato, virtually all (95%) of villages lost their lands.[56][57] In Morelos, the expansion of sugar plantations triggered peasant protests against the Díaz regime and were a major factor in the outbreak and outcomes of the Mexican Revolution. There was resistance in Michoacán.[58]

In 1906, the Liberal Party of Mexico wrote a program of specific demands, many of which were incorporated into the Constitution of 1917. Leftist Ricardo Flores Magón was president of the PLM and his brother Enrique Flores Magón was treasurer. Two demands that were adopted were (Point 34) that landowners needed to make their land productive or risk confiscation by the state. (Point 35) demands that "The Government will grant land to anyone who solicits it, without any conditions other than that the land be used for agricultural production and not be sold. The maximum amount of land that the Government may allot to one person will be fixed."[59]

Some historical studies of land tenure and attempts at land reform remain important for understanding the issue, although written in the first half of the 20th century. In particular, George McBride's The Land Systems of Mexico,[60] Helen Phipps's "Some aspects of the agrarian question in Mexico: A historical study,",[61] Frank Tannenbaum's The Mexican Agrarian Revolution,[62] Eyler N. Simpson's The Ejido: Mexico's Way Out[63] and Nathan Whetten's Rural Mexico.[64]

A key influence on agrarian land reform in revolutionary Mexico was of Andrés Molina Enríquez, who is considered the intellectual father of Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution. His 1909 book, Los Grandes Problemas Nacionales (The Great National Problems) laid out his analysis of Mexico's unequal land tenure system and his vision of land reform.[65] On his mother's side Molina Enríquez had come from a prominent, politically well-connected, land-owning family, but his father's side was from a far more modest background and he himself had modest circumstances. For nine years in the late 19th century, Molina Enríquez was a notary in Mexico State, where he observed first-hand how the legal system in Porfirian Mexico was slanted in favor of large estate owners, as he dealt with large estate owners (hacendados), small holders (rancheros), and peasants who were buying, transferring, or titling land.[66] In his observations, it was not the large estates or the subsistence peasants that produced the largest amount of maize in the region, but the rancheros and considered the hacendado group "inherently evil".[67] In his views on the need for land reform in Mexico, he advocated for the increase in the ranchero group.[68]

In The Great National Problems, Molina Enríquez concluded that the Porfirio Díaz regime had promoted the growth of large haciendas although they were not as productive as small holdings. Citing his nearly decade long tenure as a notary, his claims were well-founded that haciendas were vastly under-assessed for tax purposes and that small holders were disadvantaged against the wealth and political connections of large estate owners. Since title transfers of property required payment of fees and that the fee was high enough to negatively affect small holders but not large. In addition, the local tax on title transfers was based on a property's assessment, so in a similar fashion, small holders paid a higher percentage than large holders who had ample means to pay such taxes.[69] Large estates often occupied more land than they actually held title to, counting on their size and clout to survive challenges by those on whom they infringed.[70] A great number of individual small holders had only imperfect title to their land, some no title at all, so that Díaz's requirement that land be properly titled or be subject to appropriation under the "vacant lands" law (terrenos baldíos) meant that they were at risk for losing their land. Indian pueblos also lost their land, but the two processes of land loss were not one and the same.[71]

Land loss accelerated for small holders during the Porfiriato[72] as well as indigenous communities.[73] Small holders were further disadvantaged in that they could not get bank loans for their enterprises since the amounts were not worth the expense to the bank of assessing the property.[74] Molina Enríquez's work published just prior to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution had a tremendous impact on the legal framework on land tenure that was codified in Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917. Peasant mobilization during the Revolution brought about land reform, but the intellectual and legal framework in how it was accomplished is extremely important.
...}
Land reform in Mexico - Wikipedia

 

[ozro]

The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way

we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.

Wow,, where is my coffee

well if you had been advising King George, what would you tell him to do.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.

i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
gee if i could only remember who that was

/——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party

 

[ozro]

Trump should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah

And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.

i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
gee if i could only remember who that was

/——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party

naw they were just copycats......

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat

If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.

There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.

So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?

The issue of Sanctuary Cities HAS been decided by the United States Supreme Court.

In the case of the United States v. Printz local sheriffs had filed suit and said they would not enforce the Brady Bill. The high Court ruled that:

" The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the issue of Sanctuary Cities was challenged, the Printz decision came into play. One article states:

"Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.420625730d9f

Sorry guys, Trump was blocked by conservatives in the United States Supreme Court. Trump has taken the initiative to cut off federal funding of places with Sanctuary Cities and he has vowed to turn the undocumented loose on those cities... both of which will pass constitutional muster.

 

[Rigby5]

Doesn't stop it from being investigated. As I said.

You can investigate whether Donald Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby or not. That doesn't mean it's a good use of time or money. On it's face there was no "kidnapping" of illegals on American soil.

Now. Militias. They have one role. And only one role, And that is to be formed and called upon by the states in order to defend against federal usurpers.

There is no other constitutional support for militia other than that.

They had no business patrollingthe border. That;s the role of the federal government.

This is a conundrum caused by the illegal practice of sanctuary policy and of course if a sanctuary governor (Lujan-Grisham) doesn't want anyone stopping the flow of illegals in her sanctuary haven then it's her call to stop militias from attempting to assist in enforcement of US immigration law (even though she is tacitly aiding criminals in her state break the law),

There is no doubt she has the authority to do what she has done. There is also no doubt her authority is being misused and in a sane country she herself would be removed from office for being a complicit in the crime of illegal immigration.

But I suppose since George Wallace and Lester Maddox got away with defying US law there is little hope she will be paying for her ala carte enforcement of the law. Sanctuary politicians are the ideological step children of Jim Crow governors.

Sanctuary policies are not illegal.
States are under no legal obligation to enforce federal laws, and in reality no one has the jurisdiction to be able to enforce federal law but federal agents.
Militias do not have jurisdiction unless explicitly authorized to do so by the president.

Jim Crow laws violated individual rights, which was illegal under federal, state, local, and individual rights laws.
Sanctuary cities violate no laws at all.
And in fact, which immigration is under federal jurisdiction, states should have the major say as to who they want immigrating. The only reason there has to be federal jurisdiction is if one state were acting as a gateway that resulted in harm to the desires of other states.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The issue of Sanctuary Cities HAS been decided by the United States Supreme Court.

I'd still like to know where we can find judicial review in Article III.