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

[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.

That is not really true.
Originally there were no police at all, so militia is what refers to when you protect your own home, when the municipality organizes a posse to catch bank robbers, when the state organizes a defense from a native attack, or when the state fulfills a federal request for a division of troops. Those are ALL called militia, even though they are all under very different jurisdictions and supervision. The state and federal levels usually are capitalized because they are organized and issued identifying uniforms. But if someone comes onto your property to steal something, and you arrest them, you are acting as a militia capacity and it is perfectly legal because you have jurisdiction on your property. You just can't try to enforce federal immigration law unless you have been called up by the president. Even the governor can not legally enforce federal law.

I don't know what law school you went to, but I'd suggest looking that up in the United States Code.

Most people here are sensible enough to realize that state and local governments can enforce federal laws by virtue of power (you might have a point if we're discussing the Constitution and authority as opposed to the power of government.

Under the USC, defining the militia, no support can be found for what you're saying.

 

[ozro]

I remember its the Sturmabteilung! woohoo theres at least two snopsis' happened just then.

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......

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway. Happy Resurrection Day, all, as my better half is fond of saying. I'm gonna get off of here.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Read the link, and it is wrong.
Most immigrants do not have children, but when they do, they more than pay for their education.
Why do you think we provide education for free in the US?
It is because it more than pays for itself.
And other than ER care or children born in the US, immigrants get no welfare.
Immigrants also have a lower crime rate, so are not costing us in that kind of overhead either.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

That is exactly what I mean. The right cannot win this issue on the question of economics. That, however, does not mean there is no problem.

Trump proved that when he offered to let all the foreigners in that Sanctuary Cities wanted. Their problem is the left thinks we should force every state to invite foreigners in. Americans play the pivotal role as to why the status quo exists and need to own their part in it. We also should be focusing on the effects of adding a million new citizens to our census figures along with how flooding this country with foreigners is impacting our culture.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

/——/ Let them in legally to work with green cards then go back to Mexico

Orwell much?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Sorry but I don't accept what the disingenuous Washington Post has to say about the Printz decision deciding the issue of sanctuary cities.
It's a self serving claim and it doesn't take into account local state and city entities that not only are not helping
or assisting the federal government in enforcing the law but they are proactively and ardently aiding illegal immigrants in breaking the law (like Oakland mayor Libby Schiff, for example, who actually announced an intended ICE raid in her city and thwarted the law the same way a look out who alerts fellow criminals to the police takes part in a criminal scheme).

I'm not buying the rationalized hype.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

You would have to elaborate on that for me to understand what you're asking.

 

[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

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

Wtf are you talking about

 

[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.

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......

There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:


United States militia groups
Militia group name State, county or locale
3 Percenters[22] nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide

Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Sorry but I don't accept what the disingenuous Washington Post has to say about the Printz decision deciding the issue of sanctuary cities.
It's a self serving claim and it doesn't take into account local state and city entities that not only are not helping
or assisting the federal government in enforcing the law but they are proactively and ardently aiding illegal immigrants in breaking the law (like Oakland mayor Libby Schiff, for example, who actually announced an intended ICE raid in her city and thwarted the law the same way a look out who alerts fellow criminals to the police aids in criminal acts).

I'm not buying the rationalized hype.

What happens in courts is not rationalized hype.

Trump Suffers Another Defeat in Philadelphia Sanctuary City Case

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sanctuary policies are not illegal.

Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.

They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
cooperate with police though he easily could.

 

[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.

Wtf are you talking about

under the law we lived under, we were an illegal rebellion.

ben franklin meant it we he said we all hang together or we shall hang seperately.

 

[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......

There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:


United States militia groups
Militia group name State, county or locale
3 Percenters[22] nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide

Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia

clicked a few, recognized units. mine is there

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Agreed with everything until the last sentence.
Cutting federal funding and turning loose undocumented to those cities will NOT pass constitutional muster.
Funding has to be established by legislative principles and blind justice.
It is illegal for a president to restrict funding for personal agendas.
States specifically do have complete jurisdiction as to what sort of registration they want for state residents.
This already came up when the US brought in all those Vietnamese refugees.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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......

There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:


United States militia groups
Militia group name State, county or locale
3 Percenters[22] nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide

Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia

One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence. I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.

It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups. It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Read the link, and it is wrong.
Most immigrants do not have children, but when they do, they more than pay for their education.
Why do you think we provide education for free in the US?
It is because it more than pays for itself.
And other than ER care or children born in the US, immigrants get no welfare.
Immigrants also have a lower crime rate, so are not costing us in that kind of overhead either.

Your fallacies and blind assurances do nothing to invalidate the link. I can give you the same information from any number of sources. You are simply insisting in what is not so.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sanctuary policies are not illegal.

Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.

They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
cooperate with police though he easily could.

Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sanctuary policies are not illegal.

Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.

They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
cooperate with police though he easily could.

...and yet, there is not a single case in this country in which a city official has been prosecuted for declaring a city a "sanctuary city". I wonder why the feds have not done that. After all, there are over 250 of such cities... It must be a massive CONSPIRACY!

 

[ozro]

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......

There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:


United States militia groups
Militia group name State, county or locale
3 Percenters[22] nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide

Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia

One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence. I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.

It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups. It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.

as i said before, my duties as az citizens militia have been mundane on the border. volunteer and at my expense. unarmed by order.
here at home, search and rescue is our purpose. i add, we all hope it stays that way.
not that i want people to get lost, hope they dont.. if they do we help whether legal or nnot btw