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

[Correll]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Correll, you are not very intelligent. Let's face it. Let's talk reality.

From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not. First, however, let us answer a question.

What is immigration? Immigration is defined as:

The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.

immigration

So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a permanent resident, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen. But, what happens when a person does not want to become a permanent resident? The bottom line is that person does not fall under the purview of the Constitution. So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?

In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco. Here is something that was quite telling about that case:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]

...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched

...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent..."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you? Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue? You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon any branch of government any powers. That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not. So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act? See also:

Plenary power - Wikipedia

Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone? You will have done it to yourself.

Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?

Why do you have to lie and start shit with people? You can't think of a different approach? You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.

FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot. Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined! Correll and the left are one and the same.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue. I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues. In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols. My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA. Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine. I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties. Having been on all sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do. We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. Those "civil rights" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "open border" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "civil rights" regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business, your Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.


NONE.

Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant. If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you. Would you like a couple of examples?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
Stephen King R-Iowa
Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis

Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country

If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so. You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.

BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it. Will you do so for me? Read some of the earlier posts here. IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.

We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks

White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.

How do you define "White?"

Jews started the trading of slaves in the New World and, by white supremacist ideology, Jews ain't white.

Slavery and the Jews

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Why limit it? In a general conversation, I don't. This thread, however, is about right wing militias so my comments must be relevant to their involvement in the allegations of slavery.

 

[Correll]

Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?

Why do you have to lie and start shit with people? You can't think of a different approach? You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.

FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot. Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined! Correll and the left are one and the same.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue. I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues. In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols. My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA. Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine. I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties. Having been on all sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do. We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. Those "civil rights" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "open border" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "civil rights" regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business, your Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.


NONE.

Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant. If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you. Would you like a couple of examples?

1. Calling my posts "political propaganda" instead of addressing what I actually say, is just you being rude.


2 REfuseing to address what I actually say, and trying to tie what I said in with other people that you see some similarity to, is you being dishonest.

3. If you disagree with what I say, explain why, as concisely as you can.

4. Save the name calling for the tourists. iF you see your fingers typing "nazis" or "wallist" give yourself a hard shake, and try again.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:

FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros

Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.

This is all a side show for leftist shitbags to hold up and point to....looks like it works for you.

Larry Mitchell Hopkins and his twenty (count em' twenty) whole followers are not a threat to the nation.

But a porous collapsed border is! The people who have entered the nation and reside here illegally represent well over one hundred billion dollars of cost to taxpayers every single year! Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY
That's all tax payer money not available to citizens because it is going to support criminals living in our midst.
Larry Mitchell Hopkins is not responsible for that.

They represent all sorts of communicable diseases that are being brought into our nation that we haven't seen here in decades, or never seen at all! You can't blame Larry Mitchell Hopkins for that!

They represent a frightening demographic shift because the long term implications of a large and growing group of people who all owe their very presence in the U.S. to a blatant disregard for our laws and our generous safety net does not bode well for the nation...unless you are in the DNC and you make your living attracting supporters by out preforming the other party in terms of giving away free stuff in return for their votes.

Gee...there must be a reason why Pelosi and Schumer will not budge on the issue of a border barrier of some sort.
Could this be the reason? Well, duh! Once more, Larry Mitchell Hopkins not responsible for that
as well as the rape, murder, theft, drug and human trafficking committed by illegal immigrants.
He didn't do any of that.

Well, maybe you get the idea (but you almost certainly won't). And please don't pretend I am endorsing this man who was nabbed by the FBI, after the New Mexico governor screamed that some of the people who were entering the country illegally were being stopped. I am not!

I am saying he is a side show and his existence should not take attention away from how Marxist organizers in the U.S. are actively trying to collapse the Southern border through the groups they are organizing and supporting and hopefully giving the U.S. a black eye.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.

So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.

 

[Indeependent]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Translation:
Either 4 or 5 judges would agree.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.

Back then employers hired whomever they chose. Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate. Today, people like you want to "vet" potential workers. Part of your religion says that government is God. And so, you want to take the word of liars in government. Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans. An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote. When ANY law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional. When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually KNOW the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank. But, in your world, those people cannot find ANY job since ANY criminal act precludes those people from finding ANY job. Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs. Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws are unconstitutional.) The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials. THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has NO jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "vetting" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. What you are advocating is pure socialism. Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more. It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida. It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters. Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked. Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND there are better ways.

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights. Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't. Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners. Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Why do you have to lie and start shit with people? You can't think of a different approach? You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.

FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot. Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined! Correll and the left are one and the same.

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue. I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues. In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols. My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA. Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine. I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties. Having been on all sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do. We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. Those "civil rights" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "open border" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "civil rights" regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business, your Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.


NONE.

Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant. If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you. Would you like a couple of examples?

1. Calling my posts "political propaganda" instead of addressing what I actually say, is just you being rude.


2 REfuseing to address what I actually say, and trying to tie what I said in with other people that you see some similarity to, is you being dishonest.

3. If you disagree with what I say, explain why, as concisely as you can.

4. Save the name calling for the tourists. iF you see your fingers typing "nazis" or "wallist" give yourself a hard shake, and try again.

Son, what I said about wallists is true. If you challenge me again, you will be introduced to a long post that will prove, unequivocally who it is running the show. They aren't just racists or left of center. They are bonafide real life nazis.

 

[Indeependent]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.

Back then employers hired whomever they chose. Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate. Today, people like you want to "vet" potential workers. Part of your religion says that government is God. And so, you want to take the word of liars in government. Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans. An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote. When ANY law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional. When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually KNOW the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank. But, in your world, those people cannot find ANY job since ANY criminal act precludes those people from finding ANY job. Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs. Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws are unconstitutional.) The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials. THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has NO jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "vetting" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. What you are advocating is pure socialism. Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more. It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida. It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters. Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked. Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND there are better ways.

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights. Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't. Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners. Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.

Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.

So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.

So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.

Back then employers hired whomever they chose. Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate. Today, people like you want to "vet" potential workers. Part of your religion says that government is God. And so, you want to take the word of liars in government. Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans. An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote. When ANY law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional. When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually KNOW the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank. But, in your world, those people cannot find ANY job since ANY criminal act precludes those people from finding ANY job. Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs. Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws are unconstitutional.) The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials. THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has NO jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "vetting" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. What you are advocating is pure socialism. Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more. It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida. It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters. Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked. Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND there are better ways.

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights. Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't. Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners. Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.

Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.

If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out. IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are. Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't. Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

At least once and I already made my reply. The federal government controls the borders of the nation itself and even if California wants to simply let ALL of Mexico and Central America and whoever else wants to come on in, the first business of the federal government is to protect and defend ALL of the nation.

California cannot possibly claim that the people they invite on into their state will remain inside state borders. Their actions constitute a real and present danger to the rest of the union.


That seems so simple and elementary I'm kind of shocked you didn't get it the first time.

 

[Indeependent]

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.

Back then employers hired whomever they chose. Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate. Today, people like you want to "vet" potential workers. Part of your religion says that government is God. And so, you want to take the word of liars in government. Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans. An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote. When ANY law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional. When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually KNOW the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank. But, in your world, those people cannot find ANY job since ANY criminal act precludes those people from finding ANY job. Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs. Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws are unconstitutional.) The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials. THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has NO jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "vetting" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. What you are advocating is pure socialism. Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more. It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida. It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters. Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked. Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND there are better ways.

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights. Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't. Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners. Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.

Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.

If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out. IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are. Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't. Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.

Save your bullshit for yourself.
Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.

So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.

We also have questions left to be litigated, but right now we have an illegal / de facto government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wherein the United States Supreme Court has set itself up to be the superior branch of government and the other two branches don't contest it. We have a president that is equally deluded, thinking he is the head monkey. What we do not have is the Republic as guaranteed in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

If you cannot make your comments relevant than you should not post on such matters again.

It's your job to make your mumbo jumbo relevant in the context of my post which you cited.
Not Mine!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

At least once and I already made my reply. The federal government controls the borders of the nation itself and even if California wants to simply let ALL of Mexico and Central America and whoever else wants to come on in, the first business of the federal government is to protect and defend ALL of the nation.

California cannot possibly claim that the people they invite on into their state will remain inside state borders. Their actions constitute a real and present danger to the rest of the union.


That seems so simple and elementary I'm kind of shocked you didn't get it the first time.

The laws have specific meanings. Your opinions do not reflect the law regardless of how far your cult is willing to go in trying to force others into chanting the popular mantra. Let me help you out here:

The federal government, under the Constitution, is charged with protecting us against invasion. Black's Law Dictionary is the most authoritative source for interpreting the meaning of words that the courts rely on. According to Black's:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. "

This definition does not lend itself to suspending the Constitution just because you feel threatened by foreigners crossing the border. It is a states right.

So, let's be accurate here. I'm from Georgia. Should I be denied entry into South Carolina just because I'm not a citizen? I mean as it now stands, I can go there and work for a period of time. THEN, if I spend too much time there, they expect that I will become a citizen. In the meantime, there are no laws that keep me from being there. I can't get any state benefits (food stamps, unemployment checks, etc.) but I can go there. IF California lets people come into their state and those guests pose a problem in another state, that state can take California to court.

Ignoring the Constitution, however is a NO GO.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.

Back then employers hired whomever they chose. Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate. Today, people like you want to "vet" potential workers. Part of your religion says that government is God. And so, you want to take the word of liars in government. Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans. An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote. When ANY law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional. When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually KNOW the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank. But, in your world, those people cannot find ANY job since ANY criminal act precludes those people from finding ANY job. Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs. Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws are unconstitutional.) The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials. THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has NO jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "vetting" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. What you are advocating is pure socialism. Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more. It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida. It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters. Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked. Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND there are better ways.

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights. Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't. Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners. Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.

Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.

If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out. IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are. Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't. Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.

Save your bullshit for yourself.
Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

There are no "illegals" since we have a presumption of innocence.

You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger. You didn't impress me one damn bit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

If you cannot make your comments relevant than you should not post on such matters again.

It's your job to make your mumbo jumbo relevant in the context of my post which you cited.
Not Mine!

Every sentence I've posted is relevant to what you asked. The fact that you cannot connect the dots means that maybe you should do more research and quit spewing shit for nazis.