Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

[P@triot]

dears on the whole and entire, right wing; y'all cannot get out of this one simply because:

10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

You continue to post incoherent drivel. Like before, you have no idea what the law says. 10 USC 246 is federal law. And it is "upheld". All that law does is outline the classifications of militia, stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

dears on the whole and entire, right wing; y'all cannot get out of this one simply because:

10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

You continue to post incoherent drivel. Like before, you have no idea what the law says. 10 USC 246 is federal law. And it is "upheld". All that law does is outline the classifications of militia, stupid.

What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, the law is a form of socialism. Y"all keep resorting to the socialism of the "coercive use of force of the State" to accomplish most of y'alls objectives, not capitalism.

First of all, even if that were true, that doesn't make us socialists dumb-ass. That makes us law-abiding citizens. I can't help that the law requires the state to address criminal activity.

Second, what you said is desperate nonsense (as usual). To avoid vigilante "justice", the law requires the impartial state to address crime. That doesn't make it "socialism". When the government addresses crime, it is not redistributing wealth from Person A to Person B. Your arguments are idiotic and desperate.

Here is the bottom line snowflake: we have an immigration system which allows people to become U.S. citizens. Anyone entering the U.S. outside of that system will be arrested, charged, and ultimately deported. No amount of whining by you on this board is going to change that.

 

[P@triot]

What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.

The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the why. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.

Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the law is a form of socialism. Y"all keep resorting to the socialism of the "coercive use of force of the State" to accomplish most of y'alls objectives, not capitalism.

First of all, even if that were true, that doesn't make us socialists dumb-ass. That makes us law-abiding citizens. I can't help that the law requires the state to address criminal activity.

Second, what you said is desperate nonsense (as usual). To avoid vigilante "justice", the law requires the impartial state to address crime. That doesn't make it "socialism". When the government addresses crime, it is not redistributing wealth from Person A to Person B. Your arguments are idiotic and desperate.

Here is the bottom line snowflake: we have an immigration system which allows people to become U.S. citizens. Anyone entering the U.S. outside of that system will be arrested, charged, and ultimately deported. No amount of whining by you on this board is going to change that.

dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.

Public policy that can be profited from by capitalists, is simply a form of income redistribution, as in the example of for-profit prisons that cater to our "wars on crime, drugs, and terror".

 

[danielpalos]

What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.

The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the why. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.

Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.

dear, the "prefatory clause" happens to contain the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in this Case.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

 

[P@triot]

dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.

The only thing we are "soaking" in is your mind-numbing posts. The U.S. Constitution is the law. It is not a "social contract" (things don't become so just because you wish they were so). The U.S. Constitution does not redistribute wealth from one person to another. It simply outlines our rights, the design of our government, and the roles and responsibilities of it.

 

[P@triot]

What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.

The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the why. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.

Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.

dear, the "prefatory clause" happens to contain the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in this Case.

Nope. It is just a why. The why doesn't really matter (it just gives reasoning). What matters is the law. And the law says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "the right of the militia". Thanks for playing.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.

The only thing we are "soaking" in is your mind-numbing posts. The U.S. Constitution is the law. It is not a "social contract" (things don't become so just because you wish they were so). The U.S. Constitution does not redistribute wealth from one person to another. It simply outlines our rights, the design of our government, and the roles and responsibilities of it.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it is not a social Contract, enforcible at law?

 

[danielpalos]

What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.

The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the why. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.

Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.

dear, the "prefatory clause" happens to contain the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in this Case.

Nope. It is just a why. The why doesn't really matter (it just gives reasoning). What matters is the law. And the law says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "the right of the militia". Thanks for playing.

Gibberish?

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[P@triot]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

I've highlighted the key word above. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. It really is that simple.

 

[P@triot]

Gibberish?

It's difficult for children to wander into a room with adults and follow along. Ask an adult for help.

 

[P@triot]

10USC246 is federal law.

Yes it is. It outlines the different forms of militia. Nobody is arguing that.

 

[P@triot]

[Why do you believe it is not a social Contract?

Uh...because I don't believe that which is not true.

The U.S. Constitution established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens.

See? Not a "social contract", snowflake. You'll understand once you get to high school and take government.

The U.S. Constitution - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

 

[12icer]

God I hope we get the wall!!

YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.......YOU ARE TRUMPANZEE--PUTIN SUPPORTER.

No...you are not an American. Anyone who wants to surrender U.S. sovereignty, shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution, spouts anti-American sentiments, and supports the invasion of the U.S. with the intent to destroy it - as you do - is not an American.

What you spout is exactly what Trump and Red State White Conservatives have done with American Sovereignty with Putin and RUSSIA!!! You best belive.....Puttin is still Russian KGB and used Russian Cyber Security attacks on our elections to elect Trump. In Puttin has black mailable evidence to use against Trump. In fact, Russia-Puttin saw Trump as a "Mark" back in 2013 and has been using Trump. Follow the Money!

Trump is simply a Traitor to America and so is Red State White conservative voters who voted for Trump.

DRIP--DRIP. Trump has a RUSSIA Problem and the next 3.5 years, Trump will be under investigation.......

No we won't stand for it MUCH longer , In fact we plan to mount a super campaign to oust every damn dimsht in every state that is even close if we have to stop illegals at the entrance to the polls and arrest them. There is NO and has been NO evidence of any TRUMP connection to RUSSIA you base all of your post on KNOWN LIES and expect anyone to even consider them just as most of your full of shit genre do. HAHAHA you are just comic relief and complete jokes. The investigation will be stopped either by removing all who are party to it, and replacing them, or by the council admitting he has NOTHING and closing it once and for all.

 

[12icer]

God I hope we get the wall!!

Amen, brother! Amen! If we don't, there will be hell to pay for the Republican Party. You can bet the Dumbocrats will recapture FULL control of the House, the Senate, and the White House like 2009 if the Republican Party doesn't build the wall and repeal Obamacare.

That is exactly what they were sent to Washington to do, by the American people. They better damn well do it or they will regret it.

The Republican Party can't GOVERN for ALL the People. Never have....Never will.

Liberals will never rule as dictators so you can be sure if they try they will be removed and probably exterminated along with their supporters.

 

[postman]

The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the why. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.

Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.

Scalia managed to define "the people" as having at least two different meanings. That "the people" can refer to singular right, or to a collective right, depending on where it's used.

And of course, Scalia completely ignored the prefatory clause, as if it didn't even exist.

 

[12icer]

I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.

The OP is FAKE NEWS!
I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!

You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
"I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.

Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.

The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children, don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.

If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc.

First things first....What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you stole from and been fed by REAL American's?
"Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
I think you mean the "American taxpayer funded"...right?
These silver tooth anchors you speak of are here by illegal means and should not be granted citizenship. We desperately need a rewrite of the 14th. Further, the "free shit" program is not working...few become positive contributing, tax paying citizens...many become incarcerated and many become pet humans to taxpayers.

The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children, don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
50k per year...huh? All their assets...huh?
What, their rabid pit bulls? Their Dodgers and Raiders collections? Their beat up piece of shit Toyota Corolla? Their bright yellow shithole house?
What fantasy land are you in...haha...that's funny shit. None of your beloved cockroaches make 50k per year. No English and no iQ = no communication skills = no income. Easy shit.

If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc
Nah, I prefer to support a giant wall, a rewrite of the 14th and zero tolerance against third world filth coming here and robbing REAL American's....TA-DA! What else can I teach you.

You are far beyond stupid. Your side lost the civil war, therefore the 14th will never be rewritten. Repubtards invited them in to crush wages in the first place. Now that we spent money educating their US citizen kids, you retards want to ship them out before they get a job to pay us back. You stupid big government scum strip citizens of wealth & rights destroying our country.

Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 shipped out the USA manufacturing jobs. Clinton & Obama saved them.

It's beyond stupid we have to pay for 21,000 border patrol agents = 11 per mile + their corrupt lifetime government pensions & benefits. One BP agent can easily cover a half mile in each direction with binoculars, radio & rifle. So 1 agent per mile is plenty. 1,950 mile border only needs 1,950 agents. Multiply times 4 for 24 hour watch, weekends & vacation = 7,800 agents.

Fire 13,200 BP agents & use that money to cut taxes & build a wall for immigrants to view as they fly over it. Not one more dime for border security. They are just wasting my money if illegals are getting past the current tax payer funded boondoggle of 21,000 Border Patrol Agents of Big Government!

WOW man a graph from PAINT. Pure bullshit. Clinton and oshitass were not worth a damn for jobs the Republican Congress gave billyboy a balanced budget that turned into a budget surplus for a year. clinton signed NAFTA, and boplenty tried to give asia the rest of our jobs so he could further crash our economy and subjugate the country. So your post is a complete fabrication and all of your BS is lies and propaganda.

 

[12icer]

Conservatives are well aware that capitalism cannot solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. Only the state can bring criminal charges..

Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges. Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.

ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily. I have been on grand and pettit juries, and sat through many court actions for civil redress. ALL filed BY private citizens, lawyers and their agents. SO don't say I don't KNOW because I have been party to the same.

 

[12icer]

dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.

The only thing we are "soaking" in is your mind-numbing posts. The U.S. Constitution is the law. It is not a "social contract" (things don't become so just because you wish they were so). The U.S. Constitution does not redistribute wealth from one person to another. It simply outlines our rights, the design of our government, and the roles and responsibilities of it.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it is not a social Contract, enforcible at law?

Because it is NOT a social contract. It gives the duties and the restrictions on the actions of governments State, and Federal.