Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[bripat9643]

LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.

Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."

Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.

I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want. They work for the taxpayers. Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?

After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.

Don't lecture me, poseur. I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.

The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."

Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.

I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want. They work for the taxpayers. Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?

After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.

Don't lecture me, poseur. I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.

The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?

Saving it from people like you

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

See there. We only had to wait minutes on it. On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States. Congress has a very limited power here.

It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.

The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.

I will overlook your ignorance. I'm not a lefty. In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.) I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.

In my lifetime, I've been consistent. I didn't change; the people on the right did. My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas. My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire. Now, let us get our facts straight.

During the lives of ALL the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization. Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.

In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense. While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.

The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government. If you can show me that authority I will change my views. It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.

Nothing to do with your violating the law points.........Nothing.

Yawn - I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your permission or mine? Please cite me that part of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

OMG. Are you kidding? That was tried once today. The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808. One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.

The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government. In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress. If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.

I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.

You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic. I'm sure you have much more extensive experience. Virtually all you build the wall guys do.

Yet you can’t provide the evidence of that actual “research”. Why is it I’m the only one who can back it up and include that in a response? Words of 250 court briefs are supposed to be efficient enough, as opposed to providing links in somehow impressing me? Seriously? Resumes without provided evidence are only for those trying to impress and scratch their ego rather than thrpugh hard work and efforts of providing actual FACTS

You're being an idiot. Will you read some of those briefs if I post them on this thread? No. You haven't provided evidence of anything except your commitment to tyranny.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.

Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol

I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier. Or just walk past it. Or shoot the drone down. Have any idea what a good drone costs? Who's going to fly it? Refuel it? Monitor its camera? Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me. With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that. And they still have to get to the action. By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy! At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.

Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard! Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall. And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us. According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.

Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico

So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?

Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.

.

That was three years ago.

You quote the year 2016 and it's now 2019. Some more of your meth induced math calling that a three year difference?

 

[OKTexas]

My goodness you are off the charts tonight. Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party. Yours are much more inline with them than mine. Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.

They can see me for what they like. That won't make it true. As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me. Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.

If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed. You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.

You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand. You even ignore the hints. It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand: There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.

Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury. The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is. In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does. You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.

That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.

Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate. And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout. It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over. But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.

Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution. You are making up that BS in your head. The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution. The solution is multi-level. The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence. Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here. Most of them would pack up and leave the country.

I know quite well what this is all about--you don't. You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.

I have endured your dumbassery long enough. I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican. I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology. YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.

You have one standard. If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc. THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.

If you had ANY IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest. My only point to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.

You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur. YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.

Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time. Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth. Enough of this B.S. You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone. You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose. My Rights are unalienable. You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them. To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.

You should start at post #2806. Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions. It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you. Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?

Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away. If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side. This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work. You want to prove yourself as a conservative? Then join the conservatives on this issue.

I promised you a response. It takes two parts. Here is the first part, the second one to follow:

Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly. To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc. That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.

The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy. In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.) If this man stays in his current position, he dies. If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.) If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live. That part of the analogy refers to a solution OTHER THAN the nutty wall idea.

I am neither pro-open borders NOR am I anti – closed borders. So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest. It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.

The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty. So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty. In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

The Bible is clear about this subject as well:

“Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof” Leviticus 25: 10 and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall. This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.

In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:

“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.”

But what is Liberty? Well in a biblical sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. In law, Liberty means Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)

My take on it is very simple:

In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police. Nobody complied? Why? People think the law is unconstitutional. The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights. The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty. So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right. On that issue, they understand the concept.

Those same people would, however, deny to me my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners. The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty. Those wanting a wall cannot find any biblical precedent for CONTROLLING people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out. What a crock! (Continued in part II)

Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.

That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.

Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.

Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one. I've listed several of them, but there are actually more. And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.

If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.

That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.

Pretexts are not reasons. They are just that. For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get. Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour. When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.

NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue. But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget. If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own. It's that simple. Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and not one single time has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs EVER walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?

Penalties

CIVIL VIOLATIONS

• Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
• Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
• Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
• Committing document abuse
• Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
• Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
• Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements

CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

• Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens

What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?

What does IRCA mean to employers?
Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:

1. U.S. citizen
2. noncitizen national
3. lawful permanent resident
4. alien authorized to work

To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.

You should READ this thread. Let's start you out with post # 2806. I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.

I responded to your talking points regarding your hiring illegals.............and made valid points to those comments......You are breaking the law by hiring them. Only problem being as I discussed.

Fix that law.........and you wouldn't get a pass for hiring them. You know you are hiring illegals........You know you are breaking the law...........but have a legal loop hole out............saying I didn't know later.

See my response to Ray about Liberty.

I just did and they are laughable..............You can't go into visit another country legally without a passport. Can't work there legally without a work visa or their version of the same. Nations have borders. Nations have laws...........and their are legal ways to enter this country.

According the the CBP Walls do work.........Make it easier to stop them from coming.....with the added in other security measures in their reports and requests. Everywhere they have improved infrastructure on the border, the apprehensions have went down......Because it's harder to get into the country. The first respect of a nation if you want to live here is to respect our laws........if you don't then we don't need you.

We have Social Safety nets everywhere which they use.......costs us a lot of money....and we are in debt up to our asses.....Time to limit how many come and to force them to come only via legal means. All nations on earth do this........and there is nothing wrong with our doing the same.

 

[Flopper]

The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?

Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.

No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.

And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.

One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law. In was passed in 1996.

Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:

• Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
  
  
• Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
  
  
• Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  
  
• Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
  
  
• Medicaid
  
  
• Medicare
  
  
• Social Security
  
  
• Welfare

Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.

Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:

• Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
  
  
• Schooling
  
  
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.

No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost

I appreciate the time you took in creating this post.
BUT,
You miss a very important item.
Illegals can easily get IDs that make them seem to be legals. Using those documents allows them to apply for and receive many of the benefits outlined in your post.

I personally know this to be a fact!

There is only anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying it never happens but I think it's rare for several reasons. Consider the application for SNAP.

1. Most states are now requiring certified documents that prove citizenship in addition to documents that prove state residency. When such documents are not available then a number of secondary documents are required.
2. Personal information of all household members are required including employment history, social security numbers, birth dates, etc.
3. The federal government requires that all applications be audited in regard to both citizenship and income. After the first year, income data is audited.
4. Being in the country without documentation is not a crime, however falsifying applications for federal assistance programs is a felony with penalties up to 10 years in jail.

There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that shows undocumented immigrant's fear that government agencies will passed on information to immigration officials keeps them from using government services. Police have less reports of illegal activities in neighborhoods known to be mostly undocumented compared to other low income neighborhoods. Public schools in neighborhoods with many undocumented immigrants say they get very few applications for free and reduce lunches from families know to have undocumented family members. This is in spite of the fact they inform parents that they do not collect immigration data on students or share it with other agencies.

Generally dealing with any government agency is a red flag for undocumented immigrants. Just as a wanted felony is not likely to walk into police headquarters to file a complaint, undocumented immigrants tend to avoid goverment agencies. They are not considered a safe place.

Thanks for the compliment but the fact is most of what I write comes from other sources. I ain't that good a writer.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your permission or mine? Please cite me that part of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

OMG. Are you kidding? That was tried once today. The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808. One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.

The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government. In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress. If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.

I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.

You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic. I'm sure you have much more extensive experience. Virtually all you build the wall guys do.

All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.

.

You have almost gotten me to stoop to your level.

As a matter of FACT, our side was winning the war until half wits (and that's being liberal in presuming you're even a half wit) screwed the pooch with this big government or no government cow dung.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.

Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO

.

I didn't say it would work. I only said it would make YOU happy. In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.

Yeah, you said walls don't work, yet you want to put the other poster behind 4 of them, a bit hypocritical ain't it and very inconsistent?

.

Not hypocritical at all. I said it would be for HIS enjoyment. It won't impact me.

Neither will walls in certain areas on the southern border.

.

Talking out your ass doesn't give any credibility to your swill.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.

That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.

Pretexts are not reasons. They are just that. For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get. Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour. When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.

NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue. But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget. If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own. It's that simple. Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and not one single time has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs EVER walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?

Penalties

CIVIL VIOLATIONS

• Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
• Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
• Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
• Committing document abuse
• Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
• Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
• Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements

CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

• Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens

What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?

What does IRCA mean to employers?
Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:

1. U.S. citizen
2. noncitizen national
3. lawful permanent resident
4. alien authorized to work

To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.

You should READ this thread. Let's start you out with post # 2806. I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.

I responded to your talking points regarding your hiring illegals.............and made valid points to those comments......You are breaking the law by hiring them. Only problem being as I discussed.

Fix that law.........and you wouldn't get a pass for hiring them. You know you are hiring illegals........You know you are breaking the law...........but have a legal loop hole out............saying I didn't know later.

See my response to Ray about Liberty.

I just did and they are laughable..............You can't go into visit another country legally without a passport. Can't work there legally without a work visa or their version of the same. Nations have borders. Nations have laws...........and their are legal ways to enter this country.

According the the CBP Walls do work.........Make it easier to stop them from coming.....with the added in other security measures in their reports and requests. Everywhere they have improved infrastructure on the border, the apprehensions have went down......Because it's harder to get into the country. The first respect of a nation if you want to live here is to respect our laws........if you don't then we don't need you.

We have Social Safety nets everywhere which they use.......costs us a lot of money....and we are in debt up to our asses.....Time to limit how many come and to force them to come only via legal means. All nations on earth do this........and there is nothing wrong with our doing the same.

There are plenty of reasons. I'd suggest you read my responses to Ray.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.

Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."

Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.

I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want. They work for the taxpayers. Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?

After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.

Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.

Absolute stupidity.

 

[eagle1462010]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

See there. We only had to wait minutes on it. On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States. Congress has a very limited power here.

It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.

The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.

I will overlook your ignorance. I'm not a lefty. In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.) I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.

In my lifetime, I've been consistent. I didn't change; the people on the right did. My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas. My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire. Now, let us get our facts straight.

During the lives of ALL the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization. Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.

In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense. While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.

The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government. If you can show me that authority I will change my views. It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.

Nothing to do with your violating the law points.........Nothing.

Yawn - I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

No need.............I believe we need better security and believe the burning house scenario presented by you is a joke.

There are over 200 million living in poverty South of our Border...........it's a numbers game........and that number needs to be controlled.....Or more will come. Lowers our pay, and puts us deeper in debt.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.

LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.

Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."

Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.

I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want. They work for the taxpayers. Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?

Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.

.

You could sue your brains for non support. This immigration war has wreaked havoc on the Constitution for years now.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

OMG. Are you kidding? That was tried once today. The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808. One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.

The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government. In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress. If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.

I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.

You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic. I'm sure you have much more extensive experience. Virtually all you build the wall guys do.

All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.

.

In trying to summarize my last post .. It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE. Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall

You haven't proven anything to me except a lack of reading ability. Like I said, you're a legend in your own mind.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your permission or mine? Please cite me that part of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

OMG. Are you kidding? That was tried once today. The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808. One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.

The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government. In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress. If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.

I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.

You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic. I'm sure you have much more extensive experience. Virtually all you build the wall guys do.

Realizing, of course, that 99% of legislation is agenda driven by committees and sub-committees and sub-sub-committees.

Most law is not made in the legislatures.

 

[eagle1462010]

LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.

Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."

Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.

I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want. They work for the taxpayers. Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?

Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.

.

You could sue your brains for non support. This immigration war has wreaked havoc on the Constitution for years now.

Add to the 1986 law those businesses hiring illegals are guilty of a crime ............with jail time.........along with E-verify...and ENFORCE IT.............and this issue will be over.............And the lawlessness will end..........

The Wall is as much about stopping drugs as it is the illegals...............The Flores Act needs to be changed.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

OMG. Are you kidding? That was tried once today. The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808. One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.

The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government. In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress. If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.

I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.

You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic. I'm sure you have much more extensive experience. Virtually all you build the wall guys do.

All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.

.

In trying to summarize my last post .. It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE. Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall

Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.

.

It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread. If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.

 

[Indeependent]

Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."

Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.

I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want. They work for the taxpayers. Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?

After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.

Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.

Absolute stupidity.

I thought that was your modus operendi!