Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[OKTexas]

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.

Thank you for such a terrific laugh. For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure. Build the wall guys DENIED it! Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.

Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.

Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 BILLION Dollar a year budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws? Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security. I have an old link along those lines:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly? It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.

I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out. I'm loving it. You continue to prove my point.

There remains a question you still haven't gotten to. I have a feeling I can count on you. You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available. Are you SURE you aren't being played? Maybe there is more to the story?

Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO

BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

Porter Rockwell —
“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.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like. As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.

Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?

I clearly read Chy Lung many times. The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.

Yeah, bro. You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll NEVER post again.

Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state. Right there in red for anyone to see.

“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. “


How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread. I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red). To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration. No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.

Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics. Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.

Damn son, you ARE stupid. I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled. It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the AUTHORITY to take power and grant it to Congress. That is NOT interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.

When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.

There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
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 [ 1808 ].

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 was in 1875.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.


Why is that.

You left out when the Reagan Administration granted amnesty, with the promise of strict enforcement by Congress that tackles the issue of preventing further undocumented immigrants from crossing the border illegally after. Congress forgot to address the second half of that, and where are we today after granting Amnesty? Are we in a better or worse position regarding the issue of illegals residing in this country since then? Now the Democrats want DACA, without dealing with the border yet again.

 

[Slyhunter]

Trump is willing to give Democrats stuff in the bill like DACA in trade for the wall. Why don't they take him up on his offer?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.

Thank you for such a terrific laugh. For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure. Build the wall guys DENIED it! Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.

Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.

Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 BILLION Dollar a year budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws? Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security. I have an old link along those lines:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly? It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.

I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out. I'm loving it. You continue to prove my point.

There remains a question you still haven't gotten to. I have a feeling I can count on you. You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available. Are you SURE you aren't being played? Maybe there is more to the story?

Does this individual “liberty” allow a foreign immigrant to break the law? Should be a very simple question for you to answer, unless you want to ignore it with a question of your own.

Also for someone to talk about some form of “REAL ID” and throwing out Hitler, you really don’t know how much more information and individual liberty you give up with just your name and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

A Social Security Number allows someone to get information on address, bank accounts, school records, job history, history of where you live, parents names through birth records, their Social Security Information. Can you get all that through some form of “REAL ID”? Yet the ACLU doesn’t seem at all concerned. Does it?

 

[eagle1462010]

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


"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)

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind. You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

 

[sealybobo]

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

You think you have the right to hire illegal immigrants? And what is your argument that you would make to the judge? You may feel justified but the community you live in doesn’t agree.

Ever try cleaning up a drug addict or alcoholic? I know a guy who’s on the cusp. He’s a bum but he works. He is a loser. Good luck wasting money trying to fix all the people who don’t want to be fixed.

If he wanted to clean himself up he would. The government can’t help him

 

[sealybobo]

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


"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)

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind. You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.

I believe the income tax is unconstitutional but get caught not paying you’ll go to jail

 

[Taz]

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.

If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.

Borders are a Fed responsibility.

 

[Taz]

Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.


Why is that.

That doesn’t matter, what matters is that it’s still happening.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.

Thank you for such a terrific laugh. For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure. Build the wall guys DENIED it! Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.

Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.

Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 BILLION Dollar a year budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws? Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security. I have an old link along those lines:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly? It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.

I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out. I'm loving it. You continue to prove my point.

There remains a question you still haven't gotten to. I have a feeling I can count on you. You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available. Are you SURE you aren't being played? Maybe there is more to the story?

Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO

BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.

.

Oh, easy out. You didn't like the Hitler reference? I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth. The FACT is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was founded, financed, and had its talking points made by National Socialists.

Now, you can lie about it or admit that you REALLY don't know as much as you claim.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

Porter Rockwell —
“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.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like. As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.

Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?

I clearly read Chy Lung many times. The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.

Yeah, bro. You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll NEVER post again.

Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state. Right there in red for anyone to see.

“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. “


How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread. I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red). To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration. No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.

Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics. Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.

Damn son, you ARE stupid. I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled. It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the AUTHORITY to take power and grant it to Congress. That is NOT interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.

When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.

There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
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 [ 1808 ].

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 was in 1875.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong.

You've yet to prove me wrong. Repeating errors in logic do not prove your point. CONGRESS DID NOT PASS ANY SUCH LAW BETWEEN 1808 AND 1924. Period. The SCOTUS granted plenary powers in 1875 when they had no such AUTHORITY to do so.

Sir, we are done with this argument. If you want to take a complete class in this, PM me and I'll be happy to teach you both legal research and constitutional interpretation. But, you need to change gears.

You're a legend in your own mind AND you are wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?

 

[danielpalos]

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.

capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.

Thank you for such a terrific laugh. For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure. Build the wall guys DENIED it! Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.

Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.

Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 BILLION Dollar a year budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws? Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security. I have an old link along those lines:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly? It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.

I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out. I'm loving it. You continue to prove my point.

There remains a question you still haven't gotten to. I have a feeling I can count on you. You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available. Are you SURE you aren't being played? Maybe there is more to the story?

Does this individual “liberty” allow a foreign immigrant to break the law? Should be a very simple question for you to answer, unless you want to ignore it with a question of your own.

Also for someone to talk about some form of “REAL ID” and throwing out Hitler, you really don’t know how much more information and individual liberty you give up with just your name and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

A Social Security Number allows someone to get information on address, bank accounts, school records, job history, history of where you live, parents names through birth records, their Social Security Information. Can you get all that through some form of “REAL ID”? Yet the ACLU doesn’t seem at all concerned. Does it?

* You could ask a rhetorical and stupid question just to say you finally made some idiotic post. Well, sir, let us explore this. There is a REAL question you won't ask.

NOBODY has a right to break any law. And so now you make the usual, sandard build the wall canard from the book of Trump 1: 1 in which it says "Thou shalt not violate Title 8 of the United States Code and enter the United States without our (meaning the build the wall adherents) permission on pain of death."

Of course I remind you that Title 8 applies to Improper Entry and not, exactly an illegal or unlawful act. For if it were, Congress would not have tried and failed to change that statute from improper to unlawful.

Then we can argue about it for the next 100 posts and nobody gives s rat's ass nor can they understand the precise language of what is being said. So, excuse me, I'll pass on that UNLESS you want to take my challenge and meet me on a level playing field where only you and I participate on a level playing field. I have a spot. Then when it's over, allow the people who are interested see what you "won" or lost on.

* See, you really DON'T know much about National ID and the Socialist Surveillance Number. Long BEFORE the ACLU adopted that fight, it belonged to the right wing. There were people in the John Birch Society and the Concerned Conservative Citizens League (just to mention a couple) who actively fought the misuses of the SSN and objected to it being used for identification. I still refuse to use the SSN as identification when possible.

My late mother had her original SSN. Across the top, the government had printed some words in bold that read: NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION

I continue to remind posters that before they started this build the wall B.S., the partiot and constitutionalist community had moved to stop National ID and the use of the SSN. We tried various theories of law with the most successful being the recession of contracts theory of law. The left was trying their dead level best to institute National ID predicated on the SSN.

One time the Georgia legislature passed legislation to force parents to give a child's SSN in order to enroll in school (to be assigned as their Student ID Number.) I submitted a proposed lawsuit to the governor that was researched by myself and the Georgia Patriot Network. The governor reconvened the legislature and added another part to the statute, allowing parents to object to the requirement whereupon the state would issue children a student ID without the SSN. The John Birch Society had an entire chapter that helped us research and prepare that proposed case.

BEFORE the build the wall religion came about, constitutionalists and patriots were chipping away at the 16th Amendment. In Congressman John Linder's district, where those groups were able to make the Georgia legislature reconvene a couple of decades earlier, they had enough clout so that Linder proposed the FAIR Tax. That bill would have eliminated the 16th Amendment, the IRS, and the income tax.

BEFORE the build the wall guys came along, the government could not force you to have an SSN. People were revoking them and it promised to be the battle of our times. Without the SSN you were not subject to the income tax. Linder floated his bill to take the forcus off the gains patriots were making. I backed off then, because I was satisfied that we MIGHT get a fair hearing on it in the court of public opinion.

It was you dumb ass build the wall types that passed legislation mandating we use the SSN for identification. Before your stupid strategies got the laws changed, you did not have to have an SSN and you could rescind the one you had if you argued fraud and duress.

I'm well aware of the dangers of using the SSN as identification. I've personally written thousands of pages on it and many newspaper articles that were published. I tell people to never use your SSN for anything not related to the income tax. Private companies cannot force you to give your SSN, so give any number you want if you don't have one.

But, bear in mind son, I've been in this one Hell of a lot longer than you and know a few people from the 70s that are still alive and were aware of the amounts of time I put into issues like this. But, it was you build the wall guys that forced through National ID. YOUR side took many wins away from the right. You're so narrowly focused on that damn wall you cannot begin to fathom the damage you done to patriots and constitutionalists. Your strategies won't work and you will have signed your name to global socialism due to the strategies you're using.

You're beginning to understand why there is no man alive that will stand up to me, face to face and call me a liberal. Had you guys NOT gotten involved, we would have reversed enough bad laws that the immigration debacle would not exist. We were active and succeeding in fights against the 14th and 16th Amendments, eminent domain abuse, and the assaults against private property Rights. Your side reversed the gains we made - the left didn't do it; communists didn't do it; undocumented foreigners didn't do it. Your side did.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


"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)

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind. You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree. Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available. If you dont like it move to Mexico.

I will hire whomever I like. But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it. You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family. Could you be any more screwed up!

 

[danielpalos]

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


"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)

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind. You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.

I believe the income tax is unconstitutional but get caught not paying you’ll go to jail

why do you believe it is unconstitutional?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years. You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

You think you have the right to hire illegal immigrants? And what is your argument that you would make to the judge? You may feel justified but the community you live in doesn’t agree.

Ever try cleaning up a drug addict or alcoholic? I know a guy who’s on the cusp. He’s a bum but he works. He is a loser. Good luck wasting money trying to fix all the people who don’t want to be fixed.

If he wanted to clean himself up he would. The government can’t help him

Currently my work DOES consist of trying to help drug addicts and alcoholics and IF they want to be fixed, I take the time for it. I've also shown in this thread how many of them are created by their parents, the government, doctors / mental health officials and / or Big Pharma - where we need to focus some of our efforts on understanding. No sir, addicts, disenfranchised, and the downtrodden can't fix themselves without help.

My argument before any court would be that by limiting my access to qualified labor, they are denying me the equal protection of the laws that they guarantee in the 14th Amendment (although that was illegally ratified.) They are infringing on my Liberty as being a LEO is not my responsibility. If XYZ company can hire a foreigner, so can I.

Furthermore, while you fret over poor people from south of the border, the white collar has a good game. They advertise for people to do really specialized jobs. The requirements might be you need three years experience in this new technology, but the technology is only two years old. Nobody is qualified. So, they argue some rag from another country is qualified and they get a waiver.

Anyway, as with all things constitutional, there is a process to follow that leads to the final showdown, but you exhaust all your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before considering extraordinary measures.

 

[Taz]

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

our northern border is even less secure.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?

It's too cold for beaners in Canada, not many of them there.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you. Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion

My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on. They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going? Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce. Hell no. That makes too much sense. Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored. If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand. I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended. If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings. Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.

I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


"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)

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind. You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.

I believe the income tax is unconstitutional but get caught not paying you’ll go to jail

Read my response to Shackles of Government or whatever his name is... it's my long post for the day. I have to go to work so I'll respond later.