# This is going to open the door for them!



## PrepConsultant

Personally, I don't think he should be allowed to practice law here in the states if he is not here legally!!

Court grants law license to man in US illegally


----------



## pheniox17

isn't there a law against that, you know like working in the country illegally... and wouldn't that by default give him a record, witch will make him unable to practice law...


----------



## PrepConsultant

Not in Commiefornia apparently!!


----------



## pheniox17

US law is so confusing to us uninitiated....


----------



## pheniox17

makes me wonder how much did he bribe the judge for that...


----------



## retired guard

Why don't we just cede California back to Mexico and he can practice to his hearts content.


----------



## PrepConsultant

It is for the normal people here as well. What they need to do is just enforce the laws ALREADY on the friggin books!!


----------



## pharmer14

pheniox17 said:


> US law is so confusing to us uninitiated....


Legal is relative over here... I mean it's not like he killed anyone??? So clearly what he did isn't illegal because it wasn't anywhere near the worst case scenario...

Oh and the fact that our politicians dangle carrots in front of political puppets...

Is Australia any better???


----------



## pharmer14

PrepConsultant said:


> It is for the normal people here as well. What they need to do is just enforce the laws ALREADY on the friggin books!!


You tea-bagger, extremist, racist, bigot you... lol...


----------



## pharmer14

retired guard said:


> Why don't we just cede California back to Mexico and he can practice to his hearts content.


I remember seeing that they're increasing the state minimum wage over there... Mexico may become an attractive option for those who lose their jobs...


----------



## ekim

pheniox17 said:


> makes me wonder how much did he bribe the judge for that...


He didn't have to, I'm sure either nobama or holder put in th good word for him and maybe some money too.


----------



## inceptor

PrepConsultant said:


> Not in Commiefornia apparently!!


There was a tweet by some lady who was pissed about something. Anyhow she tweeted that she was tired of the US, she was moving back to California.

I'm just surprised that California hasn't decided to become it's own country.

Northern California has talked about seceding from the lower part.

Jefferson - The 51st State - Northern California / Southern Oregon - A State of Mind


----------



## Arizona Infidel

pheniox17 said:


> isn't there a law against that, you know like working in the country illegally... and wouldn't that by default give him a record, witch will make him unable to practice law...


Yes, it is actually illegal under immigration law. Strangely that illegal alien activist that trolls the forums might be able to give a better answer than me, but it boils down to allowing access to public funds or some such shit. Since the court issues the license to practice law, it is supported by public funds.


----------



## Deebo

Hell, our president is an illegal alien. 
seems a little fishy, he cant "complete his reqiurements" and finish the process to become a citizen, but he can get whatever college credits needed to become a lawyer?


----------



## pheniox17

pharmer14 said:


> Legal is relative over here... I mean it's not like he killed anyone??? So clearly what he did isn't illegal because it wasn't anywhere near the worst case scenario...
> 
> Oh and the fact that our politicians dangle carrots in front of political puppets...
> 
> Is Australia any better???


not much... but saying that a group of judges refused to accept the Queensland vlad act into law so that caused quite a display, as it was unconstitutional (yea that paper has no weight here either) so the Queensland premier decided only one judge will hear the cases, this is still pissing Queenslanders off (as owning a nice bike, automatically makes you a criminal) but that's a different story, I put more faith in our judges than I do in our politicians


----------



## pheniox17

Arizona Infidel said:


> Yes, it is actually illegal under immigration law. Strangely that illegal alien activist that trolls the forums might be able to give a better answer than me, but it boils down to allowing access to public funds or some such shit. Since the court issues the license to practice law, it is supported by public funds.


so your telling me (bear with me I need to get my head around it) if I manage to get into California, and have a law degree, or do a law degree under a student visa (lets say upto here i am a legally allowed to be in the US until I finish the degree) and overstay my welcome (visa is now expired) I can make a application to the court, without a visa, to practice law in the USA, yet doing so I have already broken the law, and now braking another law... yea that shows I'm of upstanding character... but saying that I'm.becoming a blood sucking lawyer....


----------



## Deebo

Not sure yet, but Im just waiting on Resistor to come say "NA NA NI BO BO, I TOLD YOU SO"..


----------



## pheniox17

Deebo said:


> Not sure yet, but Im just waiting on Resistor to come say "NA NA NI BO BO, I TOLD YOU SO"..


lol now he doesn't have to, he will be sitting behind the computer, having a good laugh.. lol


----------



## SARGE7402

pharmer14 said:


> Legal is relative over here... I mean it's not like he killed anyone??? So clearly what he did isn't illegal because it wasn't anywhere near the worst case scenario...
> 
> Oh and the fact that our politicians dangle carrots in front of political puppets...
> 
> Is Australia any better???


 I'm confused. If you do what the law tells you not to you've broken the law. And what law have all illegals broken - Duh the Immigration law.


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> isn't there a law against that, you know like working in the country illegally... and wouldn't that by default give him a record, witch will make him unable to practice law...


There are no criminal laws that apply to entering nor being in the United States. It is all strictly civil law. Now, put this into perspective:

A man gives his wife cause to divorce him. She sues him for divorce. He becomes a defendant just like in a criminal case; however, the divorce action will never appear on the man's criminal record. Why? It's civil law. This is the same for people who improperly enter the United States.


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> There are no criminal laws that apply to entering nor being in the United States. It is all strictly civil law. Now, put this into perspective:
> 
> A man gives his wife cause to divorce him. She sues him for divorce. He becomes a defendant just like in a criminal case; however, the divorce action will never appear on the man's criminal record. Why? It's civil law. This is the same for people who improperly enter the United States.


correct me if I'm.wrong but immigration law comes under the criminal code (and you will get a criminal record)


----------



## dannydefense

Once again with the rewards, while idiots like me sit here filling out forms in triplicate and sending checks to the federal government so that I can have the same things this man just took.

I'm okay with this. I'll probably hire this guy in the near future. Somebody is going after the government for my money back when all these people get their free citizenship. That will be a nice pay day, considering I've invested well over $5k and four years of my time at this point.



pheniox17 said:


> correct me if I'm.wrong but immigration law comes under the criminal code (and you will get a criminal record)


Do yourself a favor, don't even bother.


----------



## Ripon

Reunification is the goal of many Hispanic groups. They have even taught children in a few schools in Mexico the properties Santa Ana gave up were stolen and rightfully Mexican.



retired guard said:


> Why don't we just cede California back to Mexico and he can practice to his hearts content.


----------



## Piratesailor

Speaking of Kalifornia being it's own country, one evening over libations a number of years ago, friends were discussing how to get rich. So we had a plan. We would declare where we were, at that time on a small island in a larger marina, independent of the US and then declare war on the US. We would of course lose and then we'd beg for financial aid to rebuild. They'd throw millions at us. 

Anyway, give kalifornia to Mexico or kick em loose. When they crater, no aid. One can dream....


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> correct me if I'm.wrong but immigration law comes under the criminal code (and you will get a criminal record)


No, you are absolutely wrong. Criminal law is Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the United States Code. Immigration and Nationality fall under Title 8 (EIGHT) and immigration cases are NEVER heard in a criminal court.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> No, you are absolutely wrong. Criminal law is Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the United States Code. Immigration and Nationality fall under Title 8 (EIGHT) and immigration cases are NEVER heard in a criminal court.


Oh crap, pheniox opened the locked closet...Fight it Good Resister :razz:, Fight it and push the Bad Resister :twisted: back into the closet.


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> lol now he doesn't have to, he will be sitting behind the computer, having a good laugh.. lol


I'll tell you now, I'm not having a laugh at the ignorance of people that I truly care about. You can get pissed off at me all you want, but we are Americans who should be determined to live under the laws of the United States Constitution (as it was originally written and intended.)

The current law is, and many here say we should "_enforce the laws on the frigging books,"_ not in our favor. And these are the same people that want to flame me every time I try to educate you on subject matter I've worked in for a number of years. Okay, let's do this a THIRD time on this board. You really want to "enforce" the laws on the books??? How about this one:

_"The right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States shall not be denied or abridged because of race_." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 aka the McCarran - Walter Act

Okay, enforce the laws on the books and then try telling me how the government can grant a Right. If you want to "enforce" the rights that were granted by government, the civil laws regarding Improper Entry are null and void as a person has a "_right_" to become a naturalized citizen. All of you that flame me are only consistent with inconsistency. If we enforce the laws on the books regarding immigration, we'd open the door for lawsuits by foreigners denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Hey, I'm the one telling you the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified as well, but those flaming me are the ones wanting to "enforce" the law and bitching because I oppose calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing absent Due Process.

Your strategies have testified against you since about 2003. It's time to wake up.


----------



## PrepConsultant

Looks like he got out!


----------



## dannydefense

Thick, juicy, applewood smoked....


----------



## PrepConsultant

Black pepper and brown sugar crusted


----------



## retired guard

Ripon said:


> Reunification is the goal of many Hispanic groups. They have even taught children in a few schools in Mexico the properties Santa Ana gave up were stolen and rightfully Mexican.


Very familiar with Reconquista it's big in some Hispanic gangs in prison as they have decided the Texas war for independence and the Mexican war changed the dynamics of history and that if they hadn't occurred Mexico would be rich and honest and they wouldn't be gang banging drug dealing scum.Fat Chance!


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> I'll tell you now, I'm not having a laugh at the ignorance of people that I truly care about. You can get pissed off at me all you want, but we are Americans who should be determined to live under the laws of the United States Constitution (as it was originally written and intended.)
> 
> The current law is, and many here say we should "_enforce the laws on the frigging books,"_ not in our favor. And these are the same people that want to flame me every time I try to educate you on subject matter I've worked in for a number of years. Okay, let's do this a THIRD time on this board.  You really want to "enforce" the laws on the books??? How about this one:
> 
> _"The right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States shall not be denied or abridged because of race_." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 aka the McCarran - Walter Act
> 
> Okay, enforce the laws on the books and then try telling me how the government can grant a Right. If you want to "enforce" the rights that were granted by government, the civil laws regarding Improper Entry are null and void as a person has a "_right_" to become a naturalized citizen. All of you that flame me are only consistent with inconsistency. If we enforce the laws on the books regarding immigration, we'd open the door for lawsuits by foreigners denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Hey, I'm the one telling you the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified as well, but those flaming me are the ones wanting to "enforce" the law and bitching because I oppose calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing absent Due Process.
> 
> Your strategies have testified against you since about 2003. It's time to wake up.


I'm anything but pissed off im a ignorant Aussie (maybe hard to understand so I will make it simple) most care more about the cost of beer and keeping Australia white than worrying about international issues

but I learnt one thing, you need a sense of humor bro.... your far too uptight


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> I'm anything but pissed off im a ignorant Aussie (maybe hard to understand so I will make it simple) most care more about the cost of beer and keeping Australia white than worrying about international issues
> 
> but I learnt one thing, you need a sense of humor bro.... your far too uptight


Well, I live in America. Today there are almost as many people living off the public dole as there are people working to support it. We used to be the bastion of individual Liberties and prosperity. Now we are on the brink of being a third world nation. Am I uptight?

In the last decade I have witnessed our gun Rights under attack, a virtual suspension of our Constitution and socialized medicine implemented. Constitution Fre Zones, the National Defense Authorization Act, the so - called "_Patriot Act_," and National ID /REAL ID Act were all put into place by so - called "_social conservatives_." The sad part is, most of all the unconstitutional legislation over the past decade and half was not the work of liberals, socialists or communists. Most of our woes have come from within; people who do not understand the laws and proceed through ignorance to lobby for laws that far reaching consequences. To make light of this topic is like having a thread that tries to make satire out of rape. Back to the turtle and bacon crowd.


----------



## pheniox17

resistor, your ignorance is showing... Australia actually has a dole system, and its worse than yours...

rape vs immigration... dude apples and oranges... I'm going to leave it here out of respect to others that use this forum, I strongly suggest you do the same


----------



## Slippy

Filet Mignon wrapped with a thick slice of....


----------



## PrepConsultant

Slippy said:


> Filet Mignon wrapped with a thick slice of....


Turtle


----------



## PaulS

*bacon!!!*

Promptly delivered by a one legged IHOP waitress in a ruffled skirt and a peasant blouse.


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> resistor, your ignorance is showing... Australia actually has a dole system, and its worse than yours...
> 
> rape vs immigration... dude apples and oranges... I'm going to leave it here out of respect to others that use this forum, I strongly suggest you do the same


You know what, you're absolutely right. A wise man told me to never argue with an idiot. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. It seems I failed to heed his advice on this issue.


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> You know what, you're absolutely right. A wise man told me to never argue with an idiot. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. It seems I failed to heed his advice on this issue.


that wise man should have givin you the advice don't rock the boat, or don't piss on kiwis... but you may think your better than a "idiot"... but you prove with every post that reason is useless and you're a arrogant arse....

what's really pissing me off is the poor attempt of childish name calling and I feel like I have fallen into a trap... troll on my ignorant friend troll on


----------



## pheniox17

ESA said:


> I have a license to represent clients in other countries and I am not in the country in which I represent my clients in. The lawyer past the state bar and his nationality has nothing to do with him practicing law.


thank you... I think, 
but can he also register in any state of the USA if he is a illegal?? as in illegally residing in any state of the US??


----------



## Notsoyoung

Why wasn't he deported as soon as he identified himself as being here illegally? That's the law, although obama has decided that it shouldn't be enforced.


----------



## dannydefense

ESA said:


> I have a license to represent clients in other countries and I am not in the country in which I represent my clients in. The lawyer past the state bar and his nationality has nothing to do with him practicing law.


You're starting to bother me.

The point isn't whether or not he's capable of representing clients. Nor if he's smart enough to pass the bar. It's definitely not his race, and any reaching for that card is an automatic disqualification.

If you can't figure out what the issue is, you're either being purposefully dense, or showing your left. Which is it?


----------



## PrepConsultant

Don't piss on kiwis?! I haven't heard that one before.. Are kiwis good with bacon or turtle?


----------



## Arizona Infidel

> "The right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States shall not be denied or abridged because of race." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 aka the McCarran - Walter Act
> 
> Okay, enforce the laws on the books and then try telling me how the government can grant a Right. If you want to "enforce" the rights that were granted by government, the civil laws regarding Improper Entry are null and void as a person has a "right" to become a naturalized citizen. All of you that flame me are only consistent with inconsistency. If we enforce the laws on the books regarding immigration, we'd open the door for lawsuits by foreigners denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Hey, I'm the one telling you the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified as well, but those flaming me are the ones wanting to "enforce" the law and bitching because I oppose calling anyone an "illegal" any damn thing absent Due Process.


your major malfunction is you don't get nobody is being denied citizenship due to race. The constitution grants the federal govt. Jurisdiction over immigration and we have federal laws on how to become a citizen. If you follow those laws you can become a citizen of this country, the problem is the people you are defending have decided they don't need to follow our laws.


----------



## Denton

I am noticing a sleight of hand, here. While we are watching one hand that shows us a card saying people can't be barred from immigration due to race, we forget that a nation has the inherent right to...

Forget it. Someone, pass a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

Ripon said:


> Reunification is the goal of many Hispanic groups. They have even taught children in a few schools in Mexico the properties Santa Ana gave up were stolen and rightfully Mexican.





retired guard said:


> Very familiar with Reconquista it's big in some Hispanic gangs in prison as they have decided the Texas war for independence and the Mexican war changed the dynamics of history and that if they hadn't occurred Mexico would be rich and honest and they wouldn't be gang banging drug dealing scum.Fat Chance!


Ah The Reconquista movement. The Mexican Supreme Court decided that the sale of the southwest to the U.S.A. was unconstitutional under the Mexican constitution, so they think it is rightfully theirs. They are taught this in schools and even some schools here in the states. If you think about it, that would explain why they think they have every right to be here and don't have to follow our rules or culture. But then to, these people think that their nationality is a Race, so what do you expect. They don't tend to be very bright. They are also getting very blatant in their arrogance.


----------



## Denton

> They don't tend to be very bright.


They'll fit in with a society of TV-brainwashed idiots, then.


----------



## The Resister

Arizona Infidel said:


> your major malfunction is you don't get nobody is being denied citizenship due to race. The constitution grants the federal govt. Jurisdiction over immigration and we have federal laws on how to become a citizen. If you follow those laws you can become a citizen of this country, the problem is the people you are defending have decided they don't need to follow our laws.


And you major malfunction is that you cannot comprehend English not to mention you are as dumb as a rock. My objection is not that you cannot understand that we have rules that apply to immigration. You're too frigging stupid to see that the problem is that the law claims the government granted a "right" to become a citizen.

How in the Hell am I "defending those (sic) people" when my primary objection is that you cannot put the government in the Rights granting business? Are you so much of a dullard that you cannot apply precedent law to other Rights? Allow me an example:

*From* this: "_Bearing arms for a lawful purpose. . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. United States Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 1876

*To* this: "_Like most* rights*, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Is there some reason you cannot understand that when the government presumes to grant *RIGHTS* the principle applies to *ALL* RIGHTS? Is there some special reason you can't understand that the Heller decision is one where the government presumes that government grants us our Rights as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution - which is consistent with the notion that Rights are unalienable? And can you not understand that citizenship is NOT an *unalienable* Right?

What you are arguing, but lack the intestinal fortitude to say so, is that you think government grants us Rights and, consequently, can limit our Rights. That is a liberal - socialist proposition Arizona Infidel.

Again, there are no criminal laws against entering nor being in the United States without papers. It is a civil offense, not a crime. I'm not defending any damn body... except people like us. For, if there are no criminal penalties for civil offenses, how long will it be before government follows your lead and makes it a crime to dissent against the government? It may piss you off, but plain and simple: It is not a crime to enter the United States without papers. It is a civil offense and the* MAXIMUM* penalty is $250 CIVIL FINE. You're raising this much crap over a $250 civil fine? How will that help America?

Are you going to bitch and tell me the lie that the people you claim I'm defending don't pay taxes? You hate to be wrong, but they do... and even if they didn't, the ONLY tax you could possibly claim they don't pay is the income tax. That leaves you supporting an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and indefensible Amendment that is a plank taken directly out of the Communist Manifesto. WTH? Your cheering section will come to your defense when I remind you that if it walks like a duck...

Sport, let me put it to you like this:

IF the government can grant a Right to citizenship, then the pitiful laws you cannot understand would be null and void. There would be no classifications of people to enter the United States since such would deny to some the equal protection of the law mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Son, I'm not "for" these laws nor the legal outcome, I'm telling you what IS simply IS. We cannot keep foreigners from coming here and conducting business. That is what you really want. But, if you demand they become citizens, then one day they *will* be citizens due to some cockamamie notion that the government grants Rights. When that day arrives, the next batch will be enough to vote you and everybody right of center out forever. Consider that before you try coming up with some smart ass comeback that is inconsistent with the law and the facts.


----------



## Slippy

dannydefense said:


> You're starting to bother me.
> 
> The point isn't whether or not he's capable of representing clients. Nor if he's smart enough to pass the bar. It's definitely not his race, and any reaching for that card is an automatic disqualification.
> 
> If you can't figure out what the issue is, you're either being purposefully dense, or showing your left. Which is it?


ESA is a damn troll and I think you have him dead to rights.


----------



## Slippy

ESA said:


> I am sorry that I am starting to bother you. My post does not show my stance on this subject. I am just giving information to answer a question on this thread.


ESA,

You have no stance on this subject that you care to admit to this board. You are a troll, go play elsewhere.


----------



## pheniox17

PrepConsultant said:


> Don't piss on kiwis?! I haven't heard that one before.. Are kiwis good with bacon or turtle?


kiwis aka new Zealand nationals have extreme anger issues, that come out when mouthy little ****s start pissing on us (I'm in Australia, born in nz)

roo would be grate with a side of turtle and a serve of bacon and some emu cooking on the BBQ (Australia is the only country in the world where it's legal to eat your coat of arms)


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> You know what, you're absolutely right. A wise man told me to never argue with an idiot. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. It seems I failed to heed his advice on this issue.


Yup. That's exactly why I asked someone to pass me the lettuce and tomato to go with the bacon. You don't seem to understand that each and every one of us understand a nation has the inherent right and responsibility to control immigration, that this has been understood for quite a few centuries, and our nation is no different.

I don't think you are going to change any minds. You only seem to make folks a tad hungry for pork. Personally, I think pork is a bad thing to eat, but that is just me.


----------



## Denton

There is no inherent right to be a citizen to any nation other than the one on which you were born. It doesn't take a brainiac or historian to understand this, no matter how many paragraphs is written.


----------



## dannydefense

Denton said:


> I don't think you are going to change any minds. You only seem to make folks a tad hungry for pork. Personally, I think pork is a bad thing to eat, but that is just me.


I liked your post because I agree with you, but more importantly it pisses that other guy off when we "band together". I think that's funny. What's not funny is your opinion of pork. Careful what you say about Gods Golden Chops.


----------



## Slippy

ESA said:


> I am assuming that I am more correct with the assumption you have a GED. The only troll on this board would be you. If you want to try to gang up on me with your online click go right ahead. You are only going to show your ignorance.


Go away.


----------



## Denton

dannydefense said:


> I liked your post because I agree with you, but more importantly it pisses that other guy off when we "band together". I think that's funny. What's not funny is your opinion of pork. Careful what you say about Gods Golden Chops.


Would it perplex you that I am thinking about going vegetarian borderline vegan? Of course, bacon is still on the list of good stuff since it is the bark of the bacon tree.


----------



## dannydefense

Denton said:


> Would it perplex you that I am thinking about going vegetarian borderline vegan? Of course, bacon is still on the list of good stuff since it is the bark of the bacon tree.











.....


----------



## Denton

I must also confess, I ate a 22 ounce porterhouse and sweet potato fries at Outback Steakhouse an hour ago. It was Wifey's idea.
Now, I know how Adam must have felt after eating the forbidden fruit Eve offered him.


----------



## pheniox17

Denton said:


> Would it perplex you that I am thinking about going vegetarian borderline vegan? Of course, bacon is still on the list of good stuff since it is the bark of the bacon tree.


nope not me anyway, being a veggi, people that are and eat well look a lot younger/healthier, couldn't go vegan, I will miss cheese far too much, veggie.. couldn't do it either as I will miss the pig

if you stick to it good on ya


----------



## Denton

pheniox17 said:


> nope not me anyway, being a veggi, people that are and eat well look a lot younger/healthier, couldn't go vegan, I will miss cheese far too much, veggie.. couldn't do it either as I will miss the pig
> 
> if you stick to it good on ya


What convinced me was how arterial blockage got better and the arterial lining healed. That was pretty amazing.

Doing it right is the key to being healthy and not being nutrient deprived. Going to have to really do the research on this.

Yeah, Wifey isn't going to let go of her cheeses. She'd rather let go of just about anything else, so I am not going to push my luck on that.


----------



## pheniox17

don't forget to cheat from time to time, bacon solves many issues.... in here anyway


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> There is no inherent right to be a citizen to any nation other than the one on which you were born. It doesn't take a brainiac or historian to understand this, no matter how many paragraphs is written.


The laws on the books that my detractors want enforced say exactly that. You say I'm not going to change any minds... well, let them start trying to debate this issue without the pork and turtles B.S. and let's see if they can change my mind.

Maybe they ought to find out what I'm talking about* before* passing judgment on me. "_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_." Proverbs 18: 13

IF you want the current immigration laws enforced, then you have to take the bad with the good. If a person has a right to become a naturalized citizen, then the entire Visa system is unconstitutional since it clearly discriminates against classes of individuals. I don't give a rat's a55 whether you agree with me or not; I do care about how you explain HOW you are lobbying to enforce the current laws AND denying people the equal protection of the laws as contemplated by the 14th Amendment. BTW, under current court interpretations, the 14th Amendment applies to non - citizens.

Bear in mind that my board name is Resister. I *resist* unconstitutional laws and I believe that the current laws are clearly unenforceable. The laws are contradictory, telling us in one sentence that you have a Right to become a naturalized citizen and, at the same time, creating classes of people that are allowed to come here under a Visa system that was designed by liberals and is wholly and completely anti - white.

Furthermore, many are married to this preposterous proposition that the only way into the United States is to become a citizen. Disagree with me all you like, but you cannot expect everyone that crosses the border to want to become a Democrat or a Republican. Force these people to become citizens and they WILL vote you out of office, making America a totalitarian dictatorship.

FWIW, I don't like pork either. Swine is the only animal mentioned specifically that people are admonished not to even touch much less eat.


----------



## Denton

That was for the Israelites, and not for the rest of us. Peter's vision made it clear that you don't have to worry about that stumbling block. Acts 10:9-16.

Seems mixing apples and oranges is still a problem. Again, I am needing a sammich.


----------



## Montana Rancher

Sorry I didn't bother to read the replies,

I seems an oxymoron to consider an illegal as a legal.... is it just me?


----------



## pheniox17

resistor, I can see your attempting to make a point, but it's lost in that essay... eat some bacon you will feel better


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> That was for the Israelites, and not for the rest of us. Peter's vision made it clear that you don't have to worry about that stumbling block. Acts 10:9-16.
> 
> Seems mixing apples and oranges is still a problem. Again, I am needing a sammich.


When our forefathers came to America, they believed that they were the Israelites of the Bible. They believed that the United States was the New Jerusalem mentioned in scripture. That, Denton, is the premise upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution rests on.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

So, Denton, your claim is that America is not what history clearly records?


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> resistor, I can see your attempting to make a point, but it's lost in that essay... eat some bacon you will feel better


You know, your criticism would have more credibility if you learned how to spell. My board name is Resist*e*r. There is no o in it. That is probably understandable since you spell your own board name wrong as well. The term I think you went for is Phoenix.

If ten or so paragraphs loses you, then you will continue to side with people that cannot formulate a plan for victory. This war on immigration has only resulted in despair and defeat. When it began, we had Republicans in charge. Today, Republicans only control one half of ONE THIRD of the political process, that being the House of Representatives. The Senate, judiciary and the executive branch are all dominated by left wing Democrats.

The anti - immigrants strategies are so bad that they gave us the National Defense Authorization Act, the so called "_Patriot Act_," National ID / REAL ID Act, and Constitution Free Zones. The Bill of Rights has been pretty much outlawed with the Fourth Amendment completely eviscerated; drones flying over American skies is now a reality; the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is wiped off the books. Every bit of that has been done in the name of protecting you from foreigners that accepted jobs willingly offered.

Now, even the Republicans are supporting a path to citizenship for ten million Guest Workers that do not need to become citizens. The best the anti - immigrant lobby can do is to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS in some vain hope of saving an estimated $280 Billion dollars (and even that figure does not include the taxes paid by the foreigners.) Buddy, you talk about some voodoo math... those waging war on the basis of trying to create laws outside the legislative branch wrote the book on losing their a55 with bad math and bad strategies.

The most damning part of all of this is that those who want to flame me have never, not once, not one single time considered the net effect their lobbying is having on individual Liberties and *unalienable* Rights... namely their own.


----------



## pheniox17

i side with noone, I'm my own man, apologises for the misspelling of your user name, mine I had since I was 16 turning 17 (explains the 17) and the misspelling is intentional, to attempt to be unique (at the time failed hance the 17) 

to your poor attempt of convincing anyone about your point, you write so much regarding the topic that's off topic, that reads like a racist rant, against immigration/citizenship... (correct me if I'm wrong) when the topic was a illegal immigrant applying for a legal license and getting one (simple words)

the reason (I will put this as blunt as possible in Aussie language, if you're offended.. tough titties) you are full of shit, not once have I seen any American, Australian, or new Zealander support loss of basic rights, and not once (until now) i have seen a American link imagination policy to their civil rights

Immigration in no way infringes on anyone's civil rights (I'm a immigrant to Australia and I have not once infringed on anyone's civil rights, yet many times like others speak up when violated)

so every time you use immigration as a pretence to "the government is targeting us citizens" your tin foil hat is too tight...

you have a opinion, grate... yet you refuse to convey it logically, or simply.. where people should ask you where to expand, but you have directed this so far off topic like other thread, you are looking like a troll!! 

either keep it simple, or shove your racism up your ****en arse...


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> You know, your criticism would have more credibility if you learned how to spell. My board name is Resist*e*r. There is no o in it.


Resistor,
I can't hold back anymore. Since we've discovered 2 much different Resister's we all got together at an undisclosed location and decided to call one of you "Resistor" and the other "Resister". The Bad Resistor has the "o"; the good Resister has the "e". Don't tell the others that I spilled the beans as this message is a private message. 
Your friend, Slippie


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> i side with noone, I'm my own man, apologises for the misspelling of your user name, mine I had since I was 16 turning 17 (explains the 17) and the misspelling is intentional, to attempt to be unique (at the time failed hance the 17)
> 
> to your poor attempt of convincing anyone about your point, you write so much regarding the topic that's off topic, that reads like a racist rant, against immigration/citizenship... (correct me if I'm wrong) when the topic was a illegal immigrant applying for a legal license and getting one (simple words)
> 
> the reason (I will put this as blunt as possible in Aussie language, if you're offended.. tough titties) you are full of shit, not once have I seen any American, Australian, or new Zealander support loss of basic rights, and not once (until now) i have seen a American link imagination policy to their civil rights
> 
> Immigration in no way infringes on anyone's civil rights (I'm a immigrant to Australia and I have not once infringed on anyone's civil rights, yet many times like others speak up when violated)
> 
> so every time you use immigration as a pretence to "the government is targeting us citizens" your tin foil hat is too tight...
> 
> you have a opinion, grate... yet you refuse to convey it logically, or simply.. where people should ask you where to expand, but you have directed this so far off topic like other thread, you are looking like a troll!!
> 
> either keep it simple, or shove your racism up your ****en arse...


First, I'm not amused by your lack of the ability to use common sense. There is not one single line, in any sentence, in any post on this board where I've advocated nor condoned "_racism_." Let's get that straight. I don't hide and cower if someone wants to debate race, but there is absolutely *NOTHING* in my posts that can be construed to be about race.

Since you are an Aussie, you cannot comprehend what I'm talking about because the principles upon which your nation was founded and conducted are different from what America was founded on. To begin with, our Declaration of Independence states:

"_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_."

The foundational principle upon which our Republic rests is that our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) bestowed upon us* unalienable* Rights. These Rights are not subject to a popularity vote. In a de jure (lawful) government like ours, Liberty is due to everybody upon birth. Citizenship is *NOT* a Right. Citizenship is a privilege.

What we have in America are people who do not understand the difference between an *unalienable* Right and a privilege. The people in Australia cannot empathize with us in America because our histories are different. We fought a war in order to establish a nation predicated upon these God given *unalienable* Rights. Australia did not. So, I remember seeing piles of firearms stacked ten feet high in Australia and people turning over their weapons to the government. A real American would not do that. Government has the *power* to take our firearms, but they lack the *authority*. That is the meaning behind the concept of *unalienable* Rights. We reserve the Right to resist tyranny and those who choose to resist are the minority in every generation.

While many of us are willing to fight to the death in order to preserve our *unalienable* Rights, we remain subject to laws that can be interpreted by unethical judges that will use our lobbying efforts to create the notion that government grants Rights. If the government can grant a Right, they can revoke it. In this country, you have to be on the right side of the law. You cannot attack the Rights of another man without endangering your own. If we follow the premise that government can grant a Right to become a naturalized citizen, then it puts the government in charge of ALL Rights. That being so, we could not own firearms, private property, nor belong to the religion of our choice. Again, there is no Right to become a citizen under our Constitution.

The flip side of the coin is that every person is entitled to Liberty. It is a God given, *unalienable* Right. People have the Right to cross borders and do business; they can visit their families; they can buy and sell here. But, they have no automatic Right to become a citizen and vote to change our form of government. That is our law and it is our heritage, sir.

I've witnessed the path that you Aussies took. Your people stood in lines, surrendering their Liberty teeth. I hope my countrymen do not follow your country. So, I work hard to make sure that the Third Worlders don't get to come here and vote our Liberties out of existence. Don't fool yourself son. The guys wanting to control the flow of information by hijacking the threads with crap about bacon and turtles do so because they wet their pants every time a strict constructionist tells them their strategies produce failure. They are addicted to failure and while they have a lot of folks snowed, there are those who contact me via PM and they are with me in this fight against stupidity and the sell out of Rights.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Resistor,
> I can't hold back anymore. Since we've discovered 2 much different Resister's we all got together at an undisclosed location and decided to call one of you "Resistor" and the other "Resister". The Bad Resistor has the "o"; the good Resister has the "e". Don't tell the others that I spilled the beans as this message is a private message.
> Your friend, Slippie


So, was Slippie the bad Slippy? I think you slippied up on that one.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> So, was Slippie the bad Slippy? I think you slippied up on that one.


I've been "slippying" up on things for over 50 years! 
:evil: ;-)


----------



## Slippy

Seriously Resister;

I honestly believe that you are a true defender of the U.S. Constitution and I think most of us understand where you are coming from in regards to immigration from a theoretical Constitutional view point. Many also believe that our Great Republic is in the dire situation that we find ourselves partly due to the Feds giving free stuff to lots of people...including people who come here with the sole intent to get said free stuff...all paid for by our taxes. There are many levels of our system that must be fixed, but I believe the tipping point has been reached. That's it.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> When our forefathers came to America, they believed that they were the Israelites of the Bible. They believed that the United States was the New Jerusalem mentioned in scripture. That, Denton, is the premise upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution rests on.
> 
> http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf
> 
> So, Denton, your claim is that America is not what history clearly records?


So, you are claiming that one man's sermon, where he likens the Puritan's moving to the New Continent to the God's directive to David, is to suggest we are Israelites and therefore not allowed to eat pork?

That is not the premise of the Declaration of Independence. Not at all. You have just enough knowledge to be confused by just about everything and are unable to clearly explain anything.


----------



## inceptor

I don't think the Resister tries to be annoying, I think it was a talent he was born with. Kinda comes naturally, ya know?

He does have a few lucid moments although they are few and far between. :lol:

The system is broken and no amount of briefs or dissertations are going to fix it. AND it won't be corrected by an over the hill group. That's what youngin's are for.


----------



## Denton

I am waiting for a clear, concise explanation. I feel confident you can do that. Stick with apples, leave the oranges aside, for a short moment. We might be somewhat in agreement; hard to tell.


----------



## Denton

inceptor said:


> I don't think the Resister tries to be annoying, I think it was a talent he was born with. Kinda comes naturally, ya know?
> 
> He does have a few lucid moments although they are few and far between. :lol:
> 
> The system is broken and no amount of briefs or dissertations are going to fix it. AND it won't be corrected by an over the hill group. That's what youngin's are for.


Youngins are mostly lacking in knowledge and wisdom to use the knowledge once acquired. The over the hill gang are needed, now, just as the elders were respected and heeded, then.


----------



## inceptor

Denton said:


> Youngins are mostly lacking in knowledge and wisdom to use the knowledge once acquired. *The over the hill gang are needed, now, just as the elders were respected and heeded, then.*


I agree with that part but my commando days are long over with.


----------



## Denton

inceptor said:


> I agree with that part but my commando days are long over with.


LOL! I am sitting here, doing my best to comprehend what I am reading while a bulging disk is screaming at me. The good news about that is it is taking my mind off the hips and knees. :lol:
I am with you.

We aren't meant to be the grunts at this stage of our rough and tumble lives.


----------



## inceptor

Denton said:


> LOL! I am sitting here, doing my best to comprehend what I am reading while a bulging disk is screaming at me. The good news about that is it is taking my mind off the hips and knees. :lol:
> I am with you.
> 
> We aren't meant to be the grunts at this stage of our rough and tumble lives.


I recently got over a bulging disk then, a couple of weeks later I am in the ER at 2am because my knee is in extreme pain. This is the first time I have had to have fluid drained from my knee. I can tell you the experience did not make my top 10 list of things to do in the future. The following day I was back at work but moving around was a little tough.

I read somewhere not long ago that getting old is not for sissies. I tend to agree. :lol:


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> So, you are claiming that one man's sermon, where he likens the Puritan's moving to the New Continent to the God's directive to David, is to suggest we are Israelites and therefore not allowed to eat pork?
> 
> That is not the premise of the Declaration of Independence. Not at all. You have just enough knowledge to be confused by just about everything and are unable to clearly explain anything.


Quite the political psychologist you pretend to be! Nobody ever said that the premise that America was predicated upon a single sermon. No way. Let's do this where any idiot can get a better understanding that the belief that America is the New Jerusalem according to the founders of this nation:

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/Quaderno/Quaderno5/Q5.C7.Taylor.pdf

New Jerusalem to New Atlantis: The History of American Exceptionalism - Mystic Politics

Rise and Progress of the New Jerusalem Church, in England, America, and ... - Robert Hindmarsh - Google Books

https://archive.org/details/newjerusalemmag03uniogoog

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

I'm not going to claim that I believe everything I have to cite, but the facts are in. In hundreds of sermons and speeches by pastors of the day AND our founding fathers, they believed in the concept that America is the New Jerusalem. Virtually all of our laws are consistent with the philosophy. Furthermore, regardless of what you think regarding religion, when we worked from that premise, America became the envy of the world. That is all I'm going to have to say regarding the subject.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> I don't think the Resister tries to be annoying, I think it was a talent he was born with. Kinda comes naturally, ya know?
> 
> He does have a few lucid moments although they are few and far between. :lol:
> 
> The system is broken and no amount of briefs or dissertations are going to fix it. AND it won't be corrected by an over the hill group. That's what youngin's are for.


Then step aside old phart and let those who can fight do the fighting. You can't do it without a plan. While you're debating over whether or not I have lucid moments, you have to remember, I've been successful with what I do. Your side has lost its collective a55 over the past decade and a half.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Seriously Resister;
> 
> I honestly believe that you are a true defender of the U.S. Constitution and I think most of us understand where you are coming from in regards to immigration from a theoretical Constitutional view point. Many also believe that our Great Republic is in the dire situation that we find ourselves partly due to the Feds giving free stuff to lots of people...including people who come here with the sole intent to get said free stuff...all paid for by our taxes. There are many levels of our system that must be fixed, but I believe thr tipping point has been reached. That's it.


Roger that. Here is my beef with the way things are going:

I get PMs, e mails, phone calls and the occasional letter from people who are listening and reading these whizzing contests. They realize that the pabulum puking propaganda spewed by people repeating what the CFR and the liberals have fed the former right wing isn't logical nor sound. I mean, there is a simple point of law that makes the guys afraid to do a little research flame me so much:

If you and I continue to support this ridiculous notion that every violation of the law amounts to a "_crime_," then it's not long before everybody on this board has the potential to become a criminal. It's that freaking simple. You can laugh about that all you like and question my sanity, but in the past few years I've been involved in helping many, many families that have been attacked by the government. AND, the *ONLY* thing Uncle Scam had were innuendo and silly attempts to create crimes that simply were not on the books. I was almost murdered by LEOs myself. In the end, those who tried to perpetuate the fraud were the ones who lost in court.

By contrast, those who have used the power of the law to violate other people's Rights and are found guilty have supporters on this very board attempting to question my credibility when their own have been judged, just like I was and they were found guilty of committing crimes. It's all relative Slippy.


----------



## Slippy

Denton said:


> LOL! I am sitting here, doing my best to comprehend what I am reading while a bulging disk is screaming at me. The good news about that is it is taking my mind off the hips and knees. :lol:
> I am with you.
> 
> We aren't meant to be the grunts at this stage of our rough and tumble lives.


I tell you, the herniated/bulging disc thing will drive a man to his knees. I know.


----------



## Denton

Seems you like to divert in order to evade. I somewhat doubt you even read the articles you offer as proof. 

Whether some pastors of the Puritans believed Boston to actually be the "New Jerusalem" or were simply speaking symbolically, that changes nothing of the fundamentals of the Puritans fundamental belief and that they were coming to America to escape religious oppression. This also doesn't mean that the Declaration of Independence has a thing to do with anyone's belief that this nation was to be the "New Jerusalem" regardless if they came here in the 1600's or if they are posting on message boards, today. Furthermore, none of this has a thing to do with whether a Christian may eat pork or shellfish, and it does not in any way prove that a government does not have the inherent right and obligation to protect its nation by protecting its culture that acts as the glue that holds society together.

It proves you are better at muddying waters than making a coherent argument and that you will grasp at any straw to do so.


----------



## Denton

Slippy said:


> I tell you, the herniated/bulging disc thing will drive a man to his knees. I know.


Oh, yeah. And, I do not want to go through another fusion process. Man, that was some really sleepless nights.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

Denton said:


> I am waiting for a clear, concise explanation. I feel confident you can do that. Stick with apples, leave the oranges aside, for a short moment. We might be somewhat in agreement; hard to tell.


Don't hold your breath. The only thing your going to hear is the regurgitation of the same talking points all those guys use.


----------



## Denton

Arizona Infidel said:


> Don't hold your breath. The only thing your going to hear is the regurgitation of the same talking points all those guys use.


Yeah.
I like the "political psychologist" assertion. Never heard that, before. I know, it is just another attempt at diversion and rattling my calm, but it won't work. Matter of fact, I think I will work that into my profile. :lol:


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Seems you like to divert in order to evade. I somewhat doubt you even read the articles you offer as proof.
> 
> Whether some pastors of the Puritans believed Boston to actually be the "New Jerusalem" or were simply speaking symbolically, that changes nothing of the fundamentals of the Puritans fundamental belief and that they were coming to America to escape religious oppression. This also doesn't mean that the Declaration of Independence has a thing to do with anyone's belief that this nation was to be the "New Jerusalem" regardless if they came here in the 1600's or if they are posting on message boards, today. Furthermore, none of this has a thing to do with whether a Christian may eat pork or shellfish, and it does not in any way prove that a government does not have the inherent right and obligation to protect its nation by protecting its culture that acts as the glue that holds society together.
> 
> It proves you are better at muddying waters than making a coherent argument and that you will grasp at any straw to do so.


I've answered your questions. You misrepresented my points sufficiently enough that anything I say will not be adequate to answer whatever it is you think has not been answered. You asked if a single sermon determined our status. You were answered, sir. I choose NOT to join in the pork and turtles B.S. Got anything of substance? Ask and I'll answer. Otherwise you have my answer. Oh, you are right. I did not read all the links. The purpose was to show the historical accuracy of what was on the founders minds. America was founded as a Christian nation with a belief that we are the New Jerusalem of the Bible. Would you like me to post a hundred articles on this or a thousand? I have sermons by ministers (some given in Congress); I've got thousands of references by founding fathers. Just tell me what you want. Or better, let's drop it. This is not about that to begin with. This thread is about immigration. Your inability to read casts any doubts to the validity of your criticisms. Want to talk American history? Start a new thread. Thanks.


----------



## Denton

Yeah, you know what? I don't need your picks of quotes as I have made it a point to study the founders' words (not take anyone's excerpted quotes), as well as look even farther back to understand what they saw to be the foundation of Western law and rule.

I figured you did nothing more than a quick Googling of a phrase and pasted your findings. That proves something to me about you and not the topic.

Now, again, none of this proved a thing except you like to accuse people of not being able to read. As with anyone who is more in opinion and agenda and less in true understanding of our heritage or history, running in circles while slinging insults is your way of looking smart. Sorry. Not working. 

Now, go read Acts while joining us in some really good BLT's.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Yeah, you know what? I don't need your picks of quotes as I have made it a point to study the founders' words (not take anyone's excerpted quotes), as well as look even farther back to understand what they saw to be the foundation of Western law and rule.
> 
> I figured you did nothing more than a quick Googling of a phrase and pasted your findings. That proves something to me about you and not the topic.
> 
> Now, again, none of this proved a thing except you like to accuse people of not being able to read. As with anyone who is more in opinion and agenda and less in true understanding of our heritage or history, running in circles while slinging insults is your way of looking smart. Sorry. Not working.
> 
> Now, go read Acts while joining us in some really good BLT's.


So, reading Acts discounts the rest of the Bible and has something to do with the non-existent topic of so - called _"illegal immigration_?" I asked you if you wanted me to quote from my personal library on the topic. If you do, start an appropriate thread.


----------



## Denton

I didn't figure you knew what you were arguing! :lol:

I already answered that. You gathered articles from Google searches are not needed. Sorry.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> I didn't figure you knew what you were arguing! :lol:
> 
> I already answered that. You gathered articles from Google searches are not needed. Sorry.


I gathered articles from Google rather than to look all that stuff up from my personal library. Either way, a side comment about an issue not related to this topic is immaterial. If you want to discuss our origins and what the colonists believed, start another thread. Got anything related to the topic at hand (BTW, it's immigration)? If not I can quit typing.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> I gathered articles from Google rather than to look all that stuff up from my personal library. Either way, a side comment about an issue not related to this topic is immaterial. If you want to discuss our origins and what the colonists believed, start another thread. Got anything related to the topic at hand (BTW, it's immigration)? If not I can quit typing.


As I said, I do not need your Google Quotes from you. As I said, I have spent many years (decades, now) studying and don't really think I could use a piece of nonsense from you.
As I said, you can't even keep your little duckies in a row as it was your little rabbit hole of Jews, pork, and the origins of this nation, all of which were the disjointed meanderings of the obtuse.

Still, thank you. "Political psychologist." Very good stuff. I shall wear that badge with pride.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> Then step aside old phart *and let those who can fight do the fighting.*


By all means General, carry on. You most likely have gathered a significant army and have an aggressive plan of action. I will sit back here on my old phart ass and watch. :lol:



The Resister said:


> You can't do it without a plan. While you're debating over whether or not I have lucid moments, you have to remember, I've been successful with what I do. Your side has lost its collective a55 over the past decade and a half.


I see your generation is doing a much better job.  Yup, things have greatly improved since you took over. Please carry on. I'll just hobble over to the tv, let the tubes warm up and see what Walter has to say about it.


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> First, I'm not amused by your lack of the ability to use common sense. There is not one single line, in any sentence, in any post on this board where I've advocated nor condoned "_racism_." Let's get that straight. I don't hide and cower if someone wants to debate race, but there is absolutely *NOTHING* in my posts that can be construed to be about race.
> [/QUOTE ]
> bull shit, it's nothing but about race
> 
> 
> 
> The Resister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are an Aussie, you cannot comprehend what I'm talking about because the principles upon which your nation was founded and conducted are different from what America was founded on. To begin with, our Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> 
> 
> you are assuming Australian history, I will give you a history lesson, Australia is the first western country to allow a black man to vote. again this is way off topic and you're hiding behind the constitution to validate your beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> The Resister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational principle upon which our Republic rests is that our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) bestowed upon us* unalienable* Rights. These Rights are not subject to a popularity vote. In a de jure (lawful) government like ours, Liberty is due to everybody upon birth. Citizenship is *NOT* a Right. Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop reading starship troopers, as this statement means that been born in the states dose not make you a citizen, so every immigrant into the USA sincere it's founding is not a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> The Resister said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have in America are people who do not understand the difference between an *unalienable* Right and a privilege. The people in Australia cannot empathize with us in America because our histories are different. We fought a war in order to establish a nation predicated upon these God given *unalienable* Rights. Australia did not. So, I remember seeing piles of firearms stacked ten feet high in Australia and people turning over their weapons to the government. A real American would not do that. Government has the *power* to take our firearms, but they lack the *authority*. That is the meaning behind the concept of *unalienable* Rights. We reserve the Right to resist tyranny and those who choose to resist are the minority in every generation.
> 
> While many of us are willing to fight to the death in order to preserve our *unalienable* Rights, we remain subject to laws that can be interpreted by unethical judges that will use our lobbying efforts to create the notion that government grants Rights. If the government can grant a Right, they can revoke it. In this country, you have to be on the right side of the law. You cannot attack the Rights of another man without endangering your own. If we follow the premise that government can grant a Right to become a naturalized citizen, then it puts the government in charge of ALL Rights. That being so, we could not own firearms, private property, nor belong to the religion of our choice. Again, there is no Right to become a citizen under our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I cant sympathize with you because of a difference in history?? what shit is that, you assume far too much about me, I can't sympathize with you because you sound like a racist troll
> 
> 
> 
> The Resister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flip side of the coin is that every person is entitled to Liberty. It is a God given, *unalienable* Right. People have the Right to cross borders and do business; they can visit their families; they can buy and sell here. But, they have no automatic Right to become a citizen and vote to change our form of government. That is our law and it is our heritage, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually if they do this legally, I support these "immigrants" becoming citizens, it's more likely they will vote than natural born Americans (more vote for American idle than politics)
> 
> 
> 
> The Resister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed the path that you Aussies took. Your people stood in lines, surrendering their Liberty teeth. I hope my countrymen do not follow your country. So, I work hard to make sure that the Third Worlders don't get to come here and vote our Liberties out of existence. Don't fool yourself son. The guys wanting to control the flow of information by hijacking the threads with crap about bacon and turtles do so because they wet their pants every time a strict constructionist tells them their strategies produce failure. They are addicted to failure and while they have a lot of folks snowed, there are those who contact me via PM and they are with me in this fight against stupidity and the sell out of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the **** are you going on about? STOP ****ING ASSUMING THINGS ABOUT ME OR AUSTRALIA!!!!!
> 
> if people support your view, why don't they come out of the shadows and help support your argument??
Click to expand...


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> I asked you if you wanted me to quote from my personal library on the topic. If you do, start an appropriate thread.


why not here as every time the words illegal immigration is used you hijack the thread...


----------



## MrsInor

I think I see a frozen turtle.


----------



## inceptor

pheniox17 said:


> why not here as every time the words illegal immigration is used you hijack the thread...


You need to understand you are playing to his inflated ego.

BTW, this is NOT one of his lucid moments.


----------



## pheniox17

inceptor said:


> You need to understand you are playing to his inflated ego.


just giving him even more rope to hang himself, I'm sure he is a nice guy in rl (yea not going to prove that one)


----------



## Meangreen

California is one of the few states that allows a person to take the bar without a collage degree or ever attending law school so why wouldn't they allow an illegal alien from practicing law?


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> why not here as every time the words illegal immigration is used you hijack the thread...


Did you even READ this thread, dude? It's about immigration and the fact that our Congress is going to provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented workers. Hijack means that you change the original topic of the thread... you know like making this thread a pissing match between you and I just because you don't know how to use a PM feature to resolve personal issues.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> By all means General, carry on. You most likely have gathered a significant army and have an aggressive plan of action. I will sit back here on my old phart ass and watch. :lol:
> 
> I see your generation is doing a much better job.  Yup, things have greatly improved since you took over. Please carry on. I'll just hobble over to the tv, let the tubes warm up and see what Walter has to say about it.


inceptor,

You witnessed the Phoenix kid that can't even spell his own board name go off on me for assuming things. I listed my achievements when I came here, but the moderators saw fit to delete my thread when I complained about people hijacking it with the turtles and bacon B.S. So, we've discussed the immigration issue, now let's go ahead and respond. This will be no different than the turtles and bacon posts. Maybe you might even find it.

In the 1980s yours truly was involved in TWO cases before the Supreme Court and were decided in favor of the side I worked on. As a result of many years of hard work, the United States Congressman in my district proposed the FAIR Tax which would repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS. And you accomplished what???

You may recall that the FAIR Tax had captured the front pages of many political stories until, in 2003, Jim Gilchrist rode into town and began rehashing the old Border Watch program made famous by David Duke back in 1977. Then, all those years of hard work took a back seat to the immigration issue. The anti - immigrant lobby wanted to falsely accuse foreigners of not paying taxes. That accusation had the net effect of saying that voters were more concerned with distributing misery than ridding themselves of tyranny. The Declaration of Independence speaks clearly about people of your mindset:

"... _accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed_."

Inceptor, you presume a Hell of a lot more than the misguided kid on this thread. On the 17th of this month, I will turn 57. Since the age of about 14 or so I've been *ACTIVE *in politics and legal issues. The work I did was good enough that people who wrote books about the causes were on the New York Times bestseller list. When you have been in court as many times as I have (sometimes with your life on the line), managed as many political campaigns, given as many news interviews and worked at this as hard as I, you might earn the Right to criticize me. Otherwise, your criticisms will only be fodder for this board and they will not change the outcome of a damn thing.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> Inceptor, you presume a Hell of a lot more than the misguided kid on this thread. On the 17th of this month, I will turn 57.


You made that assumption easy, you called me an old phart. Normally only youngins do that. But then again I guess your not normal even by our standards. And God only knows we are all but normal.

The rest of it stands. You sound like you have things well under control. Carry on General.


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> Did you even READ this thread, dude? It's about immigration


actually it's about



PrepConsultant said:


> Personally, I don't think he should be allowed to practice law here in the states if he is not here legally!!
> 
> Court grants law license to man in US illegally


and your assuming too many things again, I don't have it out for you (but can change that) i am simply calling you out on your bull shit, and highly disagree (quite aggressively disagree) with your point of view, that crosses from one thread to another...

yet since being here, I have not seen any actual prepping input from you resistor.. and this really adds fuel to you're a troll argument


----------



## inceptor

pheniox17 said:


> actually it's about
> 
> and your assuming too many things again, I don't have it out for you (but can change that) i am simply calling you out on your bull shit, and highly disagree (quite aggressively disagree) with your point of view, that crosses from one thread to another...
> 
> yet since being here, I have not seen any actual prepping input from you resistor.. and this really adds fuel to you're a troll argument


But EVERYTHING is about illegal immigration. Take the high price of peaches on Mars. That's because of exploitation of those immigrant workers. Add to that the fact they can't prep because of those high prices.


----------



## dannydefense

The Resistor said:


> Did you even READ this thread, dude? It's about immigration and the fact that our Congress is going to provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented workers.


Dude, like totally, they already have a like, pathway to citizenship, ya know? Why, uhh, do we need to reward them for like, umm, doing it the wrong way? Brah, I'm from like up north, and I'm getting my citizenship in three months, so totally awesome, but how come they like, get to cheat? Can you explain that Mr Resistorr?


----------



## The Resister

dannydefense said:


> Dude, like totally, they already have a like, pathway to citizenship, ya know? Why, uhh, do we need to reward them for like, umm, doing it the wrong way? Brah, I'm from like up north, and I'm getting my citizenship in three months, so totally awesome, but how come they like, get to cheat? Can you explain that Mr Resistorr?


There is no automatic pathway to citizenship for the millions of people who came here as Guest Workers, partaking of job offers *willingly* offered. * WHO* is advocating rewarding anyone for doing anything the wrong way? Are you aware of the fact that I am against any automatic pathway to citizenship? Are you aware that I am against the idea of forcing people to become citizens? In my world view, those who want to force people to become citizens are left of center.

I say, create credible Guest Worker programs and let people leave when they want and / or when the job ends.


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> actually it's about
> 
> and your assuming too many things again, I don't have it out for you (but can change that) i am simply calling you out on your bull shit, and highly disagree (quite aggressively disagree) with your point of view, that crosses from one thread to another...
> 
> yet since being here, I have not seen any actual prepping input from you resistor.. and this really adds fuel to you're a troll argument


If the thread is about not allowing a man to practice law without become a citizen, the thread is about immigration... The fact that the title says "_This is going to open the door for them_" is further evidence that this thread is about immigration.

So, big boy, you're going to call me out on my "bullshit?" Well, let's rumble:

You keep accusing me of assuming too many things. Like what? Be specific. I was "_assuming_" when I answered your best attack against me to suggest that our cultures were so different that your country gave up their weapons? So, I was "_assuming_" when Alex Jones, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. not to mention YouTube had video footage of Australians handing in their weapons?

Exactly what are you accusing me of assuming? Don't you think you assume a little too much?

Prepping includes the ability to keep SHTF scenarios from damaging society to the point that you have a difficulty yourself that could become insurmountable. If I were a weapons design engineer, I'd be on threads that would help people with weapons related issues. But, my training is law. And, what I've observed is that *ALL* of the unconstitutional legislation passed in the last decade and a half in the United States (save of Obamacare) was done so in the name of saving people from themselves with respect to foreigners. For example, I lobbied against the so - called "_Patriot Act_" before it became legislation and my detractors said it didn't exist. The very law is subtitled Border Security.

You want to talk prepping, son. Let's see how much *YOU *assume:

BEFORE working in immigration law, I was working in tax law and privacy. There is no doubt that I believe that we are headed into a SHTF scenario where our very lives will be at stake. I want you to see an anti - immigrant's logic here:

"_Note Any person who enters this country, for any reason, could be a potential terrorist. This part of the Patriot Act helps us identify possible terrorists and detain them before they enter the country_."

Protecting the Border (Patriot Act Title 4)

Well now, in 2003 when the government targeted me and made plans to kill me, they reasoned that since I was right of center and associated with people like you, I was a "*POTENTIAL* enemy combatant / domestic terrorist." They used the so - called _"Patriot Act_" as their legal justification. So, they lost the case, but it gave me a lot to think about. The anti - immigrants that pushed the so - called _"Patriot Act_" forgot that, under our system of jurisprudence, you cannot pass laws like the so - called "_Patriot Act_" to single out one group.

The problem is, all the laws the anti - immigrants keep supporting are the ones being used against the people trying to preserve Liberty. Now, assume all you want, but explain to me how on God's green earth you can prepare for ANY kind of takeover if you're empowering the very forces that are going to try and kill you? In order to be prepared you have to have privacy and anonymity. When you're outnumbered, outgunned and out-manned, you have got to have the element of surprise. These bullshit laws that my detractors support take away every advantage they need in a SHTF scenario. Furthermore, more people from "our" side of the political spectrum have been taken out by these anti - immigrant laws than have foreigners. The CIA used to say "_Information - the ultimate weapon_."

Excuse the Hell out of me son, but my reasoning is that if you deny information to Uncle Scam, you have limited his fighting ability against you. If that ain't prepping, there isn't a cow in Texas.


----------



## Smitty901

Now that that is over he wants to be the Governor of CA.


----------



## pheniox17

The Resister said:


> If the thread is about not allowing a man to practice law without become a citizen, the thread is about immigration... The fact that the title says "_This is going to open the door for them_" is further evidence that this thread is about immigration.
> 
> So, big boy, you're going to call me out on my "bullshit?" Well, let's rumble:
> 
> You keep accusing me of assuming too many things. Like what? Be specific. I was "_assuming_" when I answered your best attack against me to suggest that our cultures were so different that your country gave up their weapons? So, I was "_assuming_" when Alex Jones, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. not to mention YouTube had video footage of Australians handing in their weapons?
> 
> Exactly what are you accusing me of assuming? Don't you think you assume a little too much?
> 
> Prepping includes the ability to keep SHTF scenarios from damaging society to the point that you have a difficulty yourself that could become insurmountable. If I were a weapons design engineer, I'd be on threads that would help people with weapons related issues. But, my training is law. And, what I've observed is that *ALL* of the unconstitutional legislation passed in the last decade and a half in the United States (save of Obamacare) was done so in the name of saving people from themselves with respect to foreigners. For example, I lobbied against the so - called "_Patriot Act_" before it became legislation and my detractors said it didn't exist. The very law is subtitled Border Security.
> 
> You want to talk prepping, son. Let's see how much *YOU *assume:
> 
> BEFORE working in immigration law, I was working in tax law and privacy. There is no doubt that I believe that we are headed into a SHTF scenario where our very lives will be at stake. I want you to see an anti - immigrant's logic here:
> 
> "_Note Any person who enters this country, for any reason, could be a potential terrorist. This part of the Patriot Act helps us identify possible terrorists and detain them before they enter the country_."
> 
> Protecting the Border (Patriot Act Title 4)
> 
> Well now, in 2003 when the government targeted me and made plans to kill me, they reasoned that since I was right of center and associated with people like you, I was a "*POTENTIAL* enemy combatant / domestic terrorist." They used the so - called _"Patriot Act_" as their legal justification. So, they lost the case, but it gave me a lot to think about. The anti - immigrants that pushed the so - called _"Patriot Act_" forgot that, under our system of jurisprudence, you cannot pass laws like the so - called "_Patriot Act_" to single out one group.
> 
> The problem is, all the laws the anti - immigrants keep supporting are the ones being used against the people trying to preserve Liberty. Now, assume all you want, but explain to me how on God's green earth you can prepare for ANY kind of takeover if you're empowering the very forces that are going to try and kill you? In order to be prepared you have to have privacy and anonymity. When you're outnumbered, outgunned and out-manned, you have got to have the element of surprise. These bullshit laws that my detractors support take away every advantage they need in a SHTF scenario. Furthermore, more people from "our" side of the political spectrum have been taken out by these anti - immigrant laws than have foreigners. The CIA used to say "_Information - the ultimate weapon_."
> 
> Excuse the Hell out of me son, but my reasoning is that if you deny information to Uncle Scam, you have limited his fighting ability against you. If that ain't prepping, there isn't a cow in Texas.


i wasn't going to justify this with a response...

but have to get my 2 cents in

not one question I asked has been answered...

you worked in those industries grate, the post I made about blood sucking lawyers and your essays make sense now

I should have adhered to warnings, good luck to you sir, preach on, maybe someone will listen


----------



## The Resister

pheniox17 said:


> i wasn't going to justify this with a response...
> 
> but have to get my 2 cents in
> 
> not one question I asked has been answered...
> 
> you worked in those industries grate, the post I made about blood sucking lawyers and your essays make sense now
> 
> I should have adhered to warnings, good luck to you sir, preach on, maybe someone will listen


I'm going to give you the benefit of my experience one more time:

1) You bitch and complain about people _"assuming_." So, I called your bluff. It turns out I wasn't "_assuming_" a damn thing. So here you show up, milking majority sentiment for all it's worth. You made a big mistake this time: for all the bitching and complaining you've done to make yourself look like the hero, *YOU* went and assumed that I am working as a lawyer.

Kid, I can look over your ignorance to a point, but calling me names is not one challenge that can go unanswered. Most people in Georgia that know me remember when I was called upon to defend myself against the so - called "_Patriot Act_." With my life on the line, I won that case and then told the judge that if he hated me that much he should have me gunned down before I made it to the car. Since 1999 I have worked to expose the de facto (illegal) system for what it is.

Our government no longer complies to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution and I'm not part of a system that perpetuates a fraud. That's been over since 1999 and you have shown that for all the whining you've done, you don't have any legitimate Right to complain about people "_assuming_."

2) You keep claiming that I am "_assuming_" but, the only post you make a specific accusation is post # 96 wherein you wrote:

"_you are assuming Australian history, I will give you a history lesson, Australia is the first western country to allow a black man to vote. again this is way off topic and you're hiding behind the constitution to validate your beliefs_"

The only thing there that I can "_assume_" is that English words mean the same thing in both countries. If Australia had to "_allow_" a black man to vote then you just agreed with the entire premise of my argument: Citizenship is a privilege. It is not a Right. Man cannot give man Rights. It can give privileges.

No more need to answer any of your future posts. No offense, but you're opinion is not necessary for discussing legislative changes in American law.


----------



## pheniox17

no I simply choose not to go any further, 

get the hint, GAME OVER!!!

good luck to your personal war sir...


----------

