# Do Illegal aliens have an Unalienable Right to be here?



## Notsoyoung

On another thread someone has stated that all foreigners have the unalienable right to be here, stated that they don't need to go through the legel process, and has stated that trying to control our borders has turned our country into a police state. I strongly disagree. IMO anyone who comes here illegally should be shipped back to where they came from, and that controlling our borders is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal government, and they aren't doing a very good job of it. As far as I am concerned, referring to ILLEGAL ALIEN as an undocumented immigrant is pure bs.

Oh yeah, I am sure that someone will bring up the Native Americans and their lack of border control. My response to that is: "So how did that work out for them?"

By the way, the guy also said that most of the people on this forum agree with him. Just curious to hear you thoughts.


----------



## luckyduck2

Well we brought in a bunch of slaves legally and you see how that's worked out for us.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

After 911 there shouldn't have been any more people here illegally without every branch of the government hunting them down.


----------



## Moonshinedave

Totally agree with the OP, if people from other countries want to come in, they need to follow the law. One of the ones it most unfair to are the ones who do follow the law, and become citizens the legal way.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

We NEED to close our borders and have a system to let ANYONE in here anymore!! What's his name will say that there is no such thing as "illegal:. Personally, I don't give a ****!! When we as taxpayers have to pay for them and their kids to be here. It becomes OUR problem.. Look at South Florida,South Texas and most of California. I woul dbet my right nut that a large percentage of crime is from "illegal aliens".. Anyone here "illegally" that commits crimes should either get a .22 behind the ear or sent back over the border. Then if they come back should be either a .22 behind the ear and a hammer to the head....

WE are paying for them and you have all these people lobbying for them to be here. Let the one lobbying for them to be here be responsible for them!! You have all these ****ing bleeding heart liberals that say they should be here. Let them be responsible for them if something happens. they wont though...So **** them!!!!!!! ANYONE that comes across our border illegally should be shot on sight!!! They wont though, that is why they keep coming across our border and when they get caught, they do it again and again and again... Shoot them in the ****ing head and then maybe the next one MIGHT think twice about coming over!!!!!!!!


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung is, of course, referring to me. So, let's go do this one more time.

Let's be straight up. ANYBODY who claims that I have ever stated that people should not have to go through some "legel" (sic) process is a straight up LIAR. Notsoyoung has been bucking for me to call him a name, so there it is. As a matter of fact, if anyone can find ANY such proclamation by me on this board - or any other, I will kiss your raw ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.

Enough is enough of this B.S. There is no such thing as a crime called _"illegal immigration_." Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "_illegal immigration_." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name. What I've said regarding immigration is what the *law is *on the subject.

Every time I cite all the top sources in every field of law, the posts / thread gets deleted. I've cited the highest immigration sources on the subject. Most of all, I've asked our resident socialist / communist to explain *WHY*, if the law meant that immigration was illegal, *WHY* did Congress try to change the wording of the law? That bill failed. *WHY* did Congress try to reword the law if improper meant unlawful or illegal? The bill was introduced because there has never been a single person convicted of _"illegal immigration_" since such a crime does not exist. It's civil law and no amount of popularity votes is going to change that.

Should foreigners have God given *unalienable* Rights?

"_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_..." Declaration of Independence

Just remember this: when those words were penned, there were no American citizens as the U.S.A. did not exist. You have to figure out if your Rights are bestowed upon man OR by some government led by people like Notsoyoung and operating on a popular vote.

Any dumb ass realizes that immigration has to be *regulated*, but, like the Right to keep and Bear Arms, regulation does not mean registration or banning it.


----------



## ekim

NO, illegals don't not have an unalienable right to be here, but there is a process for them to come here legally. But that is just my opinion, not it seems a legal excuse. It doesn't seem to matter that other countries put restrictions on immigration and have few problems as compared to the US.


----------



## Slippy

Keep the illegals out. They want free stuff provided by our tax dollars OR they want to commit crimes.


----------



## luckyduck2

Beach Kowboy said:


> We NEED to close our borders and have a system to let ANYONE in here anymore!! What's his name will say that there is no such thing as "illegal:. Personally, I don't give a ****!! When we as taxpayers have to pay for them and their kids to be here. It becomes OUR problem.. Look at South Florida,South Texas and most of California. I woul dbet my right nut that a large percentage of crime is from "illegal aliens".. Anyone here "illegally" that commits crimes should either get a .22 behind the ear or sent back over the border. Then if they come back should be either a .22 behind the ear and a hammer to the head....
> 
> WE are paying for them and you have all these people lobbying for them to be here. Let the one lobbying for them to be here be responsible for them!! You have all these ****ing bleeding heart liberals that say they should be here. Let them be responsible for them if something happens. they wont though...So **** them!!!!!!! ANYONE that comes across our border illegally should be shot on sight!!! They wont though, that is why they keep coming across our border and when they get caught, they do it again and again and again... Shoot them in the ****ing head and then maybe the next one MIGHT think twice about coming over!!!!!!!!


 well its 32 percent of the black males will serve time in there life time. 17% Hispanic will serve time n there lifetime and 5.2 percent white males will serve time in there lifetime. HOOOOOO should we be worried about , the family man or the guy that f__ks as many BL--k women he can to make up MORE EBT CARD holders,


----------



## Will2

Notsoyoung said:


> On another thread someone has stated that all foreigners have the unalienable right to be here, stated that they don't need to go through the legel process, and has stated that trying to control our borders has turned our country into a police state. I strongly disagree. IMO anyone who comes here illegally should be shipped back to where they came from, and that controlling our borders is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal government, and they aren't doing a very good job of it. As far as I am concerned, referring to ILLEGAL ALIEN as an undocumented immigrant is pure bs.
> 
> Oh yeah, I am sure that someone will bring up the Native Americans and their lack of border control. My response to that is: "So how did that work out for them?"
> 
> By the way, the guy also said that most of the people on this forum agree with him. Just curious to hear you thoughts.


By US law no, but by human rights yes people have the right of mobility, education, and employment. The US formalizes the process through the refugee system. Ultimately states don't need to be humanitarians but they earn a bad reputation when this happens, and increases the potential they will be seen as an illegitimate state due to not upholding human rights standards within their jurisdiction, thus not having the right to rule those areas.

Sounds like a loaded and charged statement though. Cubans do have asylum as soon as they step on US territory though.

So from a CFR position, not really. Is that the answer you were looking for?

I think we all know that the law is just a political tool when it is applied in America. (for civil type offences, not counting things like murder etc..)

Its all pretty stupid imo,we should all have open borders.

I havn't tried to immigrate to the US but was accused of trying to live in the US, which was totally a lie made up by federal agents. I was bound to travel through the US through a regular border point, I spent time with people who were being removed from the US and most had been in the states for years.

All I know from this is that, no it really doesn't matter, the real issue is unskilled Americans. The US needs a better education system with a publically funded post secondary system. Americans need to be more skilled to secure better jobs. They also need a criminal system that puts people to work for minor offenses not doing hard time at the cost of the American taxpayers.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Short answer? Absolutely not. They do not have an unalienable right to be here. I do not believe that they are entitled the same rights under the constitution as citizens. I also do not subscribe to "anchors"; Children born on U.S. soil to parents who are here illegally, should not be considered citizens of the United States, but citizens of their parents country of origin. Got one from Mexico and one from Guatemala, one from China one from India? Pick one, but it ain't here.

I don't care where you're from. Come here legally. Obey the rules, terms and conditions of your allowed visit and act like the guest that you are. Be productive, be law abiding. Want to work, pay taxes to help support the community that provides your comfort, safety and services. Want to be a citizen, then assimilate yourself to our culture, learn all the things a citizen should know, starting with English, and EARN your citizenship. Don't want to be a citizen? That's fine too. Enjoy your time here and go back when you're supposed to. Don't want to do it on your own? We'll help you. Commit a crime, we'll send you back when your sentence is up. 

Pretty simple really.


----------



## luckyduck2

bigdogbuc said:


> Short answer? Absolutely not. They do not have an unalienable right to be here. I do not believe that they are entitled the same rights under the constitution as citizens. I also do not subscribe to "anchors"; Children born on U.S. soil to parents who are here illegally, should not be considered citizens of the United States, but citizens of their parents country of origin. Got one from Mexico and one from Guatemala, one from China one from India? Pick one, but it ain't here.
> 
> I don't care where you're from. Come here legally. Obey the rules, terms and conditions of your allowed visit and act like the guest that you are. Be productive, be law abiding. Want to work, pay taxes to help support the community that provides your comfort, safety and services. Want to be a citizen, then assimilate yourself to our culture, learn all the things a citizen should know, starting with English, and EARN your citizenship. Don't want to be a citizen? That's fine too. Enjoy your time here and go back when you're supposed to. Don't want to do it on your own? We'll help you. Commit a crime, we'll send you back when your sentence is up.
> 
> Pretty simple really.


 A large percentage of the EBT card holders, roots were brought here againist there will 200 years later were still paying for it. HIGH CAPAITY MAGS might help


----------



## Beach Kowboy

luckyduck2 said:


> well its 32 percent of the black males will serve time in there life time. 17% Hispanic will serve time n there lifetime and 5.2 percent white males will serve time in there lifetime. HOOOOOO should we be worried about , the family man or the guy that f__ks as many BL--k women he can to make up MORE EBT CARD holders,


 I will say this. The average African female will have 6 children, 3 of them by the time they are 18. 2 of them by the time there are 16 and at least one of them will die of starvation.. You couldn't PAY then to take birth control though.. Here in the US it is ALL ABOUT welfare.. They pop babies out every nine months and this great country PAYS them to do it.. If we stop paying them MAYBE, JUST MAYBE thye will stop having them.... Personally, I would like to see them smacked in the head with a ****ing hammer EVERY time they try to screw over the system!!!!!! Anyone that wants to side with them can take a hammer upside their head as well!!! They are the ones ruining this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am no saint by any means but I am for our Constitution and ANYONE against it can take a bullet behind their ear and I will not lose and sleep whatsoever!!!!!!!


----------



## Beach Kowboy

bigdogbuc said:


> Short answer? Absolutely not. They do not have an unalienable right to be here. I do not believe that they are entitled the same rights under the constitution as citizens. I also do not subscribe to "anchors"; Children born on U.S. soil to parents who are here illegally, should not be considered citizens of the United States, but citizens of their parents country of origin. Got one from Mexico and one from Guatemala, one from China one from India? Pick one, but it ain't here.
> 
> I don't care where you're from. Come here legally. Obey the rules, terms and conditions of your allowed visit and act like the guest that you are. Be productive, be law abiding. Want to work, pay taxes to help support the community that provides your comfort, safety and services. Want to be a citizen, then assimilate yourself to our culture, learn all the things a citizen should know, starting with English, and EARN your citizenship. Don't want to be a citizen? That's fine too. Enjoy your time here and go back when you're supposed to. Don't want to do it on your own? We'll help you. Commit a crime, we'll send you back when your sentence is up.
> 
> Pretty simple really.


I agree, come here legally and obey the rules. Earn your citizenship and I will back you 100%... Just because you are here and pop out babies doesn't make them citizens in my opinion.. It is a crock of shit when someone can be 9 months pregnant, come here illegally and pop out a ****ing baby and POOF, they are an American citizen because they were born here... They both should be sent back to where they are from! By no means should they be able to stay JUST because the troll was born here!


----------



## SF340_Driver

So, if I illegally enter someone else's property/home do I have an unalienable right to said property/home?


----------



## luckyduck2

year loking fore a fight r ya!!!!!!


----------



## Guest

If you do not work you do not eat. If you do not follow the rules of the majority then you are not welcome in my opinion. Legally applying for citizenship or work vista is the only acceptable way.


----------



## Montana Rancher

The Resister said:


> Notsoyoung is, of course, referring to me. So, let's go do this one more time.
> 
> Let's be straight up. ANYBODY who claims that I have ever stated that people should not have to go through some "legel" (sic) process is a straight up LIAR. Notsoyoung has been bucking for me to call him a name, so there it is. As a matter of fact, if anyone can find ANY such proclamation by me on this board - or any other, I will kiss your raw ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.
> 
> Enough is enough of this B.S. There is no such thing as a crime called _"illegal immigration_." Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "_illegal immigration_." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name. What I've said regarding immigration is what the *law is *on the subject.
> 
> Every time I cite all the top sources in every field of law, the posts / thread gets deleted. I've cited the highest immigration sources on the subject. Most of all, I've asked our resident socialist / communist to explain *WHY*, if the law meant that immigration was illegal, *WHY* did Congress try to change the wording of the law? That bill failed. *WHY* did Congress try to reword the law if improper meant unlawful or illegal? The bill was introduced because there has never been a single person convicted of _"illegal immigration_" since such a crime does not exist. It's civil law and no amount of popularity votes is going to change that.
> 
> Should foreigners have God given *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> "_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_..." Declaration of Independence
> 
> Just remember this: when those words were penned, there were no American citizens as the U.S.A. did not exist. You have to figure out if your Rights are bestowed upon man OR by some government led by people like Notsoyoung and operating on a popular vote.
> 
> Any dumb ass realizes that immigration has to be *regulated*, but, like the Right to keep and Bear Arms, regulation does not mean registration or banning it.


Gah, I believe I may have to give Resitor a semi-thumbs up

"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..." Declaration of Independence

IMO these rights are self evident to all men, not just those born in the USA, which really doesn't apply to our facist government anymore but it is a good point.

The real difference in USA is that we are a land of laws (or used to be) and with that standard applied, anyone that breaks the law (i.e. undocumented workers, etc) are outlaws.

Play fancy name games if you will, but in a jury of your peers the trespasser into US soil is still a criminal.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

A perfect example are the trolls that decided to abuse the EBT system a few months back. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebt-benefit-card-glitch-sparks-walmart-shopping-sprees-in-louisiana/ They KNEW that they were breaking the law but they CHOSE to go to the store and milk the EBT system.. The majority of the people that are using the system are also abusing it just like this. They could have been honest but they were not.. These mother ****ers are why this country is in such the situation it is in now. People are milking the system and know they are. They try to suck as MUCH out as they can..

I would bet BOTH of my nuts these guys know they are taking form the government and couldn't give 2 ****s!!! They KNOW there is no limit on the card and are buying whatever they can..
I have friends and family that work in grocery stores and I have even seen it with my own eyes. These welfare cocksuckers come in and buy steak,shrimp,crab legs and lobster and THEN have you COOK IT FOR THEM!!! All because EBT will allow it.. If it were up to me, EVERY cocksucker that abused ebt and the politicians that approved it would be killed in a public format.. Hell, put it on pay per view!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! US hardworking Americans are the ones paying for these mother ****ers to milk the system and paying these piece of shit politicians to let them do it..

I hope every one of the mother****ers and their families die a slow horrible death and I will NOT apologize for saying so!


----------



## Denton

Beach Kowboy said:


> We NEED to close our borders and have a system to let ANYONE in here anymore!! What's his name will say that there is no such thing as "illegal:. Personally, I don't give a ****!! When we as taxpayers have to pay for them and their kids to be here. It becomes OUR problem.. Look at South Florida,South Texas and most of California. I woul dbet my right nut that a large percentage of crime is from "illegal aliens".. Anyone here "illegally" that commits crimes should either get a .22 behind the ear or sent back over the border. Then if they come back should be either a .22 behind the ear and a hammer to the head....
> 
> WE are paying for them and you have all these people lobbying for them to be here. Let the one lobbying for them to be here be responsible for them!! You have all these ****ing bleeding heart liberals that say they should be here. Let them be responsible for them if something happens. they wont though...So **** them!!!!!!! ANYONE that comes across our border illegally should be shot on sight!!! They wont though, that is why they keep coming across our border and when they get caught, they do it again and again and again... Shoot them in the ****ing head and then maybe the next one MIGHT think twice about coming over!!!!!!!!


Sorry if this has already been answered, but the problem isn't that the tax payers are paying for them, the problem is that the tax payers are paying for _anybody_.

Keep in mind, I am also in favor of closed borders, but I am also in favor of cleaning up the arguments that our masters start so that we are unfocused.


----------



## GTGallop

I have no issue with immigrants, refugees, or political dissidents - they all arrive through a formal system and are "onboarded" into America with certain educational steps and resources at their disposal. It makes them a healthier future citizen and resident of our country. They also aren't muleing in drugs and turning to prostitution (or being forced into it) to pay high debts.

Illegals on the other hand bring a host of issues. I'll help anyone who wants, needs, and asks for it, but I'm not helping people that steal my tax money and freedom in the cover of night.


----------



## Denton

rickkyw1720pf said:


> After 911 there shouldn't have been any more people here illegally without every branch of the government hunting them down.


Really? You are aware of the fact that the government has allowed like minded Muslims into this country - legally; right? All the -Stans that have been created in this nation, from Detroit to wherever, have been created by those who the government have allowed into the country.

By the way, the -Stans were being built before we had a Muslim in Chief. This transcends party politics, because those who wish to destroy this nation and enslave the inhabitants transcend politics.

Just trying to keep it real, here, and see how many more people will put me on ignore.


----------



## Denton

SF340_Driver said:


> So, if I illegally enter someone else's property/home do I have an unalienable right to said property/home?


Your patch kicks serious butt, by the way!


----------



## pheniox17

Notsoyoung said:


> On another thread someone has stated that all foreigners have the unalienable right to be here, stated that they don't need to go through the legel process, and has stated that trying to control our borders has turned our country into a police state. I strongly disagree. IMO anyone who comes here illegally should be shipped back to where they came from, and that controlling our borders is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal government, and they aren't doing a very good job of it. As far as I am concerned, referring to ILLEGAL ALIEN as an undocumented immigrant is pure bs.
> 
> Oh yeah, I am sure that someone will bring up the Native Americans and their lack of border control. My response to that is: "So how did that work out for them?"
> 
> By the way, the guy also said that most of the people on this forum agree with him. Just curious to hear you thoughts.


trolling resistor again are we??


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Notsoyoung is, of course, referring to me. So, let's go do this one more time.
> 
> Let's be straight up. ANYBODY who claims that I have ever stated that people should not have to go through some "legel" (sic) process is a straight up LIAR. Notsoyoung has been bucking for me to call him a name, so there it is. As a matter of fact, if anyone can find ANY such proclamation by me on this board - or any other, I will kiss your raw ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.
> 
> Enough is enough of this B.S. There is no such thing as a crime called _"illegal immigration_." Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "_illegal immigration_." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name. What I've said regarding immigration is what the *law is *on the subject.
> 
> Every time I cite all the top sources in every field of law, the posts / thread gets deleted. I've cited the highest immigration sources on the subject. Most of all, I've asked our resident socialist / communist to explain *WHY*, if the law meant that immigration was illegal, *WHY* did Congress try to change the wording of the law? That bill failed. *WHY* did Congress try to reword the law if improper meant unlawful or illegal? The bill was introduced because there has never been a single person convicted of _"illegal immigration_" since such a crime does not exist. It's civil law and no amount of popularity votes is going to change that.
> 
> Should foreigners have God given *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> "_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_..." Declaration of Independence
> 
> Just remember this: when those words were penned, there were no American citizens as the U.S.A. did not exist. You have to figure out if your Rights are bestowed upon man OR by some government led by people like Notsoyoung and operating on a popular vote.
> 
> Any dumb ass realizes that immigration has to be *regulated*, but, like the Right to keep and Bear Arms, regulation does not mean registration or banning it.


Now everyone needs to realize that I'm just a small town cop. But if you go to jail for committing an offense, then it's a criminal matter not a civil one. The following comes from Immigrationlaws.com

The laws revolving around illegal entry or overstaying are found in Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code. This section, titled "Improper Entry of Alien" will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who:

1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or

2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or

3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver's license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion.

The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.


----------



## The Resister

ekim said:


> NO, illegals don't not have an unalienable right to be here, but there is a process for them to come here legally. But that is just my opinion, not it seems a legal excuse. It doesn't seem to matter that other countries put restrictions on immigration and have few problems as compared to the US.


While I think that every person has a Right to their own opinion,* NOBODY* has a Right to be wrong in their facts.

FACT: Our forefathers only allowed White Christians to become citizens and be counted as we, the people while allowing people from every country in the world to come here. Obviously, a hundred years AFTER becoming a nation, if the non-whites had no such unalienable Right to come here you won't find any support for it in any laws. If you find one post it on this board

FACT: There is NO "_legal process_" for most of the ten million people who find themselves here without papers. It simply does not exist for the most part. Our system is all about citizenship. As pointed out, in early American history anybody could come and go, but only White Christians were allowed to become part of the body politic. Many foreigners only want to come here and make money. They don't want to become citizens and neither should they be forced to do so as a prerequisite to exercising their God given *unalienable* Rights.

FACT: Only your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) can grant *unalienable* Rights. Unalienable Rights are not subject to a majority vote.

If only the government can grant Rights, you live in a tyrannical government.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Now everyone needs to realize that I'm just a small town cop. But if you go to jail for committing an offense, then it's a criminal matter not a civil one. The following comes from Immigrationlaws.com
> 
> The laws revolving around illegal entry or overstaying are found in Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code. This section, titled "Improper Entry of Alien" will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who:
> 
> 1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or
> 
> 2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or
> 
> 3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver's license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion.
> 
> The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.


English isn't your first language is it? The title of the law is IMPROPER. It is in a *civil section* of the U.S. Code IT IS NOT IN TITLE 18 WHICH COVERS CRIMINAL LAWS. None of you taking the position that it is illegal has explained the reason THAT VERY LAW YOU'RE QUOTING was the subject of Congressional legislation. Congress sought to change that word IMPROPER to unlawful. If improper means illegal*WHY* did a Tea Party member of Congress propose to change the wording of the law? Answer: Because improper is not illegal and the statute is in a CIVIL section of the U.S. Code.


----------



## The Resister

GTGallop said:


> I have no issue with immigrants, refugees, or political dissidents - they all arrive through a formal system and are "onboarded" into America with certain educational steps and resources at their disposal. It makes them a healthier future citizen and resident of our country. They also aren't muleing in drugs and turning to prostitution (or being forced into it) to pay high debts.
> 
> Illegals on the other hand bring a host of issues. I'll help anyone who wants, needs, and asks for it, but I'm not helping people that steal my tax money and freedom in the cover of night.


I started out with that same, exact attitude only to discover that for most of the ten million without papers, there was NO legal process to follow. The laws simply do not apply. If there were a "_legal process_" that applied some of us would be filthy rich.


----------



## The Resister

SF340_Driver said:


> So, if I illegally enter someone else's property/home do I have an unalienable right to said property/home?


Bitch at me all you want, but the legal answer is absolutely. Of course, while everybody is wanting God government to issue Rights only to "_legal citizens_," they won't bother to ask me how this situation came about and what I'd do to remedy it without the Socialist government you're trying to create here through mob rule (aka popularity votes. democracy) where it won't end in a POLICE STATE.


----------



## luckyduck2

SARGE7402 said:


> Now everyone needs to realize that I'm just a small town cop. But if you go to jail for committing an offense, then it's a criminal matter not a civil one. The following comes from Immigrationlaws.com
> 
> The laws revolving around illegal entry or overstaying are found in Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code. This section, titled "Improper Entry of Alien" will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who:
> 
> 1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or
> 
> 2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or
> 
> 3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver's license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion.
> 
> The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.


You say small town cop. Do you pull over mex's with Tennessee tags ,knowing they don't have car insurance. It you find out they don't have insurance and out of state then what do you do. I've always wanted to ask that question. I'm on the coast of VA. during the summer.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Notsoyoung is, of course, referring to me. So, let's go do this one more time.
> 
> Let's be straight up. ANYBODY who claims that I have ever stated that people should not have to go through some "legel" (sic) process is a straight up LIAR. Notsoyoung has been bucking for me to call him a name, so there it is. As a matter of fact, if anyone can find ANY such proclamation by me on this board - or any other, I will kiss your raw ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.
> 
> Enough is enough of this B.S. There is no such thing as a crime called _"illegal immigration_." Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "_illegal immigration_." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name. What I've said regarding immigration is what the *law is *on the subject.
> 
> Every time I cite all the top sources in every field of law, the posts / thread gets deleted. I've cited the highest immigration sources on the subject. Most of all, I've asked our resident socialist / communist to explain *WHY*, if the law meant that immigration was illegal, *WHY* did Congress try to change the wording of the law? That bill failed. *WHY* did Congress try to reword the law if improper meant unlawful or illegal? The bill was introduced because there has never been a single person convicted of _"illegal immigration_" since such a crime does not exist. It's civil law and no amount of popularity votes is going to change that.
> 
> Should foreigners have God given *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> "_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_..." Declaration of Independence
> 
> Just remember this: when those words were penned, there were no American citizens as the U.S.A. did not exist. You have to figure out if your Rights are bestowed upon man OR by some government led by people like Notsoyoung and operating on a popular vote.
> 
> Any dumb ass realizes that immigration has to be *regulated*, but, like the Right to keep and Bear Arms, regulation does not mean registration or banning it.


BULLSHIT. If you say that there is no such thing as an ILLEGAL ALIEN, that there shouldn't be border control, that coming here ILLEGALLY isn't a crime, and that they have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT to be here, you ARE saying that immigration SHOULD NOT be controlled.


----------



## Notsoyoung

pheniox17 said:


> trolling resistor again are we??


Not really, he has said in the past that he wouldn't bother to go to any thread that I started so I didn't expect him to come here, but he did say that most people on this forum agrees with him and I wondered if I my opinion was so different then everyone else, so I started a thread to find out.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Having unalienable rights does not mean that you do not have to obey a Countries laws or that you can live wherever you want. Were that the case there is a house down the street I would just move into.

There is an a simple way for illegal aliens living in our country to become citizens. They go BACK to their country and then go through the proper process. The whole "I came here illegally and now there isn't a way for me to become a citizen" line is BULL. Using an excellent analogy posted earlier, that would be like me just moving into someone's home and then demanding that laws be changed so that I could become the owner of it. 

Why would we want people who ignore our laws just by being here to become citizens? Think that they are going to start obeying them then? That makes as much sense as giving driver's licenses to ILLEGAL ALIENS because if you don't, they will ignore the laws and drive anyway. So we need to change laws to accommodate the lawless? Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## pheniox17

Notsoyoung said:


> Not really, he has said in the past that he wouldn't bother to go to any thread that I started so I didn't expect him to come here, but he did say that most people on this forum agrees with him and I wondered if I my opinion was so different then everyone else, so I started a thread to find out.


OK, 
I disagree with the imaginary support base for resistor, but good on ya for following it through


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> English isn't your first language is it? The title of the law is IMPROPER. It is in a *civil section* of the U.S. Code IT IS NOT IN TITLE 18 WHICH COVERS CRIMINAL LAWS. None of you taking the position that it is illegal has explained the reason THAT VERY LAW YOU'RE QUOTING was the subject of Congressional legislation. Congress sought to change that word IMPROPER to unlawful. If improper means illegal*WHY* did a Tea Party member of Congress propose to change the wording of the law? Answer: Because improper is not illegal and the statute is in a CIVIL section of the U.S. Code.


Resister: Don't know what your qualifications are to dispense legal opinions, but if violating a statute/code/law results in you doing jail time then that person has committed a crime (Ammendment VI to the U.S. Constitution as opposed to Ammendment VII).

And regarding my understanding of the English language. I wish I knew what drives you to disparage against anyone and everyone that doesn't totally agree with your opinions. I have never made any comments regarding you or your abilities nor your parentage, but you seem to feel that these types of restraints do not apply to you. It's almost as if you believe that by bullying and belittling others your stature will increase in the eyes of others.

I really feel very sorry for you and hope that someday you will realize what is going on and have a happier and healthier life.


----------



## SARGE7402

luckyduck2 said:


> You say small town cop. Do you pull over mex's with Tennessee tags ,knowing they don't have car insurance. It you find out they don't have insurance and out of state then what do you do. I've always wanted to ask that question. I'm on the coast of VA. during the summer.


In 19 years I've pulled over many's a person but they always had to violate some statute - blow a stop sign, speed, etc - and everyone got treated the same. While working in South Virginia I ran into a lot of Hispanics - not just Mexicans - who had various and sundry licenses from all sorts of places. If it came back they weren't licensed they go a Virginia Uniforms Summons for Operating a Motor Vehcicle w/o a license and told to show up for court the same as everyone else. Only if they were wanted on some other type of warrant or were say impaired - DUI - did they ever get hooked up and put in jail. Same with no Insurance. I always gave the operator the chance to explain his case to the judge.


----------



## Smitty901

Your president and VP said they are already citizens with the same rights we all have. So there you go case close the King has spoken


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> Bitch at me all you want, but the legal answer is absolutely. Of course, while everybody is wanting God government to issue Rights only to "_legal citizens_," they won't bother to ask me how this situation came about and what I'd do to remedy it without the Socialist government you're trying to create here through mob rule (aka popularity votes. democracy) where it won't end in a POLICE STATE.


You just stepped out of the facts.
Our law is based on common law (if speaking of constitutional law, the law of the land, or the laws of nature and nature's God.)
No man has the right to do that, and every man has the right to drop the intruder.
Not bitching at you at all, just keeping it real.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Notsoyoung is, of course, referring to me. So, let's go do this one more time.
> 
> Enough is enough of this B.S. There is no such thing as a crime called _"illegal immigration_." Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "_illegal immigration_." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name. What I've said regarding immigration is what the *law is *on the subject.
> 
> .


Hey Resister you only refer to one section of the actual statute. If you'd read the paragraph preceding it you'd see the following:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

Current through Pub. L. 113-88. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Updates
PREV | NEXT
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Now How about a retraction from the exalted one


----------



## Slippy

I just paid my final 2013 tax bill and the way I look at it illegals are taking my money that the federal fools have allocated to the fraudulent thieves who are pumping out babies and drinking forties and selling crack that they bought with my (and your) money or waiting to mug me from the porch of the house that we built for them.


----------



## sparkyprep

Does God only exist inside the borders of the United States?


----------



## PalmettoTree

An unalienable right is one each person has. It is a right that cannot be given or taken away.

A person has an unalienable right to be. That person does not have a right to be anywhere he or she pleases.


----------



## Smitty901

PalmettoTree said:


> An unalienable right is one each person has. It is a right that cannot be given or taken away.
> 
> A person has an unalienable right to be. That person does not have a right to be anywhere he or she pleases.


 Correct


----------



## paraquack

I'd like to break this question down in two parts. First do illegal aliens have unalienable rights? Of course they do. Every man, woman or child is born with the rights we hold so dear, given us by our creator. Unfortunately some countries don't believe that. As far as the right to be here, that is a matter of law. Any nation-state has the right to decide who it may allow to enter the country and to this end a nation creates laws. If an immigrant doesn't follow the law, they have no right to be here. Most immigrants come to this country because they see us as the land of opportunity. The opportunity to live free, in a way that his birth country does not allow. Maybe they see us as a play to earn enough money to live better than they did back home. Sometimes an immigrant is actually a criminal in his own country and wishes to come to the US because he sees us as the land of opportunity for his nefarious activities. Sometimes a person comes here because they were criminalized for speaking out about injustices in the country of their birth. IMHO, the problem seems to be that so many of our "do good, damn the consequences" as long as I get re-elected politicians have turned this country into a paradise for those that have no way to earn a living, no place to live, no cell phone, no medical insurance and no food. It used to be that a person wanting to come to this country had to have a sponsor. Some who would help the immigrant find work, a place to live, food to eat, etc.

All to often I see young people (who have nothing to loose because they too don't a job, food, a cell phone, medical insurance and a bad attitude to boot and are living off mommy and daddy or are collecting welfare or some other form of assistance themselves) screaming that we must allow the poor to immigrate into our country. They don't seem to realize that by most counts, there are already 20 million illegals here now. Supposedly 53% of those in prison are illegal aliens. If that doesn't tell you something, I doubt that I can say anything that might change your mind but I'll go on for a few more sentences before I get off my soap box. It is said that illegals take the jobs that the rest of us won't. I believe that that statement should include the following "at the price the illegals are willing to take to do the work", especially today. Somehow "flipping burgers" is a job worthy of $20 an hour, or so my neighbors' boy says. If a job has to be done, and no one takes it as $8 an hour, the wage for that job will go up. Most illegals are on Medicaid. Instead of going to a family doctor for a cold and paying a $20-$30 dollar copay, they go to the emergency room where the government gets to pay ten times the price for doctor visit. By the way, you do remember where the government gets their money, don't you? 
Ok, I'll step down now so someone else can get up on the soap box.
View attachment 5080


----------



## sparkyprep

pheniox17 said:


> trolling resistor again are we??


Absolutely.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> BULLSHIT. If you say that there is no such thing as an ILLEGAL ALIEN, that there shouldn't be border control, that coming here ILLEGALLY isn't a crime, and that they have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT to be here, you ARE saying that immigration SHOULD NOT be controlled.


So, your position is that we cannot have a well regulated militia without controlling firearms (i.e. registration)???


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Not really, he has said in the past that he wouldn't bother to go to any thread that I started so I didn't expect him to come here, but he did say that most people on this forum agrees with him and I wondered if I my opinion was so different then everyone else, so I started a thread to find out.


Notsoyoung is a pathological liar. At first I said he was a liar, but it's beyond that. I have always pointed out that everybody on this board would disagree with me in a popularity contest. In the history of the modern world, majorities have consistently proven to be wrong.

The question before us is DO THESE PEOPLE NOTSOYOUNG CALLS "ILLEGAL" ALIENS HAVE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS? Some of the questions that the OP does NOT get into is whether or not immigration is civil or criminal law, so I don't understand why those who agree with Notsoyoung are having such a hard time following this.

Benjamin Franklin once stated that "_Man will ultimately be ruled by God or by man_."

So, who do YOU think ought to have *unalienable* Rights? Do Rights emanate from a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence *OR* are they bestowed upon you by some government God? Quit playing this cop out bullshit about obeying laws and so forth. Just be honest with yourself.

Starting with Barry Goldwater through Ronald Reagan we had those men and other Republicans warning, "_The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have_."


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> So, your position is that we cannot have a well regulated militia without controlling firearms (i.e. registration)???


What the hell does that mean? I don't know how you connected the dots to come up with that bs answer, and why are you trying to mix the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to come up with it? My contention is that it is NOT an unalienable right to live wherever you want regardless of the law. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not cover it.


----------



## Notsoyoung

sparkyprep said:


> Does God only exist inside the borders of the United States?


No, but God does not give you the right to break laws wherever you want regardless of those laws.


----------



## Casie

If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get twelve years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.

Crossing the Afgan border illegally, will you get you shot and buried.

Saudi Arabia welcomes many business travelers, but if you cross the border illegally you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

Get a visa to travel to Venezuela and you are fine but if you cross the border illegally you will be branded a spy and imprisoned or killed.

Cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.

If you cross the British border illegally, and get asked to identify yourself you will be deported. 

When you enter Canada illegally, expect the Canada Border Services Agency as well as the Immigration and Citizenship Canada, to serve you with a removal letter followed by an arrest. If you do not leave the country peacefully, they will throw you out quietly.

If you enter Mexico illegally you will be arrested and if you are very very lucky, deported. Even tourists that have lost papers (or left papers in luggage and had their luggage stolen) go directly to jail for two years. They have also been known to demand a ransom at the end of the two year sentence, which they call a "fine".

If you cross into the United States illegally, you can pursue your education, find work, receive welfare, send your children to public schools, get free health care, apply for housing assistance, get an EBT card, a free phone, and possibly even vote.



*I got info from Ask.com, Yahoo Answers, and the Travel Guide.


----------



## Smitty901

Asking a question worded in that why is a setup. If you say yes then you must agree also that they should not be treated any different than a citizen. If you say no then they attack your faith. When in reality the two have nothing in common.
Kind of like the old question have you stopped beating your wife yet. You are wrong no madder how you respond.
Liberals see them as a voter power base much like they have used a large part of the black population. They don't care one bit about them they just want their numbers.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Resister: Don't know what your qualifications are to dispense legal opinions, but if violating a statute/code/law results in you doing jail time then that person has committed a crime (Ammendment VI to the U.S. Constitution as opposed to Ammendment VII).
> 
> And regarding my understanding of the English language. I wish I knew what drives you to disparage against anyone and everyone that doesn't totally agree with your opinions. I have never made any comments regarding you or your abilities nor your parentage, but you seem to feel that these types of restraints do not apply to you. It's almost as if you believe that by bullying and belittling others your stature will increase in the eyes of others.
> 
> I really feel very sorry for you and hope that someday you will realize what is going on and have a happier and healthier life.


Sarge, I spent six years practicing immigration law. Before that I walked the border in the first of these modern day deals back in 1977. Between 1977 and 1999 (when I began working in immigration law) I wrote thousands upon thousands of research papers on racial and immigration topics; testified as an expert witness in court; criss-crossed the country talking about the issue from a right wing perspective. In debates with Hosea Williams (the heir to the political empire of Martin Luther King, Jr.) Hosea lost and his tv show was cancelled the next season.

Most of the political propaganda on the topic is not new to me. I worked with John Tanton who supplies all the political rhetoric for the anti - immigration cause.

Now, back to the law:

No statute on the books is worth a damn unless or until it has been interpreted by the appropriate authorities. In this case, NO CRIMINAL COURT HAS EVER TRIED ANYONE FOR IMPROPER ENTRY. Here is a* ruling* from Attorney Michael Mukasey in his job as the *highest ranking immigration official in the United States*:

"_Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings and *removal proceedings are civil in nature*"_
Matter of Enrique Salas COMPEAN, Respondent 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009) Interim Decision #3632 710

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf

If you are, indeed a cop, you know full well that the A.G. is NOT a judicial officer yet the Compean case is all about 8 USC 1325

Furthermore, you have dodged and ducked the issue: If Improper Entry (8 USC 1325) were criminal, why did a Tea Party lawyer / Congressman try to introduce legislation to change the wording of the law? If it were illegal, why do you need to change the law to reword the term Improper Entry? I answered your questions so be polite and respond to my questions.


----------



## paraquack

My wife is a better shot, she beats me at the range all the time. Hey, I got an idea for employment. We get them to hold a target up above their head and run back and forth behind a berm so we can practice on moving targets. And no, I don't mean we should be shooting them. We don't have enough mountain lions down here since the idiots decided to import 30+ sheep down here and then decide to kill the mountain lions for doing what comes naturally.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Notsoyoung is a pathological liar. At first I said he was a liar, but it's beyond that. I have always pointed out that everybody on this board would disagree with me in a popularity contest. In the history of the modern world, majorities have consistently proven to be wrong.
> 
> The question before us is DO THESE PEOPLE NOTSOYOUNG CALLS "ILLEGAL" ALIENS HAVE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS? Some of the questions that the OP does NOT get into is whether or not immigration is civil or criminal law, so I don't understand why those who agree with Notsoyoung are having such a hard time following this.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin once stated that "_Man will ultimately be ruled by God or by man_."
> 
> So, who do YOU think ought to have *unalienable* Rights? Do Rights emanate from a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence *OR* are they bestowed upon you by some government God? Quit playing this cop out bullshit about obeying laws and so forth. Just be honest with yourself.
> 
> Starting with Barry Goldwater through Ronald Reagan we had those men and other Republicans warning, "_The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have_."


I'm a pathological liar? Nice one. I am so shocked and hurt, or would be if so many people weren't laughing at a joke of a little man with a Napoleonic complex and big mouth spewing so much bovine feces. And a lying wannabe. As you have repeatedly declared that you put your life on the line every day, I am sure we are all sitting on the edge of our seats wondering what heroic feats you accomplished today or would if anyone believed your idiotic claims for a second.

Hey genius, the question is not whether or not ILLEGAL ALIENS have unalienable rights, but if those unalienable rights include them ignoring our Country's laws and not following the legal process to enter it. I and most people with half a brain says no.

Benjamen Franklin also said "A penny saved is a penny earned". That is as germane as the other quotes you posted. They have nothing to do with the subject. Let me guess, the old "If you can't blind them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit" ploy. Not even a nice try.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> What the hell does that mean? I don't know how you connected the dots to come up with that bs answer, and why are you trying to mix the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to come up with it? My contention is that it is NOT an unalienable right to live wherever you want regardless of the law. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not cover it.


Well, I guess we all have an equal right to neglect our education:

"_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821

"On the distinctive principles of the Government...of the United States, the best guides are to be found in...The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States." James Madison _

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process

So the declaratory charter of the Rights of man, which include Liberty, apply to every human being. Sorry to disagree. The above links will explain it all to you in simple terms.


----------



## Piratesailor

Short answer NO

long answer... F$&k NO


----------



## Inor

Slippy said:


> RESISTER--DO YOU WANT THESE ****ERS HERE SUCKING OUR TAX DOLLARS AND COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST US? A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER.
> 
> Sorry to yell...


Slippy? (I say meekly)

Couldn't we just keep a few to mix the drinks?


----------



## Slippy

Inor said:


> Slippy? (I say meekly)
> 
> Couldn't we just keep a few to mix the drinks?


Damn you Inor,

Can't you just let a man stay mad for a little while before you crack him up! 

Yes, we can let a few stay BUT... Jerome, 
View attachment 5083

my stable boy, mixes my drinks...however...I'm always looking for some good landscapers AND I do like a good Chimichanga every now again! Uno mas cervesa por favor!


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Well, I guess we all have an equal right to neglect our education:
> 
> "_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821
> 
> "On the distinctive principles of the Government...of the United States, the best guides are to be found in...The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States." James Madison _
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
> 
> So the declaratory charter of the Rights of man, which include Liberty, apply to every human being. Sorry to disagree. The above links will explain it all to you in simple terms.


And how does that tie in with whether or not I believe in a militia and registering firearms? You left that little part out of your response didn't you?


----------



## The Resister

Casie said:


> If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get twelve years hard labor.
> 
> If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.
> 
> Crossing the Afgan border illegally, will you get you shot and buried.
> 
> Saudi Arabia welcomes many business travelers, but if you cross the border illegally you will be jailed.
> 
> If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.
> 
> Get a visa to travel to Venezuela and you are fine but if you cross the border illegally you will be branded a spy and imprisoned or killed.
> 
> Cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.
> 
> If you cross the British border illegally, and get asked to identify yourself you will be deported.
> 
> When you enter Canada illegally, expect the Canada Border Services Agency as well as the Immigration and Citizenship Canada, to serve you with a removal letter followed by an arrest. If you do not leave the country peacefully, they will throw you out quietly.
> 
> If you enter Mexico illegally you will be arrested and if you are very very lucky, deported. Even tourists that have lost papers (or left papers in luggage and had their luggage stolen) go directly to jail for two years. They have also been known to demand a ransom at the end of the two year sentence, which they call a "fine".
> 
> If you cross into the United States illegally, you can pursue your education, find work, receive welfare, send your children to public schools, get free health care, apply for housing assistance, get an EBT card, a free phone, and possibly even vote.
> 
> Absolute rubbish. If you want to live in a totalitarian country, why not go live in one?
> 
> America has no "free health care." Obamacare is EXPENSIVE.
> 
> *I got info from Ask.com, Yahoo Answers, and the Travel Guide.


The rest of the stuff on the list are available to you but not always to non-citizens.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> C'mon Resister, say it...I know you agree that you don't want these leaches here committing crimes and sucking more of mine and your tax money any more than the rest of us, do you?


My personal opinion regarding foreigners would get me banned just for saying the words. That does not mean that I would allow you to convict someone and call them an_ illegal_ any freaking thing absent Due Process. I was once staring at the possibility of twenty five years in prison over an attitude by the LEOs that mimics what you're trying to accomplish.

When my ass has been on the line, it's forced me to learn this:

"_No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck._" Frederic Douglass

Now think really hard, slippy. How many of my critics have suggested socialist or even communist solutions to the perceived problem? Why do you even bother asking what I think when I give you hundreds of links that explain it to you? Ever try looking at them?


----------



## Notsoyoung

If we are nice I am sure that resister will tell us the story again about how some LEOs in his area were breaking the law, he turned them in, and how they tried to kill him. And how the Atlanta Constitution said that "he wasn't a threat to the community". Of course he won't gives us the date and title of the article so that we can check it ourselves, and there is the strange wording, "not a threat to the community". Isn't that a strange phrase to use under the circumstances? "Not a threat to the community". Doesn't that sound more like some annoying mental job that after being committed for mental evaluation, was released after they determined that he was whacko but "not a threat to the community"?


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Sarge, I spent six years practicing immigration law. Before that I walked the border in the first of these modern day deals back in 1977. Between 1977 and 1999 (when I began working in immigration law) I wrote thousands upon thousands of research papers on racial and immigration topics; testified as an expert witness in court; criss-crossed the country talking about the issue from a right wing perspective. In debates with Hosea Williams (the heir to the political empire of Martin Luther King, Jr.) Hosea lost and his tv show was cancelled the next season.
> 
> Most of the political propaganda on the topic is not new to me. I worked with John Tanton who supplies all the political rhetoric for the anti - immigration cause.
> 
> Now, back to the law:
> 
> No statute on the books is worth a damn unless or until it has been interpreted by the appropriate authorities. In this case, NO CRIMINAL COURT HAS EVER TRIED ANYONE FOR IMPROPER ENTRY. Here is a* ruling* from Attorney Michael Mukasey in his job as the *highest ranking immigration official in the United States*:
> 
> "_Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings and *removal proceedings are civil in nature*"_
> Matter of Enrique Salas COMPEAN, Respondent 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009) Interim Decision #3632 710
> 
> http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf
> 
> If you are, indeed a cop, you know full well that the A.G. is NOT a judicial officer yet the Compean case is all about 8 USC 1325
> 
> Furthermore, you have dodged and ducked the issue: If Improper Entry (8 USC 1325) were criminal, why did a Tea Party lawyer / Congressman try to introduce legislation to change the wording of the law? If it were illegal, why do you need to change the law to reword the term Improper Entry? I answered your questions so be polite and respond to my questions.


Resister: I guess you never got the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics file ( http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iofjs10.pdf ) . Funny why does DOJ say on page 8: About two-thirds of immigration violators arrested with a federal offense in 2010 were charged with a misdemeanor
for illegal entry and were sentenced to jail for up to 180 days by a U.S. magistrate judge. These matters comprised
the least serious immigration offenses. Half of immigration matters disposed by magistrate in 2010 were processed on
the same day as received by the court, compared to about three weeks for immigration suspects prosecuted in U.S.
district court.

Yeah, I'm a peace officer and a darned good one. I'm also a pretty good researcher. I guess we won't be seeing any apology of Kissing on a Public street any time soon.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> Why do you even bother asking what I think when I give you hundreds of links that explain it to you? Ever try looking at them?


Whats a link?


----------



## Notsoyoung

Slippy said:


> Whats a link?


I have looked at some of them. Many of them HE wrote, and others go to questionable sources to say the least.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Most of you know. I have spent a fair amount of time in Mexico. I have worked with many people from other countries who work in this country LEGALLY. I say again LEGALLY! They worked very hard to not only get here but to stay hear LEGALLY.

Additionally I have seen thousands line up every morning to come across our border to work and return every afternoon.

There is a right way and wrong way to come, work, visit, and even stay in this country. That is all we expect. That is what I did out of respect to the countries I worked in or visited. 

There are a ton of tear-jerking stories but the long and short is they made their own unfortunate circumstance.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> If we are nice I am sure that resister will tell us the story again about how some LEOs in his area were breaking the law, he turned them in, and how they tried to kill him. And how the Atlanta Constitution said that "he wasn't a threat to the community". Of course he won't gives us the date and title of the article so that we can check it ourselves, and there is the strange wording, "not a threat to the community". Isn't that a strange phrase to use under the circumstances? "Not a threat to the community". Doesn't that sound more like some annoying mental job that after being committed for mental evaluation, was released after they determined that he was whacko but "not a threat to the community"?


You have exceeded the limits of decency. I have never been held for any "mental" issue and never said as much. **** you and the horse you rode in on.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Resister: I guess you never got the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics file ( http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iofjs10.pdf ) . Funny why does DOJ say on page 8: About two-thirds of immigration violators arrested with a federal offense in 2010 were charged with a misdemeanor
> for illegal entry and were sentenced to jail for up to 180 days by a U.S. magistrate judge. These matters comprised
> the least serious immigration offenses. Half of immigration matters disposed by magistrate in 2010 were processed on
> the same day as received by the court, compared to about three weeks for immigration suspects prosecuted in U.S.
> district court.
> 
> Yeah, I'm a peace officer and a darned good one. I'm also a pretty good researcher. I guess we won't be seeing any apology of Kissing on a Public street any time soon.


A DOJ statistic is made by statisticians, *NOT* by judges. You are no more a cop than Obama is an honest man. You can fool some of the people some of the time. Show me a criminal case where someone got prosecuted in a criminal court for improper entry... and not one of the other crimes listed in Title 8 USC 1325 that are found in USC Title 8... which is criminal law, which if you were a cop, you would know.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Whats a link?


That's not a good joke and it's in the wrong thread.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> A DOJ statistic is made by statisticians, *NOT* by judges. You are no more a cop than Obama is an honest man. You can fool some of the people some of the time. Show me a criminal case where someone got prosecuted in a criminal court for improper entry... and not one of the other crimes listed in Title 8 USC 1325 that are found in USC Title 8... which is criminal law, which if you were a cop, you would know.


My My My ! Did we touch a nerve? Sounds like a gent that wrote the Magazine that the Southern Poverty Law Center Thinks so highly of.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> That's not a good joke and it's in the wrong thread.


Good point. Like Mrs. Slippy says, " Slippy, you think you are always funny but sometimes you're snot."


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> My My My ! Did we touch a nerve? Sounds like a gent that wrote the Magazine that the Southern Poverty Law Center Thinks so highly of.


There are limits to ****ing with people. Notsoyoung has spouted shit at me since he lost his ass on the immigration issue. He's resorted to one lie after another. He's talked trash he would never say to my face. He tries to marginalize my life because he's been a complete failure at his own... and now you want to start in on me? Are you as chickenshit as your brokeback buddy?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> You have exceeded the limits of decency. I have never been held for any "mental" issue and never said as much. **** you and the horse you rode in on.


Yes, I am sure that you often have sex with men and animals. As for you never been held for any "mental" issue (that really hit close to home didn't it?),You may have not have said that you are mental but it is evident to all. YOU ARE BAY CRAP CRAZY!

As for me exceeding the limits of decency, you have to be kidding after some of the posts you have made on this thread not to mention other threads in this forum. You wouldn't know decency if it bit you in your well pounded butt, mary.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Yes, I am sure that you often have sex with men and animals. As for you never been held for any "mental" issue (that really hit close to home didn't it?),You may have not have said that you are mental but it is evident to all. YOU ARE BAY CRAP CRAZY!
> 
> As for me exceeding the limits of decency, you have to be kidding after some of the posts you have made on this thread not to mention other threads in this forum. You wouldn't know decency if it bit you in your well pounded butt, mary.


You talk like a lady of experience. Why not take this to PM? Why not do more than talk?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> You talk like a lady of experience. Why not take this to PM? Why not do more than talk?


Go for it you little butt humping rump ranger, you little hero (only in your mind) you. You really are a mental job, aren't you?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> There are limits to ****ing with people. Notsoyoung has spouted shit at me since he lost his ass on the immigration issue. He's resorted to one lie after another. He's talked trash he would never say to my face. He tries to marginalize my life because he's been a complete failure at his own... and now you want to start in on me? Are you as chickenshit as your brokeback buddy?


Really hero? I wouldn't say to your face? Remember the last time you said that and I informed you that I would be traveling through Atlanta and would be more then happy to say it to your face, just name a place, and you didn't reply? Remember that? Lost the ILLEGAL ALIEN argument? Only in your sick and distorted mind. You need to go back to the whacko ward for another check up and more medication.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Personally, I think anyone that comes here illegally and doesn't go through the correct process should be killed along with their entire family that came with them!!! I am sure there are MANY that come here just wanting to provide for their family but out of them, there a a few that are terrorists out to do this country great harm.. Screw them all!! Just like the ghettos. There is a large majority of them that are law abiding citizens but even they stick up and hide the piece of shit criminals.. You would NEVER hear about terrorists attacking a ghetto becuase they know they would be doing us a favor!!

As great a country as this is, there is still a decent percentage that the majority of the country couldn't give a shit if they disappeared!!! We all know it and most want to say it. But nowadays, if you say something like that you are not PC... Personally, I couldn't give a **** about PC.. Let these bastards crossing the border committing crimes,criminals here int he states and even politicians in this country against the Constitution die slow horrible deaths!!! I will never bow to political correctness... Let Reid,Pelosi and feinbitch be on the top of the list.. Then you have the ones on the east coast that can be next.. I go to bed every night HOPING that someone with terminal cancer will take care of them like thye need to be!!


----------



## paraquack

A lot of illegals that get caught close to the border are carrying contraband, if you get my meaning. They do it to get a grub stake here. I can't help but wonder why these immigrants aren't prosecuted. I really wonder how many have been bringing in parts for nukes. It would be so easy to give an illegal a "package" to be delivered for a few hundred buck promise, or maybe a bullet and a shallow grave out there in the desert.


----------



## Casie

Howdy, The Resister!

I haven't had time to read all of your replies, so I'll admit I'm not sure where you are comin' from and what point you are trying to make. However, I did see that you have quoted me _*and added a couple lines that I did not write in the quote box*_. Please don't do that. It's weird. And you made me have to go back and check my original reply to make sure I didn't have some sort of minor stroke and forgot I what I typed.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> There are limits to ****ing with people. Notsoyoung has spouted shit at me since he lost his ass on the immigration issue. He's resorted to one lie after another. He's talked trash he would never say to my face. He tries to marginalize my life because he's been a complete failure at his own... and now you want to start in on me? Are you as chickenshit as your brokeback buddy?


Just as one would expect. Your show me comments - even when the actual law and DOJ statistics are placed in front of you - indicate someone that does not play well with other children. And now rather than address the real issue that you have - which is a lack of factual documentation to back up your position, you take to disparaging against the morals of those that don't agree with you. Almost like Harry Reid calling our soldiers in Afghanistan baby killers. Actually no one was marginalizing your life, but you have o admit that your response when faced with real documentation that disproves your argument is to suck in a deep breath, stamp your feet as hard as you can and then shout your taking your ball home cause we won't play by your rules. And while I don't appreciate being likened to our illustrious President he did promise to give the country "Change" and he has kept that promise. And if those are the worst comments you are capable of making on my integrity and character, I'll be glad to introduce you to some fine folks that can give you lessons in denigratin


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Just as one would expect. Your show me comments - even when the actual law and DOJ statistics are placed in front of you - indicate someone that does not play well with other children. And now rather than address the real issue that you have - which is a lack of factual documentation to back up your position, you take to disparaging against the morals of those that don't agree with you. Almost like Harry Reid calling our soldiers in Afghanistan baby killers. Actually no one was marginalizing your life, but you have o admit that your response when faced with real documentation that disproves your argument is to suck in a deep breath, stamp your feet as hard as you can and then shout your taking your ball home cause we won't play by your rules. And while I don't appreciate being likened to our illustrious President he did promise to give the country "Change" and he has kept that promise. And if those are the worst comments you are capable of making on my integrity and character, I'll be glad to introduce you to some fine folks that can give you lessons in denigratin


Sarge, it is not my job to do any "_denigratin_." You did that to yourself. If someone on this board wants to have a good laugh they should copy and paste our last few exchanges. Take them to the lawyer of their choice and watch his reaction. NOBODY who has even a high school understanding of civics would walk into court and claim that immigration was criminal law based upon a DOJ statistic. None of you would feel that the liberals were honest if the DOJ called your semi auto rifle an "_assault weapon_" for purposes of banning them either. Most people realize that an assault weapon fires both fully automatic and semi-automatic. Allowing statisticians to reclassify your weapon in order to ban it would be plain dirty, but your dumb ass would set the precedent because you don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law and you aren't what you claim to be.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The subject of this thread is "do ILLEGAL ALIENS have an unalienable right" to come into the United States. NOT if they do or don't have unalienable rights,they do, but whether those unalienable rights means that they can enter this country without obeying our immigration laws. THEY DON"T. It is ludicrous to believe that someone who is willing to break our laws to enter the country would then become law abiding citizens who will obey our laws to the best of their abilities. They have already shown their contempt for our laws when they entered the Country and they will continue to do so once they are here. Many drive without licenses or insurance. I know, how are they supposed to get those if they are here illegally, to which I reply, then DON'T DRIVE. Of course that isn't a an option because it would be inconvenient for them, just like it would be inconvenient for them to enter the country legally. 

I have also heard that some imply that it is our fault because ILLEGAL ALIENS don't have a pathway to citizenship once they get here. That is at best a lie or an attempt at misdirection. ILLEGAL ALIENS have a very clear path to citizenship. GO BACK to their country of origin and then try to enter the United States legally, then after a number of years they can apply for citizenship. But that is not very CONVENIENT for them is it? We should change OUR LAWS to make it CONVENIENT for those who find our immigration laws too bothersome. Yeah, these are the type of people we want for citizenship.


----------



## PalmettoTree

Resister, are you a libertarian?


----------



## Notsoyoung

Casie said:


> Howdy, The Resister!
> 
> I haven't had time to read all of your replies, so I'll admit I'm not sure where you are comin' from and what point you are trying to make. However, I did see that you have quoted me _*and added a couple lines that I did not write in the quote box*_. Please don't do that. It's weird. And you made me have to go back and check my original reply to make sure I didn't have some sort of minor stroke and forgot I what I typed.


Added a couple of lines as though they were yours? I don't believe I have ever heard of someone doing something that low, but somehow I am not surprised. A pretty good example of a total lack of character.


----------



## Casie

Yeah, I'm hoping it was an accident. But I'll admit my first reaction was, "What horribly embarrassing thing should I make Resister say, so that he understands how annoying it is to have your quote manipulated." 

That's why my last sentence is a little jacked up. I did a rather poor last second editing job! 

My fake Resister quote was pretty hilarious, but I'm glad I removed it. For now!


----------



## Reptilicus

In response to the OP. NO!!!!


----------



## Smokin04

The Resister said:


> Enough is enough of this B.S. There is no such thing as a crime called _"illegal immigration_." Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "_illegal immigration_." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name. What I've said regarding immigration is what the *law is *on the subject.


Under Operation Streamline, fast-track proceedings for illegal immigrants - The Washington Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Only in it to see if resister makes good on his words...

They're prosecuting 70 a day (with the goal of reaching 210 a day) in the southern states man. Just sayin'. Of course you'll probably try and dance around the FACT that they ARE PROSECUTING CRIMINALLY for repeat offenders (and looking to do the same for first timers) with other legal words, case law, and what not. Personally, I could care less. I'm one of the guys that whole heartedly agree's with Streamline and think they should keep it going to the full affect.

But here man, you're wrong. Trials for illegal immigration, entering the country illegally, flying without a green card, how ever you refer to it; is ILLEGAL and people ARE TRIED and CONVICTED every day.


----------



## The Resister

PalmettoTree said:


> Resister, are you a libertarian?


I identify with their positions far more times that the Ds and the Rs.


----------



## The Resister

Smokin04 said:


> Under Operation Streamline, fast-track proceedings for illegal immigrants - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html
> 
> Only in it to see if resister makes good on his words...
> 
> They're prosecuting 70 a day (with the goal of reaching 210 a day) in the southern states man. Just sayin'. Of course you'll probably try and dance around the FACT that they ARE PROSECUTING CRIMINALLY for repeat offenders (and looking to do the same for first timers) with other legal words, case law, and what not. Personally, I could care less. I'm one of the guys that whole heartedly agree's with Streamline and think they should keep it going to the full affect.
> 
> But here man, you're wrong. Trials for illegal immigration, entering the country illegally, flying without a green card, how ever you refer to it; is ILLEGAL and people ARE TRIED and CONVICTED every day.


I will say this to you again:

You are absolutely *WRONG*. The only reason I'm going to point this out to you is so that you will look at it for what my objection is, not what the anti-immigrant lobby is claiming I said.

Improper Entry is not _"illegal._" Nobody has ever been prosecuted for _"illegal_" entry because such a crime does not exist. Here is what is really going on:

In order for those immigrants to get before a judicial officer, they must have committed a crime related to the Improper Entry, so the feds streamline the entire issue. Either way, the foreigner is gone, but *NOT* due to Improper Entry. Some people have quoted Title 8 USC 1325 and now I'll explain it to you. The statute calls Improper Entry an *offense*, but it is not classified as a crime.

Section B of the statute continues on:

"_Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a *civil penalty*...."_

Then, the rest of the statute continues to include things like eluding authorities, marriage fraud, fraudulent papers, etc. It even includes a "_crime_" for repeated improper entries. Now, in my home state a DUI is a misdemeanor. If I argued with you and claimed it was a felony, you'd swear I was nuts. But, I can show you people who have felonies for driving drunk. You're trying the same tactic.

Improper Entry is not a crime. It can be if you enter more than once and they CATCH you. DUI can become a felony if done more a couple of times. If one LIES to the authorities when caught, that is a crime. If a foreigner uses fraudulent papers, that is a crime. But, the statute is clear: Improper Entry only nets an offender a small *CIVIL FINE*.

Second point, A DOJ statistic or even a news story is not binding authority in any court of law in America. Don't show me any more news stories. SHOW ME LAW. Let me show you some:

"_"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime.

Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about. It is not."_" Chris Christie in his role at U.S. Attorney, the people charged with enforcing Title 8 offenses

Chris Christie - Immigration

"_Illegal immigration is not a crime_." Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. District Attorney






"_On Sunday, April 19, 2009, Secretary Napolitano went on CNN's 'State of the Union' and proclaimed that crossing the border illegally is not a crime_..."

Napolitano: Illegal Immigration NOT a Crime? - Topix

Okay, I have cited a *RULING* by the highest immigration official in the United States. A ruling is a binding precedent and it clearly clarifies the issue. We've asked two attorneys on both sides of the equation that worked in on the prosecution side. We've heard from someone that was the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security and all of them have told you: Improper Entry is not a crime.

I worked in immigration law for six years. Unless they change the statute or SCOTUS disagrees the law will not change to suit you. I've watched anti-immigrants try to say otherwise and the situation has not changed. Maybe you should rethink your strategies.


----------



## The Resister

Casie said:


> Yeah, I'm hoping it was an accident. But I'll admit my first reaction was, "What horribly embarrassing thing should I make Resister say, so that he understands how annoying it is to have your quote manipulated."
> 
> That's why my last sentence is a little jacked up. I did a rather poor last second editing job!
> 
> My fake Resister quote was pretty hilarious, but I'm glad I removed it. For now!


Okay, I'll try to be fair with you:

In order to figure out your complaint, it would require reading this entire thread again. So, I do remember that you were the person that tried to list a lot of countries and tell us what their immigration laws were. So, hear me out on this:

Denton supports *SOME* of what I say. He's always quick to preface his comments so as to distance himself from those things that separate us given points. On the immigration issue, I've been debating the *legal *perspective for eleven years now. The strategy of the National Socialists has been to use a shotgun approach against me since they don't have a single one that can debate me alone.

With the shotgun approach, one person can attack with, let us say, misrepresentations about taxes. Another attacks with what the laws are in... and still another is trying to argue whether or not there is a crime called _"illegal_" immigration. There's no way in Hell I can argue with three of them because none of them have an attention span that goes beyond four paragraphs. A generalized response then whizzes many off because they can say "_I"_ didn't say that." Unlike Denton - the anti - immigrants do not distance themselves from each other's statements. What would you think if five people were all jerking your chain all at once? Maybe you stepped into it through ignorance and an unwitting mistake. If so, you have my deepest apologies.

Factually though, getting into Red China is much easier than entering the United States. AND the immigration laws the socialists want enforced were rammed through Congress by a Democrat named Ted Kennedy. Yet, the anti-immigrants maintain I'm the liberal. Go figure. My objection to the socialist argument is that they want to force people to become citizens. I don't support that. Give the foreigners the vote and they will send you packing... all democratically and _"legally_" of course.


----------



## Slippy

Resister,
You are one relentless son of a buck! You just don't stop... so I give you... the Energizer Bunny Award. 

I got to ask again, do you want them in the country committing crimes and taking your tax dollars as well as feeding the machine with more votes to take more of your tax dollars?


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> But Hey Resistor, I get what you were trying to say and you where being accurate to the laws and definitions on the books to a certain degree. SO I really have no heart ache over your position....With the spirit of the laws and what they are supposed to uphold...I disagree completely with these formalities or loop holes or whatever defense is put forward for not keeping people out who sneak in. Maybe we should create a system of Citizens and people who just come here to work...where only Citizens who receive no federal subsidies or welfare and who can show proof of Citizenship through proper ID can vote in any election. Then I wouldn't be as ticked off about the "Illegal trespassin' sum bitches.....I mean undocumented immigrants."


Here's my personal beef SF:

All of this started in 2003 when a group called Ranch Rescue was pursued by the LEO community when they stopped some *trespassers* who came across private property lines in order to improperly enter the U.S.

The issue went to court and Ranch Rescue members were convicted of violating the "_civil_" rights of the paperless foreigners:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/case-docket/leiva-v-ranch-rescue

You read me right. The judicial system locked up Ranch Rescue members and took the owner's ranch away (in a civil suit) from him, giving it to foreigners that were caught trespassing! Okay, before that the constitutionalists and the militias were fighting eminent domain abuse AND threats to private property.

The anti-immigrant movement threw in the towel and wanted to become an action arm of Homeland (IN) Security. I've been at war with them ever since. Instead of us being able to defend our own private property lines, we have to let Uncle Scam do it with a militarized police force.

Okay, one last thing:

When I was fighting against the LEOs for targeting me, we were at a discovery proceeding and I asked one of the government attorneys:

"_When in the Hell did we start presuming people to be guilty and calling them criminals absent Due Process_?" The government attorney responds: "_We do it all the time, sir. Haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?_"

This is what you call the _"equal protection of the laws_." For those of you who become domestic terrorists / enemy combatants, at least you'll know where the precedent came from when the start punishing you before you had your day in court.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Resister,
> You are one relentless son of a buck! You just don't stop... so I give you... the Energizer Bunny Award.
> 
> I got to ask again, do you want them in the country committing crimes and taking your tax dollars as well as feeding the machine with more votes to take more of your tax dollars?


I cannot understand your question because it is my critics that want to force these people to become citizens. WTH, man? If these people are doing all the stuff you claim, why force them to become citizens as a prerequisite to exercising God given Rights? Do you have any idea what America will be if these people are forced into becoming citizens?


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> Okay, I'll try to be fair with you:
> 
> In order to figure out your complaint, it would require reading this entire thread again. So, I do remember that you were the person that tried to list a lot of countries and tell us what their immigration laws were. So, hear me out on this:
> 
> Denton supports *SOME* of what I say. He's always quick to preface his comments so as to distance himself from those things that separate us given points. On the immigration issue, I've been debating the *legal *perspective for eleven years now. The strategy of the National Socialists has been to use a shotgun approach against me since they don't have a single one that can debate me alone.
> 
> With the shotgun approach, one person can attack with, let us say, misrepresentations about taxes. Another attacks with what the laws are in... and still another is trying to argue whether or not there is a crime called _"illegal_" immigration. There's no way in Hell I can argue with three of them because none of them have an attention span that goes beyond four paragraphs. A generalized response then whizzes many off because they can say "_I"_ didn't say that." Unlike Denton - the anti - immigrants do not distance themselves from each other's statements. What would you think if five people were all jerking your chain all at once? Maybe you stepped into it through ignorance and an unwitting mistake. If so, you have my deepest apologies.
> 
> Factually though, getting into Red China is much easier than entering the United States. AND the immigration laws the socialists want enforced were rammed through Congress by a Democrat named Ted Kennedy. Yet, the anti-immigrants maintain I'm the liberal. Go figure. My objection to the socialist argument is that they want to force people to become citizens. I don't support that. Give the foreigners the vote and they will send you packing... all democratically and _"legally_" of course.


Denton undetstands what you are saying, agrees with your position, but he doesn't know how to make it agreeable with his position that countries have the responsibility to protect its borders and culture.

Denton also seems to have the Bob Dole Disease.

Assist in making the two positions agreeable, please.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> I cannot understand your question because it is my critics that want to force these people to become citizens. WTH, man? If these people are doing all the stuff you claim, why force them to become citizens as a prerequisite to exercising God given Rights? Do you have any idea what America will be if these people are forced into becoming citizens?


This reply just made me stop drinking...then start again when I re-read it.


----------



## Smokin04

Smokin04 said:


> *Of course you'll probably try and dance around the FACT that they ARE PROSECUTING CRIMINALLY for repeat offenders (and looking to do the same for first timers) with other legal words, case law, and what not.*


Called it. Thank you (Resister) for proving to me that I know you all too well without ever having spoken word one to you. See my bolded comment. Get cute all you want. Try and sugar coat the truth all you want. The *FACT* is that *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS *are being charged, tried and convicted every day.

Denial is the common of all human sicknesses, and you are suffering from it to the point that no medicine can help you. I see that no matter how wrong you are, you will never admit it. Way to impress upon the public!

Apparently, the judges in these states are retarded and don't know what they're prosecuting people for. I'm sure that's why they made it to become a judge. Go argue with yourself man because you have no point. You wont now or ever. You lose....build a bridge and get over it!


----------



## Denton

Smokin04 said:


> Called it. Thank you (Resister) for proving to me that I know you all too well without ever having spoken word one to you. See my bolded comment. Get cute all you want. Try and sugar coat the truth all you want. The *FACT* is that *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS *are being charged, tried and convicted every day.
> 
> Denial is the common of all human sicknesses, and you are suffering from it to the point that no medicine can help you. I see that no matter how wrong you are, you will never admit it. Way to impress upon the public!
> 
> Apparently, the judges in these states are retarded and don't know what they're prosecuting people for. I'm sure that's why they made it to become a judge. Go argue with yourself man because you have no point. You wont now or ever. You lose....build a bridge and get over it!


Smokin, the difference is criminal and civil. He has some extremely good points rooted in fact.

As a study group with which I was once associated used to say, the government is always, always right, and the patriot is always wrong. We merely have to figure out why.

Meanwhile, we bicker among ourselves over issues they create to divide and distract us.


----------



## Juggernaut

10 Myths About Immigration | Teaching Tolerance


----------



## SARGE7402

Smokin04 said:


> Called it. Thank you (Resister) for proving to me that I know you all too well without ever having spoken word one to you. See my bolded comment. Get cute all you want. Try and sugar coat the truth all you want. The *FACT* is that *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS *are being charged, tried and convicted every day.
> 
> Denial is the common of all human sicknesses, and you are suffering from it to the point that no medicine can help you. I see that no matter how wrong you are, you will never admit it. Way to impress upon the public!
> 
> Apparently, the judges in these states are retarded and don't know what they're prosecuting people for. I'm sure that's why they made it to become a judge. Go argue with yourself man because you have no point. You wont now or ever. You lose....build a bridge and get over it!


Smokin: It's not nice to pick on Resister. He may take offense at you pointing out the truth and come out with some of his disparaging remarks. Wonder what the Police harassed him over and where. Seems like it was an extremely emotional significant event.


----------



## SARGE7402

Denton said:


> Smokin, the difference is criminal and civil. He has some extremely good points rooted in fact.
> 
> As a study group with which I was once associated used to say, the government is always, always right, and the patriot is always wrong. We merely have to figure out why.
> 
> Meanwhile, we bicker among ourselves over issues they create to divide and distract us.


Denton: Have to differ with you on this. The law that Resister is beating to death has the second portion to it that Resister glosses over and that's where if you evade a immigration check point (border crossing) you can get six month in jail. Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that you must commit a crime (not civil) offense to get jail time. Lastly in one of my previous posts I linked it to the DOJ report on Illegal Enforcement (that's probably not the right name) and in it DOJ clearly states that the majority of those jailed for criminal offenses are jailed for Improper Entry.

But you last comment is very pointed. It's almost as if an Agent Provacatur has been inserted into our midst. One from the government sent to a group to have them commit illegal acts to get them arrested.


----------



## Smokin04

Denton said:


> Smokin, the difference is criminal and civil. He has some extremely good points rooted in fact.
> 
> As a study group with which I was once associated used to say, the government is always, always right, and the patriot is always wrong. We merely have to figure out why.
> 
> Meanwhile, we bicker among ourselves over issues they create to divide and distract us.


Come on bro...you know I know the difference. Regardless...this is happening. Illegals are being deported and/or imprisoned for nothing other than entering illegally. This is a FACT! I don't see why it's so hard for folks to grasp. I don't care what kind of law you want to call it (civil, criminal, misdemeanor, felony, circus, witchcraft, whatever)...don't care how anyone feels about it personally. It's happening, period.

Now I'm just waiting for NOTSOYOUNG to come claim his bitch! LOL!


----------



## TxBorderCop

US Immigration Laws originated in 1952 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. There were later reforms (IIRA then IIRA IIRA). It makes the act of unlawful presence and entry without inspection (and those other things like false claim to us citizenship (both oral and documented) nothing more than an administrative act. Immigration reform is simple - make it a Class 2 Felony, then they are ALL unable to emigrate (even legally) since they will be convicted felons.


----------



## PalmettoTree

TxBorderCop said:


> US Immigration Laws originated in 1952 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. There were later reforms (IIRA then IIRA IIRA). It makes the act of unlawful presence and entry without inspection (and those other things like false claim to us citizenship (both oral and documented) nothing more than an administrative act. Immigration reform is simple - make it a Class 2 Felony, then they are ALL unable to emigrate (even legally) since they will be convicted felons.


Regardless of opinion that is unlikely. The ball was dropped when the last amnesty bill was written. The problem is everyone paid no attention to the continued influx of illegal immigration after the last amnesty bill until there was a big problem. Then the numbers were too big for deportation.


----------



## The Resister

Smokin04 said:


> Come on bro...you know I know the difference. Regardless...this is happening. Illegals are being deported and/or imprisoned for nothing other than entering illegally. This is a FACT! I don't see why it's so hard for folks to grasp. I don't care what kind of law you want to call it (civil, criminal, misdemeanor, felony, circus, witchcraft, whatever)...don't care how anyone feels about it personally. It's happening, period.
> 
> Now I'm just waiting for NOTSOYOUNG to come claim his bitch! LOL!


WHEN someone shows me the law that makes Improper Entry a crime, Notsosmart can have whatever it is he wants. A DOJ statistic isn't going to cut it. Now I have something to say to you personally:

These are your words:

_"I don't care what kind of law you want to call it_..."

That is the *whole* problem. You don't care what the law is. And my objections about whether it is civil or criminal don't have shit to do with immigration. Here is my objection, plain and simple. When you are advocating that a *civil* law is a crime, then *ALL civil laws* become crimes. As Ayn Rand wrote:

"_There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws._"

You don't care HOW something becomes _"illegal_," provided that it serves YOUR agenda. The problem with such a short sighted approach is that it cuts both ways. The small, insignificant civil wrong you commit today could cost you your life tomorrow. Bear in mind, as the Lautenberg Amendment proved, there is no longer a ban on ex post facto laws. One thing is certain: the current SCOTUS will not let you demand a criminal penalty for a civil wrong on one issue and not apply the precedent to *ALL civil laws*. That sir, is my whole objection and it don't have squat to do with immigration. NOTHING stops you from trying once again to have the language changed so as to make the term unlawful entry instead of its current IMPROPER ENTRY.


----------



## TxBorderCop

It's easy enough to make them self-deport.
1. Felony for entering illegally
2. Felony for living here illegally.
3. Felony for smuggling anyone illegally.
4. Felony for using Public Assistance.
5. Felony for employing illegals, with mandatory fines, mandatory jail time and seizure of the company and sold at public auction. This means Monsanto, Tyson, ConAgra, Kraft, Hormel, Smithfield, Perdue etc.. CEO's and CFO's start going to jail, then the above companies will no longer employ illegals. 
6. No welfare, no free healthcare, nothing. If they cannot get welfare, jobs, or anything else, then they will leave on their own, or start protesting, then arrested then *DEPORTED*.


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> Resistor....look up the definition of Illegal....it says anything that is a violation of the laws or rules. It says nothing about criminal or civil law....it says laws or rules. I thing that there re civil laws on immigration and rules for immigration so therefore if you violate them you are performing an illegal act and are therefore an illegal immigrant. oh and on semantics... Although someone may be labeled a "Wife Beater" or some other term...the charge is Assault or domestic abuse, or something different. I will bet that if you look you will find many convicted of violating the immigration laws...weather labeled "improper entry" or some other similar term and then you will have to perform that ass kissing act you spoke of earlier in this post. Remember ol' Bill Clinton tried to use that semantics thing with his famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." comment and sexual relations is defined as "Sexual intercourse" which is defined as "when a man inserts his penis into a woman's vagina.....but in the end....he was found to be a liar....so beware the slippery slope of semantics. for this Old SF Guy it's "Illegal trespassing sum bitches" not Illegal immigrants. Finally...Our law of the land is the US Constitution. Which doesn't state guarantees of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These are principle of the declaration of independence. but the fact that these so called unalienable rights can be taken away makes them alienable correct? Otherwise only God could take them away. But we , as a Nation of laws, have been taking these rights away from criminals since the beginning of our great Nation. So please don't quote the Declaration of Independence when discussing our legal rights. They are not the same.


Let me work backwards with you:

1) The Declaration of Independence has been used as standing precedent in over 100 federal cases up to and including the United States Supreme Court. As a matter of FACT, the DOI is at the head of the UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED... WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"

2) NOBODY is an illegal any damn thing until they have been arrested, booked, made bail, brought to a preliminary hearing and went through the process and either admitted guilt OR been convicted by a jury of their peers in a court of law. I'll thank you in advance to remember that

3) You speak of semantics. Now, if you know so much about the law, tell us *why * Congress tried to change the wording of the law from Improper Entry to Unlawful Entry? If you're right, there are no semantics involved. It was a TEA PARTY Lawyer / Congressman that introduced the bill. So, without any more B.S. from either of us, explain WHY Congress tried to change the wording if improper and illegal are the same word. And check this out while you're at it:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process


----------



## Smokin04

Please re-read post #89. I'll paraphrase...

You said: Nobody has ever been tried in any criminal court for any charge called "illegal immigration." If you can find one, let me know and I'll retract every word I've ever said on the subject and be Notsoyoung's bitch for two weeks, performing anything he can name.

So I showed you how/when/where this IS happening. Still waiting for you to make good; because regardless of whatever legal verbal judo you use, you're still incorrect with your statement. 

I don't care about the rest. I'm glad deporting and lockin them illegal sumbitches up pisses you off so much. Maybe you'll get out from behind your keyboard and go protest on the illegal sumbitches behalf. Until then, what ever you say is making no head way anywhere. Certainly not in the courts where all of this IS taking place.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Denton: Have to differ with you on this. The law that Resister is beating to death has the second portion to it that Resister glosses over and that's where if you evade a immigration check point (border crossing) you can get six month in jail. Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that you must commit a crime (not civil) offense to get jail time. Lastly in one of my previous posts I linked it to the DOJ report on Illegal Enforcement (that's probably not the right name) and in it DOJ clearly states that the majority of those jailed for criminal offenses are jailed for Improper Entry.
> 
> But you last comment is very pointed. It's almost as if an Agent Provacatur has been inserted into our midst. One from the government sent to a group to have them commit illegal acts to get them arrested.


I'm getting sick of you "Sarge," but I can play this game all the way to the end. The part of the law where it talks about "_evading authorities_" is a SEPARATE charge, and is a crime in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Here is the problem:

Regardless of *WHO* you think is right, the highest immigration officials in the United States have spoken. THAT'S THE LAW! I've quoted them. If you know so much more than me about immigration law, I'm sure you must have been practicing immigration law longer than I've been involved in it. Go tell an AG about this conversation and see if you get a different answer. Their interpretations are binding on everybody unless and until the federal courts over-turn it or the wording of the law is changed.


----------



## The Resister

TxBorderCop said:


> It's easy enough to make them self-deport.
> 1. Felony for entering illegally
> 2. Felony for living here illegally.
> 3. Felony for smuggling anyone illegally.
> 4. Felony for using Public Assistance.
> 5. Felony for employing illegals, with mandatory fines, mandatory jail time and seizure of the company and sold at public auction. This means Monsanto, Tyson, ConAgra, Kraft, Hormel, Smithfield, Perdue etc.. CEO's and CFO's start going to jail, then the above companies will no longer employ illegals.
> 6. No welfare, no free healthcare, nothing. If they cannot get welfare, jobs, or anything else, then they will leave on their own, or start protesting, then arrested then *DEPORTED*.


So, how does that have relevance as to whether or not the foreigners have *unalienable* Rights?


----------



## The Resister

I hope that this is the last time I have to respond to Sarge 7402 and I hope that enough of you will read this to make it worth my while.

Sarge 7402 has claimed at least twice that I'm an Agent Provocateur. This is the same individual who makes the phony claim that he is a small town cop. He's presented his case over whether or not the words Improper and Illegal are one and the same. Well, those who make that decision have spoken. It is beyond us, as individuals, to change what is reality.

To all of you: We live in perilous times. THAT and THAT ALONE is why I am anal retentive about not creating new laws that set precedents that will reach all of us. I'm not any Agent Provocateur. I want you to look at the facts and then judge me. But, before I do that, bear in mind - this is the Internet. You should presume that everyone you meet online can hurt you. At the same time, some federal snitches are pretty easy to spot. So, let's apply a bit of common sense:

Between Notsosmart and Sarge7402 (sic) they claim to be good researchers; they claim to have checked me out; they claim to have read the links I've left. Now, to his credit, Notsosmart started in on me over "_mental issues_," even lying about it insofar as to how it relates to me... OR, then again, he may be a low life scum bag. It's up to you to decide.

I married a woman with an autistic son. Additionally, I've been a foster parent. So yes, you start trying to do "_mental" jokes"_ with me and it pisses me off. Either Notsosmart KNEW that OR he* lied *to you in claiming to have read my links and followed up with research.

Sarge 7402 claims to be a good researcher, but chooses to ask silly questions about my past when I drew him a road map to virtually every detail of my life. Sarge 7402 couldn't find Texas on 5 foot by 5 foot map of the U.S. Furthermore, have you EVER seen a cop so stupid that they don't know the difference between legal authority and irrelevant junk?

When you are given a *RULING* by the highest ranking immigration official in the United States, that IS the law unless and / or until Congress changes the law or a federal court over-turns it. Sarge can't tell the difference between Improper Entry and *evading *officials. These are two separate and distinct things. So, either Virginia has some woefully ignorant dumb asses enforcing their laws OR Sarge 7402 is a liar. That is where I leave my case.

Now, if you want to believe I'm an Agent Provocateur, I'm only going to list the *most recent time* I was in the news. Let me set this up for you:

The men being charged were formerly under my command in the militia. All of them were / are of the anti - immigrant variety. Now, *IF* I were an Agent Provocateur or *if* I worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center, then *why* did I warn these people that the guy they chose to bail out of the militia for was a federal snitch? *Why* would I warn them? Today, a few years later, my warnings were proven to be spot on. Now, Sarge MIGHT read the story and make much ado about "_virtual hands_" or some irrelevant cow dung that a liberal might say in error, but what the man says relative to my warnings and WHEN they took place are something he and I both can document. Read it and decide for yourself:

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire

Again, does that sound like something an Agent Provocateur would do?


----------



## Slippy

Are "we" still discussing this? Good gosh people, there are rappers cutting their penises off and attempting suicide out there and we're still talking about illegals?


----------



## Smokin04

You know me and a colleague had this conversation the other day...we decided it was much easier to just line the rio grande and other areas of crossing with claymores and motion activated mini-guns. Once word spreads that the US has a "new policy" on illegal crossers (kill on sight), we felt like the "legal proceedings" and "legal jargon" will suddenly diminish. 

It's a win-win. Less illegals in jail in the states, and less repeat border jumping offenders. I can't think of a reason why the US hasn't implemented this already!


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> I'm getting sick of you "Sarge," but I can play this game all the way to the end. The part of the law where it talks about "_evading authorities_" is a SEPARATE charge, and is a crime in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Here is the problem:
> 
> Regardless of *WHO* you think is right, the highest immigration officials in the United States have spoken. THAT'S THE LAW! I've quoted them. If you know so much more than me about immigration law, I'm sure you must have been practicing immigration law longer than I've been involved in it. Go tell an AG about this conversation and see if you get a different answer. Their interpretations are binding on everybody unless and until the federal courts over-turn it or the wording of the law is changed.


I'm very sorry that you are sick. I really am. However, if my pointing out to you the unpleasant facts are making you sick then I would suggest that perhaps you need to take a break from reading my posts. And I don't play games with law! Too many folks use the law to achieve their ends resulting in law breakers not going to jail or innocent folk going to jail for a crime they didn't commit. And in 17 years I've sent a right good number of folks to the graybar hotel for crimes they deserved to pay for.

My problem with "barracks Lawyers" is that they don't understand the law as it is written or misrepresents it. In one of my previous posts I posted the actual written law from Title 8 (not 18) where improper entry - evading, forging visas etc is codified. It was the paragraph right below the one you hang your entire argument on. My second issue is just who is responsible for making the laws - Congress and who is responsible for interpreting law - the Judiciary. The Executive Branch - including the AG and the folks in ICE - has only one job and that is enforcing the laws. For a prosecuting attorney to deny a defendant a court appointed lawyer where a defendant can get jail time is a constitutional violation of that individual civil rights.

Funny I don't remember if you posted a link to the "highest immigration officials in the United States" interpretation .

I never said I practiced immigration law. I've always said that I was a small town cop. But funny thing about your statement, I notice you no longer say that you practiced immigration law for six years.

Well hope you have a nice day.


----------



## SARGE7402

Funny that Resister should use the Esquire Story instead of this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/frederick-thomas-dan-roberts-georgia-militia-plot ;
or this one: USA vs Frederick W. Thomas, Emory Dan Roberts, Samuel J. Crump and Ray H. Adams. | Scribd ; 
or this one: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaki...ating-terrorist-charges/ncr3d/_n_1415191.html

Guess they weren't just charged. Another over sight on Resister's part.

Atta way to go R.


----------



## SARGE7402

Smokin04 said:


> You know me and a colleague had this conversation the other day...we decided it was much easier to just line the rio grande and other areas of crossing with claymores and motion activated mini-guns. Once word spreads that the US has a "new policy" on illegal crossers (kill on sight), we felt like the "legal proceedings" and "legal jargon" will suddenly diminish.
> 
> It's a win-win. Less illegals in jail in the states, and less repeat border jumping offenders. I can't think of a reason why the US hasn't implemented this already!


Smoke: Remember there are also women and children that make this journey. Drug smugglers, mules and the like? Perhaps. but not women and children. bet you'd shoot dogs too


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> I married a woman with an autistic son. Additionally, I've been a foster parent. So yes, you start trying to do "_mental" jokes"_ with me and it pisses me off. Either Notsosmart KNEW that OR he* lied *to you in claiming to have read my links and followed up with research.


Having a reading comprehension problem in addition to being a mental case, skippy?

I have never said that I researched you, I said that I followed one of the links you posted as proof of your statements and it was just more idiotic posts that YOU made at a different forum. No mention was made of me "researching" you, you just ain't that important to me. I didn't have to, it's obvious that there is something wrong with you.

Most importantly, YOU responded to a post that someone made and added lines to his quote so that it look liked he said something he didn't. Let me say that again, you ADDED LINES TO HIS QUOTE SO THAT IT LOOKED LIKE HE SAID SOMETHING HE DIDN'T. WHO DOES THINGS LIKE THAT? Either you are a mental job or a low life scumbag, perhaps both.


----------



## Smokin04

SARGE7402 said:


> Smoke: Remember there are also women and children that make this journey. Drug smugglers, mules and the like? Perhaps. but not women and children. bet you'd shoot dogs too


We were being sarcastic about it...meant as humor.


----------



## SARGE7402

Notsoyoung said:


> Having a reading comprehension problem in addition to being a mental case, skippy?
> 
> I have never said that I researched you, I said that I followed one of the links you posted as proof of your statements and it was just more idiotic posts that YOU made at a different forum. No mention was made of me "researching" you, you just ain't that important to me. I didn't have to, it's obvious that there is something wrong with you.
> 
> Most importantly, YOU responded to a post that someone made and added lines to his quote so that it look liked he said something he didn't. Let me say that again, you ADDED LINES TO HIS QUOTE SO THAT IT LOOKED LIKE HE SAID SOMETHING HE DIDN'T. WHO DOES THINGS LIKE THAT? Either you are a mental job or a low life scumbag, perhaps both.


Come on Notso, lets give Resister a break or is it a time out


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> I'm very sorry that you are sick. I really am. However, if my pointing out to you the unpleasant facts are making you sick then I would suggest that perhaps you need to take a break from reading my posts. And I don't play games with law! Too many folks use the law to achieve their ends resulting in law breakers not going to jail or innocent folk going to jail for a crime they didn't commit. And in 17 years I've sent a right good number of folks to the graybar hotel for crimes they deserved to pay for.
> 
> My problem with "barracks Lawyers" is that they don't understand the law as it is written or misrepresents it. In one of my previous posts I posted the actual written law from Title 8 (not 18) where improper entry - evading, forging visas etc is codified. It was the paragraph right below the one you hang your entire argument on. My second issue is just who is responsible for making the laws - Congress and who is responsible for interpreting law - the Judiciary. The Executive Branch - including the AG and the folks in ICE - has only one job and that is enforcing the laws. For a prosecuting attorney to deny a defendant a court appointed lawyer where a defendant can get jail time is a constitutional violation of that individual civil rights.
> 
> Funny I don't remember if you posted a link to the "highest immigration officials in the United States" interpretation .
> 
> I never said I practiced immigration law. I've always said that I was a small town cop. But funny thing about your statement, I notice you no longer say that you practiced immigration law for six years.
> 
> Well hope you have a nice day.


I practiced immigration law for six years. Now, do you have a problem with that? The answer to your next question is: Hell yes.

Now, one more time: evading the authorities and entering improperly are two entirely and different issues. Here is where we get into semantics, but this is how this is played out:

Hosea comes in via private property and nobody sees him. He's here for a few months before a routine stop reveals he has come in improperly. At best, the government can get a couple of hundred bucks in a *civil fine* and send Hosea home.

By contrast, on Pedro's way in he's spotted by a LEO. Pedro runs. Pedro is caught and tries to use fraudulent ID or immigration papers. Then Pedro shows the LEO a faked marriage certificate so as to claim he's married to an American.

Pedro will be charged with a CIVIL MISDEMEANOR - IMPROPER ENTRY (Title 8)
Pedro will be charged with *CRIME* - EVADING AUTHORITIES - (Title 18)
Pedro will be charged with a *CRIME* for the fake ID (Title 18)
Pedro will be charged for the fraudulent marriage claim (title 18)

If you would learn how to READ the thread before slinging insults and repeating yourself over and over, you might figure out that I quoted the highest immigration official in the U.S. in a *RULING*. Read the thread. Additionally, I'm the only swinging soul on this thread that ever went to court against the SPLC in court and I won. Bottom ****ing line... I won. Now is there something you don't understand about my responses?

Anybody that is swayed by thinking that a DOJ statistic trumps a *ruling* in a case involving Improper Entry and heard by the highest immigration official in the United States is a damn idiot. If you don't know the difference, then you should not be a cop. This is pure common horse sense in pre-law.


----------



## PalmettoTree

I'm not as smart as the rest of you but if one cannot be here illegally then:
Why the first amnesty?
Why is an amnesty bill needed now?
Why check passports?
Why sneak in?
Why run when told your SS number is a duplicate.
Why use another person's number?


----------



## SARGE7402

Sorry for using Meriam (can't spell for Poo), but it's really very simple: il·le·gal adjective \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\ : not allowed by the law : not legal: not allowed by the rules in a game.

Immigration is the act of coming to the USofA from somewhere else for the purpose of residing here. If you do it as not allowed by law, then that act is by definition illegal. So all those that got here in a manner not allowed by law are by definition illegally here.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Sorry for using Meriam (can't spell for Poo), but it's really very simple: il·le·gal adjective \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\ : not allowed by the law : not legal: not allowed by the rules in a game.
> 
> Immigration is the act of coming to the USofA from somewhere else for the purpose of residing here. If you do it as not allowed by law, then that act is by definition illegal. So all those that got here in a manner not allowed by law are by definition illegally here.


Then again, if your're right *explain WHY CONGRESS TRIED TO CHANGE THE WORK IMPROPER IN 8 USC 1325 TO UNLAWFUL IF UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH IMPROPER.*


----------



## Smokin04

Simple. To gain a piece of legislation to campaign with. Sometimes changing a word can have a big impact...then they stamp their name on it and off they go.


----------



## Notsoyoung

It's an election year and the Dems are worried about getting their butt kicked.

Back to topic, ILLEGAL ALIENS, or undocumented immigrants if you want to be politically correct and don't want to hurt the feelings of ILLEGAL ALIENS, do NOT have an unalienable right to be here, just as I don't have the unalienable right to just move move into a house without being invited, renting the place, or bought it. The accusation that by saying that ILLEGAL ALIENS do not have the unalienable right to be is somehow denying that the have unalienable rights is BULL. Unalienable rights does NOT mean that you can do whatever you want.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

Don't have time to read the whole thread. The constitution lays out who controls immigration. Read it. 
As for the DoI........ It states alum men have the right to life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It doesn't guarantee it is HERE. 
So to answer the OP. No.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Arizona Infidel said:


> Don't have time to read the whole thread. The constitution lays out who controls immigration. Read it.
> As for the DoI........ It states alum men have the right to life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It doesn't guarantee it is HERE.
> So to answer the OP. No.


It doesn't GUARANTEE IT? Not according to some freeloaders I see on TV.


----------



## slewfoot

I Did not get involved in this thread at the beginning and do not have the patience to sit and read 15 pages of posts arguing and name calling over who is right or wrong on immigration. And this point may have already been covered.
That said I will offer my two cents worth. I believe every single one of us on this forum can trace our ancestry back to immigrants coming to this great land unless you are native American or eskimo. 
The law is the law if you have to sneak across our borders then you do not belong here. Simple as that.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Then again, if your're right *explain WHY CONGRESS TRIED TO CHANGE THE WORK IMPROPER IN 8 USC 1325 TO UNLAWFUL IF UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH IMPROPER.*


Register; There's no telling why them boys and girls in that funny building in washington do the things they do. I worked for the FEDs for just over 36 years and Some of the things that came out from them never did make any sense. But hey we keep electing them so we get what we pay for.

Have a nice easter


----------



## keith9365

Think of the illegal alien problem like this and you will understand why nothing is being done. The aliens are some dude, and democrats and republicans are two ugly women each trying to seduce him. Whoever wins his heart adds about 20 million voters to their side and gains in power and perks.


----------



## retired guard

If I was a corrupt Politician who wanted to bribe illegals into voting for them their inalienable right to be here along with their income assisted housing SNAP and free phone would be a part of my platform. If I was a business owner who was paying illegals under the table I would want taxpayers subsidizing my work force with these benefits.


----------

