The Facts Behind Anti-Immigration Rhetoric

Since 2003, as America has crumbled, there has been one and only one issue that the "conservatives" are willing to rally around: so called illegal immigration. For many of them it remains an obsession. But, as someone with both a legal education and background in history, it was important as a culture issue to me at one point. Not wanting to be accused of not having all the facts or being a bigot, etc. I worked in the field of immigration law for six years.

After being involved in political activism and legal work for a total of more than three decades, today I have more questions than answers about the "Secure the border" lobby and the political propaganda prostitutes they attract (you know like Donald Trump... whose supporters are anal retentive regarding that one issue.)

IF you take the "Secure the border" activists at their word, they harp on immigration as if all the issues surrounding the undocumented foreigners had a criminal connotation. Unfortunately for them, the most important issues the Secure the border activists harp on isn't covered in criminal statutes. It's mostly civil law. So, when the "Secure the border" guys come along and argue for enforcing the existing laws (sic) one wonders what they are babbling on about. They talk about round ups and deportations without the considerations of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, Due Process, etc. The Secure the border guys confuse Liberty with citizenship and they do their dead level best to circumvent a discussion that separates the two... WHY?

I would submit to you that the Trumpeteers (those Secure the border guys that support the likes of Donald Trump) believe that Liberty is a by-product of citizenship and that the founding fathers of America thought that government could dole out "rights" as if they had sole control over them. For sure, none of those on that side of the fence believe in the Right to own property.

On that point, the courts have deal the Secure the border lobby a severe blow. When it comes to private property and personal rights, the courts have ruled as follows:

"The legislature cannot, under the guise of police regulation, arbitrarily invade private property or personal rights" Iler v. Ross 90 N.W. 869, 873, 64 Neb. (1902)

So, while, the chant of enforce the law may seem the right thing to do, many times laws are in conflict with other statutes, rulings, etc. so that there are no clear cut ways to enforce the law to the satisfaction of all sides.

This is but an opening salvo as there are issues that the Secure the border lobby hopes we never bring up. But, I started this thread with all the rhetoric in mind and a desire to share with you what some hope will never be allowed to be said in mainstream America.

 

If you had the legal education and background you claim then you would understand that 8USC1325 makes your OP void.

The rest of your rambling is

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...o_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

 

I kinda like this link https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GeorgiaMilitia/conversations/topics/12

 

We can always depend upon the Secure the border activists to cite Title 8 USC 1325 as some kind of "proof" that a criminal law applies to foreigners being in the United States without papers. Let's do this right:

Title 8 is a civil statute and it is basically concerned with Improper Entry (as the title states.) Being in the United States as opposed to Improper Entry are two different concepts. One news story had an interesting view. Here are a few excerpts:

"If you can get past the border guards and into the United States, you’re no longer violating the law, according to a Kansas Court of Appeals decision.

...In its opinion, the court explained that Congress had implicitly created the distinction: “While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported,”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ks-court-says-illegal-presence-in-us-not-a-crime

I told you we would talk about the facts behind the rhetoric. And the courts have ruled as stated above all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Now, the Attorney General (who has jurisdiction over Improper Entry violations) RULED:

"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."

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3632.pdf

If the Secure the border activists would dissect Title 8 USC 1325, they would find it has no criminal penalties. When that statute talks about immigration related crimes, it has to reference Title 18 (which is the Criminal Code.) Improper Entry is not in Title 18. The Appeals Court decision cited earlier makes the distinction clear.

If a foreigner is caught attempting to make an improper entry, they can be tried for that civil violation AND any other civil or criminal violation connected thereto. But, if they get past the immigration authorities or other LEOs undetected, then (provided they don't violate Title 18... you know like using fake ID) then, the criminal statutes do not apply. If anybody disagrees (besides trolls) I will gladly cite the statements of the top immigration officials in the United States. Nobody can over-rule them except the courts and the courts have always ruled as I cited earlier.

Having no criminal statutes to enforce, we are left to intrude upon employers. Then it becomes a question of enforcing unconstitutional laws. Since being in the United States is not a crime, it would appear to me that hounding those who hire them and give them jobs do so at the expense of the property Rights of the employer.

What is at stake is the right of Americans to have private property. The Secure the border lobby will play coy, but their real objective is to attack the rights of Americans. They cannot understand the concept behind unalienable Rights - nor do they give such any due consideration. I'll cover that too in this thread.

 

Who said anything about criminal law? Immigration law (Administrative Law) is criminal. It is the govt prosecuting the immigrant.

8USC1325 does nothing more than repeat INA 275

Now lets look at your first link and what the 3 judge appeals panel states

"....isn't necessarily a crime" doesn't mean that it can not be one. Had he been found to have been previously deported it would be a crime. Now lets look at the conclusion of your article

So the panel narrowed your claim to a State level and not the Federal level., since Kansas can have no laws that supersede the Federal govts control of immigrants.

Your second link states nothing more than what I have stated.

The rest of your ramblings are

 

This explains it much better

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/20...crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

Unlawful presence is simply referring to a visa entry that overstayed their departure date and does not have an order of deportation against them.

 

I would ask anyone reading this to skip the trolling. Let me repeat a previous point and then we'll move along.

There is a difference between improper entry and being in the United States without authorization. It is not a crime to be in the United States without papers... regardless of how one got there. The Secure the border crowd is knowingly and willingly lying to each and every one of you regarding what the law is. I'm going to repeat this once again and then prove it:

It is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. It is a civil violation of the law as ruled upon by the highest ranking immigration official in the United States. The Secure the border advocates deliberately lie to you and stretch this out, hoping you won't look at the evidence. Here are the facts:

The same anti - immigrant U.S. Congressman that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" AND the National ID / REAL ID Act, Tea Party Republican James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437. That bill failed in committee. Here is a relevant section done by cut and paste:

SEC. 203. IMPROPER ENTRY BY, OR PRESENCE OF, ALIENS.

Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325) is amended--

(1) in the section heading, by inserting `UNLAWFUL PRESENCE;' after `IMPROPER TIME OR PLACE;

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr4437/text

The $64,000 question is, if presence were unlawful / illegal, WHY would you need to amend (change) the law? You wouldn't. That is common horse sense. We are being subjected to the long diatribes of one of the Secure the border proponents, but it never changes the bottom line.

When Eric Holder replaced Attorney General Michael Mukasey, he did not change the bottom line. Being in the United States remained a civil issue, not a criminal one. HOWEVER, Holder allowed for taxpayer paid attorneys to represent the undocumented foreigners, reversing Mukasey. Here are some quotes from a relevant article that explains a lot of this to you:

"The nation's immigration courts are separate from the judicial branch and operate under the Justice Department, which makes the U.S. attorney general the final arbiter for immigration proceedings.

...Immigrants can appeal deportation rulings to the federal court system, and thousands have, relying on legal precedent established by the immigration courts in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2003".

Repeatedly, the Secure the border advocates have told you that one must be a citizen in order to retain Rights pursuant to the Constitution. Yet at each and every level, the government has shot this theory down. Again, the real reason for the Secure the border guys trying to misinterpret the law is to justify limiting the unalienable Rights of all people.

The facts are in.

Title 8 violations come under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General's office. That office is not a judicial forum; therefore, they do not decide criminal law. No matter how the Secure the border guys try to spin it, they cannot cite you a single, solitary source that will back up their position. You can read the court decisions and come to two or three conclusions. Those who make the final decision - those who are the final arbiters have spoken. Title 8 violations are civil and you cannot apply criminal standards in pursuing violators.

Under the 14th Amendment, the undocumented foreigner has the same constitutional Rights as all of us. The government's view runs contrary to the way the Secure the border guys present the cases. See the government's interpretation here:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

 

Before moving along, let me say I have critics. They are critics that do not have any idea of what they're talking about. They have to prevail with their agenda... that is to militarize the border (making us a POLICE STATE), pander to the fantasy that we will deport millions of people, and / or take away the citizenship of untold millions of people that were born in the United States.

At a personal level, I have been attacked here (and generally by two individuals.) They have been free to accuse me of lying; have called me an anti - federalist, libertarian, open border advocate, etc., etc. ad infinitum. They are entitled to their opinions.

My personal experience has been that the legislation that the Secure the border guys have endorsed has been detrimental more times to law abiding American citizens than to any so - called "illegal alien."

In my own state, there was the grandmother who home was broken into by LEOs that killed her and then claimed that the so - called "Patriot Act" allowed it. In that same time era there was the local militia leader that was targeted for the same treatment. The LEO community had drawn up plans to kick down his door, claim he resisted arrest, kill him and then claim they were allowed to do so by the so - called "Patriot Act." The liberal Atlanta Journal - Constitution got wind of that plot and made it headlines before the dirty deed could be completed.

I could go on and on, but the reality is: the laws pushed by the Secure the border guys and the Trumpeteers (those who parrot Donald Trump's agenda) have cost more Americans than foreigners. Those people refuse to listen to our founding fathers:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

Yes, we have an issue with foreigners. Every time a civilization has integrated every race, religion, color creed, political persuasion, and / or economic philosophy, it has disintegrated. But, the Secure the border guys want to limit Liberty. They want to tie YOUR hands so that, when the excrement interacts with the electric oscillating device, YOU will be held hostage to the POLICE STATE, unable to resist unconstitutional laws.

Heck, read their attacks on me personally. These guys have a problem with the founding fathers, the concept of Liberty and unalienable Rights... even arguing that unalienable Rights can be limited.

 

How does building a fence along the border equate to a police state, as you keep exclaiming and failing to answer? Have not millions already been deported over the years? George Bush deported 2M, Obama has about 1M? Who is taking away citizenship if they never had it to begin with?

Most other forums you have been on have also called you those very things, to include you being banned from almost all of them. You are nothing more than a spammer, as you are no Constitutionalist as you claim.

In which fashion? Please explain this.

You mean O'l Miss Johnson? Where corrupt officers tried to cover up their screw up? You are blaming that on the Patriot Act?

Yep, your an anti-federalist.

WOW, such extremism. Look Chicken Little, the sky is falling.

All rights can be limited, your attempt at re-defining words by taking them out of their context is

 

Trolling? I've asked questions you seem pretty reluctant to answer, and I have shown your claims to be intellectually dishonest. You seem to be spamming every forum on the web with this same crap.

Really, if you actually read your own links and were able to comprehend them, the one lying and stretching the truth seems to be you. Your own links show you to be a complete and utter BS'er.

Failed in committee? It was passed by the House but not by the Senate.

All that section did was add that if a visa entry overstayed its departure date it would now be a crime.

The law was being amended to include visa overstays, making it a crime to stay beyond ones departure date.

You are conflating a visa overstay with an illegal who entered without inspection. They are 2 very different types of immigrants and immigration laws effect each differently. With your vast knowledge of immigration law and your law degree (cough cough ) , surely you should know this already.

Again from your very link

So Holder, chooses to defy and change what was already constitutional under Mukasey.

Illegal immigrants are only entitled to 5th and 6th due process and 14th equal protection if they are charged with a capitol or an infamous crime. They cannot own or posses weapons, they can not vote, they can not be conscripted, etc, etc, etc.

And yet I have cited sources that back up exactly what I have stated and shown (even your sources back up exaclty what I have stated) you failing to recognize that is both and obtuse on your part. 8USC1325 violations carries penalties

Directly from 8USC1325

Jail time makes it either a misdemeanor or a felony based on the length of jail time.

No they don't. They have the same equal protection of the states laws of the state they are in. You do realize your link states exactly what I have stated, they are entitled to 5th and 6th due process and the 14th equal protection.

 

The Secure the border guys want to continue arguing. They claim their interpretation of the law is the right one – nay, the ONLY one. Yet they continue to lose at every level. I’d like to remind you at this juncture that I’ve already quoted the highest immigration official in the United States. Improper Entry is not a crime. Now, I’d like to quote some other authorities on the subject and move forward to another aspect of this thread.

Janet Napolitano, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security stated:

“…when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.”

http://24ahead.com/janet-napolitano-falsely-says-crossing-border-not-crime-bord

The Secure the border guys rail against Napolitano; however, what she says is the law and not her personal opinion. Let’s ask a couple of guys that worked Improper Entry cases. Both are former U.S. Attorneys that enforced that very statute. Chris Christie stated:
"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."
Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act,"
http://www.americans-working-together.com/the_real_chris_christie/id19.html

Again, the Secure the border guys wailed and cried, but it did not change the bottom line. Christie stated a legal fact. The Secure the border guys cannot understand Title 8 USC 1325 does not mean “crime.” Again that statute states that people can be tried for crimes under Title 18, but Title 8 is NOT Title 18 and the Criminal Code has no provision for making Improper Entry a crime. Let’s ask another former U.S. Attorney that enforced that statute. He is Rudy Guilaini . Here is what he said:

“It’s not a crime,” Giuliani said Friday. “I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.”
Giuliani’s comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.
“I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York,” he said. “So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.”

https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/rudy_giuliani_illegal_immigration_isnt_a_crime/

Finally, I’d like to quote a position paper that used to be on the Internet. The original link is dead; however, for anyone that PMs me I can verify this from another source. The source is the Okalossa County Sheriff’s Office. It is part of a position paper they issued so that you will know how LEOs view the immigration issue:

"The rules that prevent us from “rounding up” unauthorized aliens are the same rules that protect you and every other American from unwarranted search and seizure, unlawful detentions, and the “knock in the night” on your front door.

We cannot solve the problems of illegal immigration with simplistic, “feel-good”
responses.

The mere unauthorized presence in the U.S. is a civil, not a criminal, violation of U.S. law1. The removal of aliens not authorized to be in the U.S. is an
administrative process, not a criminal process..."

I think we’ve covered this pretty much. Improper Entry is not a crime; presence without papers is not a crime. The whole point was to let you know that the horse manure being spread that we can somehow just round up 11 million people and deport them won’t work in the real world since you cannot apply criminal standards to civil violations. It’s now time to move forward

 

I'd like now to switch gears and expose the 14th Amendment interpretations - or misinterpretations being spewed by the Secure the border crowd.

A few years ago (2008 or 2009, can't really remember), I had come into contact with a young Honduran boy of the age of 2. His mother was here without papers (having entered here as such) and nobody knows who the father was - except that he entered without papers. When BICE deported this woman, she did not tell them she had a son in the U.S.

When this young boy, Manuel, was 3, the Honduran government came to my door, threatening me to turn him over or else. When reasoning failed, I told the Hondurans they would leave or I would put them off my property by force. They left and tried to threaten another woman, telling her it was all her fault and that if she didn't come and get Manuel.... Well, she called the police.

The local police called me and I had to take Manuel to the Gwinnett Medical Center (the hospital down the way) and turn Manuel over to a police officer and a DFACS official.

A few days later, I was summoned into court. I figured they would raise Holy Hell with me for what I said to the Honduran government. But, the judge asked me to explain my actions:

I told the judge that Manuel was born in the United States and had both a birth certificate AND an SSN. As best as I could tell, Manuel was a United States citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment. So, since I did not see a police officer, a judge, magistrate nor even a DFACS official, I did not figure that the Hondurans had any legitimate reason to be at my home since no Honduran has any jurisdiction on sovereign soil.

The police officer said he found the Hondurans paperwork to be questionable and that I had cooperated with the local law enforcement 100 percent. With the Honduran government, BICE, DFACS and a U.S. Attorney present, the judge ruled. He said that I had acted both professionally, legally and correctly. The judge said that he found Manuel IS a United States citizen and that he (the judge) was retaining jurisdiction in his case.

The case is in the matter of Emmanuel Ramos - Hernandez and it is in Gwinnett, County Georgia and the File Number is 26420750 (Juvenile Court.)

Contrary to what the Secure the border guys say, not all cases are reported. BTW, Manuel was placed back into my custody as his foster parent until the mother could qualify to get him back.

The point to exposing that misinterpretation by the Secure the border guys is to challenge them on deportation schemes they have dreamed up. I'll do that in my next posting.

 

No, my interpretation is the right one and is backed by even your links. You are desperate to claim otherwise. Lets look at your links once again.

What is the headline of that link? Do ask: Janet Napolitano falsely says "crossing the border is not a crime"

Just because she was the DHS secretary and makes a claim that is inherently incorrect, doesn't mean much. Hell Chris Christie made the same claim and got nailed on it, to which he had to clarify his comment. Again, my link: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/20...crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

Christie had to walk back those very comments, my link above links to that very walk back, but here is the actual link to Christie and his correction. http://www.nj.com/morristown/index.ssf/2008/04/christie_clarifies_illegal_imm.html

And what is meant by that is those that entered legally via a visa and fall out-of-status are now lacking legal status are merely in civil violation of their agreement. With your "law degree" and 6 years of immigration law history, you should fully comprehend the claims, when your claims fail as obvious as they do, your claims become inept. Don't portend to know more than you actually do.

I really wish you wouldn't try to BS your quotes by taking them out of their context. From your very link:

So this pretty much contradicts your quote of him where he is talking about visa overstays not being a crime.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-it-really-illegal.223378/

I liked this response to your claim.

Nobody has stated we are goignto round-up 11Million people. People will be deported as they are found.

And then we have you making this very claim

https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34097&postcount=4

Most people did not enter legally. Roughly 40% entered legally, the other 60% are EWI. You admit EWI is a misdemeanor, yet you claim now it is nothing more than a civil violation. 8USC1325 is a FEDERAL MISDEMEANOR. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...seminar/2012/4_Table_Federal_Misdemeanors.pdf
page 11 under Title 8: Aliens and Nationality

 

This is going to be fun.

Nice story, but a district judge has no legal authority to declare someone a US Citizen. The Honduran Govt had no legal recourse unless they had documentation from the US govt allowing them to take Manuel back to his mother who had legal custody. If they did not have the paperwork then they had no business to be at your door. The issue would be if the mother still had legal custody or not, not whether the child was born here or not. The second issue would be if you had legal custody or not, to which I bet they took the child from you in short order.

OK

As I thought. Has no bearing on his status whatsoever.

What do you know about FOUNDLINGS?

 

LOL, illegal immigration is a criminal connotation in and of itself. You wish to change the wording to make it sound like it is not illegal.

 

The term "illegal immigration" is a misnomer due to that perception. In admonishing the liberal American Bar Association, Attorney General stated:

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”

Ironically, the statute was a civil one that uses the word "Improper" within it. Mukasey went on to say:

“Two wrongs do not make a right,” he said. “People who were hired in an improper way didn’t themselves do anything wrong.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/12...ong-or-every-violation-of-the-law-is-a-crime/

While something may be against the law, that is not proof that it is a crime.

 

8USC1325 is a federal misdemeanor, it is a crime ( http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...seminar/2012/4_Table_Federal_Misdemeanors.pdf ), what it is not, is an infraction. Overstaying your visa is an infraction. Both are violations of the law. http://www.conflictatlaw.com/content/infraction-misdemeanor-or-felony

You seem to be one of those "many people".

 

Unable to sustain their argument, the Secure the border guys will generally make baseless accusations and resort to name calling. When you have to resort to name calling, it means you've already lost the argument.

Improper Entry is not a crime because violations are never heard in a judicial branch of government. It's not a crime because EVERY immigration official you can name has said so. NEVER, not even once, has any immigration official stated that the civil offenses are confined to those who overstay a visa.

And so, we move along. Behind the Secure the border agenda is a more insidious plan. Let me take you to the year 2003.

In 2003 a border watch group, Ranch Rescue, accosted some Salvadorans trying to trespass over private property in order to effect an improper entry. An argument ensued and the Salvadorans were physically handled. It was a very minor altercation, but it ended up in court. At the conclusion of the that incident, the Salvadorans were awarded the ranch that was being protected and Ranch Rescue members were convicted and sent to jail.

According to the ACLU (who won the case):

"The SPLC obtained a pair of judgments totaling $1 million against Torre John "Jack" Foote, Ranch Rescue's leader, and Casey Nethercott, a Ranch Rescue member. Nethercott's 70-acre Arizona property, which was used as Ranch Rescue’s paramilitary training compound, was deeded to the Salvadorans. A $350,000 judgment also was awarded in the case, and a $100,000 out-of-court settlement was reached with Sutton."

https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/leiva-v-ranch-rescue

In the ruling, the judge determined that Ranch Rescue members had violated the "civil rights" of the trespassers (rights the Secure the border guys keep claiming undocumented foreigners do not have.) But, what is most important to recognize is that the now forming Secure the border effort never challenged the court's claim that the alleged "civil rights" of trespassers superseded the Right of a property owner to protect their property.

The Secure the border effort will tell you that anyone opposed to them is for "open borders" and is somehow opposed to a nation protecting its sovereignty. What they refuse to admit to is that in the Ranch Rescue case, the case that served as a catalyst for the founding of the modern Secure the border effort, they stood down on the issue of a property owner's unfettered Right to protect their homes and property. The Secure the border effort is antithetical to the concept of private property Rights.

In their effort to derail threads like this one, these guys even poke fun at unalienable Rights. Like the current crop of Justices at the Supreme Court, the Secure the border guys are telling you that your rights are subject to regulation and so forth... the same way Barack Obama argues for gun control. So, let's expose one more lie being told by the Secure the border crowd.

The Constitution of the United States does not grant Rights. It can only guarantee the unalienable Rights you have and put limitations on government. The Secure the border guys don't understand the concept behind unalienable Rights. We have to stray just a bit, only because the legal principle is the same across the board. But, the Bill of Rights, is the codification of those unalienable Rights enumerated in the BOR. IF one of those Rights is not protected, then every Right is subject to an attack by the government.

In dealing with the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence..." and the court further ruled:

"Sovereignty, for the protection of the rights of life and personal liberty within the respective States, rests alone with the States."

http://www.politicalforum.com/immigration/427124-facts-behind-anti-immigration-rhetoric-2.html

An earlier state court opinion went even further in an earlier decision on this point:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power..."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Even THAT was superseded by an earlier court decision in Georgia. The court ruled:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right..."

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

The point is, the original intent of the Bill of Rights is that unalienable means that those Rights are above the law. Now, the Secure the border lobby wants to argue original intent with respect to the 14th Amendment, but they find fault when I present the same principle relative to the Bill of Rights. All of a sudden, private property Rights become subject to regulation, new interpretations, etc. Those advocates are only consistent with inconsistency. That is one reason that they have to destroy threads like this. Their arguments won't rest on their own merits. But, by their own words, you can see what they believe relative to private property Rights.

THAT is why their so - called "solution" involves increasing the size, power, and scope of government. Ladies and gentlemen, your "border" begins with your own private property line. Unless you can protect that, the rest of this debate is not worth a dime to either side.

 

While working on this, someone who did not want to get into the whizzing contest, but wanted answers asked me for a response to Liquid Reigns posts wherein he claims I'm wrong:

I'm not even bothering to read his posts. Once I got to that part of him calling me an idiot, the debate between us was over. But, in general:

All of us have opinions on what the law is. I can tell you the way I read the law, some other guy can tell you how he interprets it. At the end of the day, in the case of Improper Entry cases, it is the Attorney General that makes the final call - unless and until that is challenged in the courts. The Secure the border lobby has never challenged the current interpretations in the courts. All those other commentaries, opinions, etc. might be used in a brief, but they are not the bottom line to what the law is.

Violations of Title 8 USC 1325 have been adjudicated to be civil violations, not crimes... otherwise Attorney General Michael Mukasey could not have denied foreigners charged with that violation a taxpayer paid attorney. I do know that Reigns keeps trying to convince us that Christie meant only those who over-stay a visa, but his comments about 12 million people being rounded up in that same paragraph should tell you that we've been talking about all of the undocumented foreigners, not just a couple of them.

 

And yet the federal govt's own listing of 8USC1325 being a federal misdemeanor says you are wrong.

With your vast immigration knowledge and law degree, surely you should be able to determine the differences, or you are just like the advocates that portend that they are immigrants and all are the same. If you don't actually know immigration law, which has been shown you actually don't know it, you may opine on things, but don't claim things as fact when they are clearly shown not to be.

The El Salvadorans won their case because they were assaulted.

Nobody has ever stated that illegals don't have civil rights. So you now have to make things up to justify your claim.

That case didn't serve as a catalyst for anything.

Nobody is derailing your thread, you simply make assumption, and half truths then turn and claim them as fact, and don't want to be shown that your claims are inept. Your blinded by your own over-inflated ego of ignorance.

The Bill of Rights (USC 1 - 10) protects rights, both positively and negatively, and later in the USC (11 - 27) also grants rights, look at the voting amendment that granted women the right to vote, the 19th.

Whcih has no real bearing on anything being discussed.

Ho, hum.

First the 14th Citizenship Clause isn't part of the BoR, it is nothing more than declaratory of existing law, which that law was the 1866 CRA. From SCOTUS Opinion, Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark

So really all the 14th citizenship clause did was declare what the 1866 CRA did, take race out of the issue.

 

I called you an idiot? Had I done that, I would have received an infraction. Don't go making up lies to look like you are more than what you are.

In fact they have, why do you think Obama can no longer issue DACA status?

Again, Christie has admitted to being wrong and clarified his comments. 8USC1325 has not been adjudicated to be a civil violation, it is stated by the Federal Govt to be a Federal Crime.

From my previous link

So basic and simple research and an English comprehension ability merits out exactly what I stated, illegal presence is for those that entered via a visa and simply stayed beyond their departure date.

 

"Secure the border" has a myriad of problems and is certainly causing taxpayer burden.

 

Aren't illegal immigrants also causing tax payer burden to our states, local govts and our federal GDP? Until the cost of protecting our border exceeds that of the costs illegals cause, then would it not be better to protect our border and eventually rid ourselves of the illegals too, eventually lowering our costs and tax burdens?

 

Glad you brought that up.

Despite all the people that profit off the foreign labor, the Secure the border crowd will harp on what it "cost" us. Know this: if businesses thought that, they would have joined the Secure the border crowd and financed an effort to rid this country of anything foreign.

In terms of Liberties the Secure the border crowd gave us:

1) The Creation of Homeland (IN) Security

2) The so - called "Patriot Act"

3) National ID / REAL ID Act

4) Warrantless searches

5) Constitution Free Zones

6) The evisceration of the Fourth Amendment

7) Armed drones over America

A surveillance society where America is observed 24 / 7 / 365

9) The assault against private property Rights

10) A war against unalienable Rights and a bigger and more intrusive government.

Those are the basic ten things that are the fruits of their labors. They cannot look down the road and see the financial implications for the future. If you could deport millions of people, there would be an instant glut of housing that would drive the price of housing down so that property values would plummet.

Now, the Secure the border guys will come along and tell you that the housing would be filled by Americans. What a load of horse dung! The Secure the border guys wail about a dozen Hispanics living in one house as it is now. IF the Americans wanted the housing, they would do the same. Take on several room-mates, save your money and eventually get your own housing. We could do it, but the Americans are addicted to unemployment, phony disability checks, welfare and many adults still mooching off mommy and daddy.

The only tax that the Secure the border guys can accuse the undocumented foreigner of not paying is the income tax and that one is unconstitutional. BTW, we were winning significant cases against the income tax before the National Socialists within the Secure the border crowd lobbied for SSN based National ID. Even then they missed the mark. According to the Chief Actuary of the Social(ist) Security Administration, about 75 percent of the undocumented workers obtain a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same taxes as everyone else.

Of course the Secure the border guys don't want to talk about the $12 BILLION DOLLARS per year the undocumented foreigners pay into Social Security and can never draw one thin dime out of it in the future! No sir. The political propaganda prostitutes only see ONE side of the accounting ledger... the "cost" side. Through deceit and dishonesty, they never want to talk about what others contribute.

The Secure the border guys want to weaken the Constitution; pursue people on civil violations of the law using criminal procedures (and don't give two hoots in Hell about the precedent they set); disrupt the market... AND, adding insult to injury, they have no back up plan should their ideas implode.

Yeah, we need to talk specifics.

 

Mere assumption. Illegals are spread throughout the US, they are not in one location. They are equivalent to less than 3% of the population. There are also not 12M homes that are occupied by them, at best there are 3 - 6 Million, which again spread across the US would be very little in regards to a "glut" of housing or a lowering of property value. In fact houses would be more available to people who wanted to buy instead of rent. Your scare tactics are at best asinine.

So we are suppose to lower our standards to live like illegals, 12 to a house so that they can send money home.

I already showed how your very CBO report states that illegals take more in taxes then they pay in at every level. Whats the matter your not harping your report anymore?

Illegals do not pay $12B per year to SS. Their SS tax goes into an Earnings Suspense File along with numerous other people, mostly women whos last name no longer match their SS numbers due to divorce.

Not quite the $12B you are claiming. Half of that money is the employers contribution. Another 25% + is from others, so now we are down to maybe $3.3B they contribute to the Earnings Suspense File, not SS.

Total ignorance on your behalf, I already gave a link to Totalization Agreements showing that hey can obtain SS benefits for having both been and worked here illegally. Even a PRUCOL alien can obtain SS even if they never paid into the system. Your not as knowledgeable as you claim to be. http://www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_overview.html

It is a criminal violation of the law, otherwise it would not be a Federal Misdemeanor.

I've been trying to get you to be specific from your first post, you have yet to do anything other than continue to exclaim total ignorance as though it is fact.

Please, Please, Please, get specific and show actual facts.