PDA

View Full Version : Arizona should tell the S.C. “NO” on drivers licenses for illegal entrants




johnwk
12-22-2014, 12:02 PM
SEE: Supreme Court says Arizona must issue driver's licenses to immigrant 'Dreamers (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-immigrants-drivers-license-20141215-story.html)'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt Arizona another setback in its battle with the Obama administration over immigration policy, deciding the state must offer driver’s licenses to young immigrants who entered the country illegally as children but were later shielded from deportation as part of a federal program..

In a 6-3 order, the justices turned down an emergency appeal from outgoing Gov. Jan Brewer, who argued that the state had the right to decide who gets a driver’s license.

The State of Arizona should ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling and Jan Brewer should issue an Executive Order forbidding DMV employees to issue licenses to illegal entrants who are not a citizen of the State of Arizona.

The authority to issue drivers licenses comes under a state’s reserved powers dealing with privileges, and is protected by the 10th Amendment.

Every State Governor and its employees which decide to follow the Supreme Court would be in violation of their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and they would be willing accomplices in our federal government’s ongoing tyranny!

We were warned about submitting to tyranny and despotism:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.



It's time for the States to rise to the occasion and confront our tyrannical supreme court and hold its members in contempt of our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted!


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

johnwk
12-22-2014, 02:25 PM
SEE:Young illegal immigrants to line up for driver's licenses (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/22/young-illegal-immigrants-to-line-up-for-driver-licenses/)


December 22, 2014

”PHOENIX – Many young immigrants who are protected from deportation under new Obama administration policies are expected Monday to begin pursuing Arizona driver's licenses.

The Arizona Department of Transportation said it is anticipating a rush of immigrant applicants in the weeks ahead at Motor Vehicle Division offices statewide”

You can bet the thousands who get a license will vote in the 2016 election. But make no mistake, Governor Jan Brewer who pretends to be against this, will not do her duty to issue her own Executive “memorandum” to counter Obama’s memorandum, and tell her state employees to not issue licenses to illegal entrants who are not a citizen of the State of Arizona. I always knew Jan was a fraud without any spine.

JWK



If the American People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

phill4paul
12-22-2014, 02:28 PM
I'd be impressed if they said "NO!" to drivers licenses period.

fisharmor
12-22-2014, 02:34 PM
The authority to issue drivers licenses comes under a state’s reserved powers dealing with privileges, and is protected by the 10th Amendment.


Well if that's so, then the authority to declare who is and is not a citizen is also a state reserved power, and so is the authority to disallow entrance to and enact deportation from the US. Because none of that is explicitly granted to the federal government.
It's ridiculous to assert that the federal government is OK neutering the 10th amendment, until it's something that we don't like.

But you know what **IS** in the US Constitution?
"No bill of attainder... shall ever be passed"
This isn't limited to the federal government: this is absolute. Nowhere within the United States shall a bill of attainder ever be passed.

If Arizona passes a law banning non-Cititzens from getting drivers licenses, that is a bill of attainder and is, by the letter of the constitution, very unconstitutional.

fisharmor
12-22-2014, 02:36 PM
D'oh, sorry, I didn't notice at first they think AZ should do it by EO. So it's A-OK!
:rolleyes:

Christian Liberty
12-22-2014, 03:42 PM
I'd be impressed if they said "NO!" to drivers licenses period.

THIS!!!!!!

CaptainAmerica
12-22-2014, 04:02 PM
.... really I don't know if I care right now. Im not a fan of state identification cards, my heart is in the ruggedness of this land and I know my roots. My grandparents were here before it became Arizona in 1912, and driving in the 1920s in the desert before there were roads. They were citizens of Arizona before the social security card was even assigned to every citizen in the nation . A free nation, and free people don't need this shit, its all these barriers and walls of corporations that has lobbied for it, and the fear mongering over immigration is ridiculous in retrospective...people actually believe they have fair elections anyhow? Seriously, this previous election...entire precincts were not allowed to vote, I know eye witnesses who worked at polling centers that had to turn away voters because their votes were already somehow cast illegally without them ever voting. Stopping people from learning how to drive, or being able to drive is just another "war on drugs" type of situation it doesnt work. As for insurance purposes...maybe cars and trucks wouldn't be so expensive if they weren't subsidized by government for shitty designed american models of vehicles, and if people would actually take more seriously the consequences of a road without big brother insurance to bail everyone out for reckless behavior/reckless accidents. I sound crazy, because I am..I was born in the wrong era.

alucard13mm
12-22-2014, 04:13 PM
What about insurance? Us mundanes are required to have auto insurance. Maybe they can have subsidized auto insurance or "affordable auto insurance" act.

CaptainAmerica
12-22-2014, 04:17 PM
What about insurance? Us mundanes are required to have auto insurance. Maybe they can have subsidized auto insurance or "affordable auto insurance" act.

Oh I see...complain about their chains and not your own chains routine ;) that ones a new one...not.

johnwk
12-22-2014, 06:58 PM
SEE: No Prison Time, No Deportation for Illegal Immigrant Who Killed Two Girls (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386009/no-prison-time-no-deportation-illegal-immigrant-who-killed-two-girls-j-delgado)

” A judge in Oregon has dismissed the deportation case against Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, a 19-year-old illegal immigrant who killed two young girls in a hit-and-run car accident last year. Though Garcia-Cisneros was in the midst of removal proceedings, she is now released and will not face deportation. Garcia-Cisneros, who came from Mexico as a child, had permission to be in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program instituted by President Obama in 2012.
Snip-----

When President Obama first instituted DACA in June 2012, we were told by the administration and its supporters in both parties that these were children straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting – the next generation of physicists, mechanics, doctors, and lawyers. These were law-abiding “dreamers.”

Illegal entrants have become a privileged and protected class who are protected by tyrannical judges and Justices, in addition to being protected by our seditious Obama Administration.

Is it not time for the American People to take the situation in hand and start punishing judges and Justices who have become part of America’s most formidable domestic enemies by refusing to enforce our laws and our Constitution’s legislative intent?

JWK



The question is, is America on the verge of being defeated without a shot being fired?

CaptainAmerica
12-22-2014, 10:04 PM
dafuq wrong thread

CaptainAmerica
12-22-2014, 10:06 PM
SEE: No Prison Time, No Deportation for Illegal Immigrant Who Killed Two Girls (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386009/no-prison-time-no-deportation-illegal-immigrant-who-killed-two-girls-j-delgado)

” A judge in Oregon has dismissed the deportation case against Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, a 19-year-old illegal immigrant who killed two young girls in a hit-and-run car accident last year. Though Garcia-Cisneros was in the midst of removal proceedings, she is now released and will not face deportation. Garcia-Cisneros, who came from Mexico as a child, had permission to be in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program instituted by President Obama in 2012.
Snip-----

When President Obama first instituted DACA in June 2012, we were told by the administration and its supporters in both parties that these were children straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting – the next generation of physicists, mechanics, doctors, and lawyers. These were law-abiding “dreamers.”

Illegal entrants have become a privileged and protected class who are protected by tyrannical judges and Justices, in addition to being protected by our seditious Obama Administration.

Is it not time for the American People to take the situation in hand and start punishing judges and Justices who have become part of America’s most formidable domestic enemies by refusing to enforce our laws and our Constitution’s legislative intent?

JWK



The question is, is America on the verge of being defeated without a shot being fired?

It could have been a legitimate accident and maybe she did not know what was happening, I do not know. I wouldn't just automatically say shes a cold blooded killer, perhaps the proper route would be community service and not to send another person to prison...what does prison do to people. She says she didnt know anyone was playing in a pile of leaves, I do not have the evidence in front of me to understand the situation fully, but bottom line is that she might really be sorry about it, maybe her status as being "illegal alien" made her fear as well in the situation if she was aware. What is a just punishment? community service, reparation. People make mistakes sometimes, im just sick and tired of people using "illegal alien" as a phrase to demonize a human being , americans do this kind of stuff alll the time....sending them to prison is not going to correct whats already happened.


okay heres my reply.

aGameOfThrones
12-22-2014, 10:14 PM
It could have been a legitimate accident and maybe she did not know what was happening, I do not know. I wouldn't just automatically say shes a cold blooded killer, perhaps the proper route would be community service and not to send another person to prison...what does prison do to people. She says she didnt know anyone was playing in a pile of leaves, I do not have the evidence in front of me to understand the situation fully, but bottom line is that she might really be sorry about it, maybe her status as being "illegal alien" made her fear as well in the situation if she was aware. What is a just punishment? community service, reparation. People make mistakes sometimes, im just sick and tired of people using "illegal alien" as a phrase to demonize a human being , americans do this kind of stuff alll the time....sending them to prison is not going to correct whats already happened.


okay heres my reply.


I posted about this a while back with a comment that I have not verified, but here it is....




Koolaid 6 hours ago 1 110
Typical Yahoo story with much left out:

1st part left out - That brother that went back to look and found out the girls were dead? He was in the car along with her boyfriend when she hit and killed those kids.

2nd part left out - Instead of going to the police they went out for ICE CREAM!

3rd part left out -- The next day, Garcia-Cisneros and her boyfriend ran errands in the SUV. Her boyfriend took the vehicle through a carwash to eliminate evidence.

And the 4th part left out was how they caught her (this is the same girl that by the Yahoo story never even knew she hit them) --- Police linked her to the crash through a tip from her neighbor, who spotted her sobbing and examining an SUV outside her house that night. Detectives tracked her down and interviewed her at her boyfriend’s house the next day. On Oct. 22, officers arrested her and her boyfriend, 18-year-old Mario Echeverria.

Now wasn't there someone on here claiming the right-wing racist trolls were out?

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?443251-illegal-immigrant-kills-2-kids-in-a-hit-and-run-gets-3yr-probation-and-250h-community-service&highlight=illegal)

MRK
12-23-2014, 05:09 AM
Why is it a problem for illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses?

phill4paul
12-23-2014, 07:22 AM
Why is it a problem for illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses?

Because then they will have the freedom of travel that is the birth right of all AmeriKans.

Weston White
12-23-2014, 10:22 AM
The DREAM Act only provides qualifying youths permanent residency status, not citizenship. If it was the honest intent of Congress to effect immigrants as bona fide American citizens, guaranteed to all our rights and immunities, then they poorly succeeded by their legislative act of law; otherwise what is there to stop the USSC from obliging non-citizens or ‘residents’, as an equal protection, the right to vote and the like? So in any case, Fourteenth Amendment protections don’t really apply here (while further noting however, that in certain federal statutes, permanent residents are treated as U.S. citizens for the purposes of specified public law, such as federal income taxation).

In Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress has exclusive authority over immigration policies: “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization”, this is however an entirely distinctive issue than the individual privilege of lawfully driving around in a vehicle within a given state.

Within Section I of Article IV (ibid) only ‘citizens’ are mentioned as its scope.

The Court’s reliance upon the equal protections clause (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”), would appear to be gravely misplaced, while sounding like the inverse argument constantly extolled by federal bureaucrats in order to support their own political agendas, e.g., indirect taxes only need to be applied uniformly with respect to geography, but not by individual or business. However, does this methodology not render the DREAM Act itself as being discriminatory towards the ages of certain immigrants but not others? Is there any rational reasoning for providing voting rights to citizens, while denying such to permanent residents? Are not the equal protections of such individuals being violated in all such cases?

Although in reality, so long as all individuals not meeting the state’s own long-established mandates for acquiring state licenses hath been denied then nobody has been treated unequally. If the state’s legislature felt compelled to first require proof of birth and/or citizenship to drive within their state as per its internal public decrees then that is by no means an “irrational reason”.

The equal protections clause holds a proper breadth of addressing concerns as to the age, race, gender, caste, religion, and other such personal preferences of its citizens, e.g., punishing only blacks, rewarding only the wealthy, discriminating aqainst females, servitude, etc.

A bill of attainder, is more-so directed upon the Congress than the states, however it pertains to being punished or killed by a mere writ, it does not bear to being denied state granted privileges, such as the receipt of a driver’s license.

Personally, I don’t see where the USSC found the authority to make such a ruling. The qualifications and issuance of driver’s licenses would seem to clearly exist as an intrastate power and neither is it irrational to require proof of citizenship as a requisite to obtaining a state license; also it is highly doubtful that there is even a section within the DREAM Act addressing that state driving privileges must be granted to those covered by the act. Leaving this as nothing more than a blatant overreach by the federal government, and mission creep from the bench.

Ender
12-23-2014, 10:37 AM
Because then they will have the freedom of travel that is the birth right of all AmeriKans.

The right to travel is the right of every human being.

A drivers license is unconstitutional.

phill4paul
12-23-2014, 10:55 AM
The right to travel is the right of every human being.

A drivers license is unconstitutional.

Glad you got my sarcasm.

Danke
12-23-2014, 11:56 AM
The right to travel is the right of every human being.

A drivers license is unconstitutional.

No it isn't.

fisharmor
12-23-2014, 12:02 PM
SEE: No Prison Time, No Deportation for Illegal Immigrant Who Killed Two Girls (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386009/no-prison-time-no-deportation-illegal-immigrant-who-killed-two-girls-j-delgado)

” A judge in Oregon has dismissed the deportation case against Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, a 19-year-old illegal immigrant who killed two young girls in a hit-and-run car accident last year. Though Garcia-Cisneros was in the midst of removal proceedings, she is now released and will not face deportation. Garcia-Cisneros, who came from Mexico as a child, had permission to be in the country under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program instituted by President Obama in 2012.
Snip-----

When President Obama first instituted DACA in June 2012, we were told by the administration and its supporters in both parties that these were children straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting – the next generation of physicists, mechanics, doctors, and lawyers. These were law-abiding “dreamers.”

Illegal entrants have become a privileged and protected class who are protected by tyrannical judges and Justices, in addition to being protected by our seditious Obama Administration.

Is it not time for the American People to take the situation in hand and start punishing judges and Justices who have become part of America’s most formidable domestic enemies by refusing to enforce our laws and our Constitution’s legislative intent?

JWK



The question is, is America on the verge of being defeated without a shot being fired?


This is just straight-up racism.

Ender
12-23-2014, 12:09 PM
No it isn't.

Yes, it is. The right to travel is part of being human. Licenses were solely for things that would otherwise be illegal.

Now we have to have a license to drive and a license to get married- BOTH of which are lawful actions.

Acala
12-23-2014, 12:22 PM
Eliminate public roads, driver licensing, and borders. Ta Da!

Danke
12-23-2014, 12:30 PM
Yes, it is. The right to travel is part of being human. Licenses were solely for things that would otherwise be illegal.

Now we have to have a license to drive and a license to get married- BOTH of which are lawful actions.

You have rights. But you also have the right to contract. You can surrender rights voluntarily.

Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...

You have the right to travel, not "drive."

Driving is a legally defined term under state's commerce section in the Motor Vehicle section.

Which make it a privilege, not a right. Just the same as the Income Tax. You participate in an activity that is by its nature a voluntary taxable event. Don't want to be taxed, don't participate in a taxable activity. Most not knowing this. Ignorance of the law... But is it is a good gig for tax tics.

Unless you are involved in commerce, you need not register your conveyance nor possess a drivers license.

But we all know that makes life difficult for the small battles won. So I prefer to stick to the bigger ones for now, taxation. Read up on that, starting with my signature.

Southron
12-23-2014, 01:34 PM
The Supreme Court makes every issue a national issue. It is no wonder nothing ever gets done.

State laws must be approved from on high.

Ender
12-23-2014, 07:21 PM
You have rights. But you also have the right to contract. You can surrender rights voluntarily.

Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...

You have the right to travel, not "drive."

Driving is a legally defined term under state's commerce section in the Motor Vehicle section.

Which make it a privilege, not a right. Just the same as the Income Tax. You participate in an activity that is by its nature a voluntary taxable event. Don't want to be taxed, don't participate in a taxable activity. Most not knowing this. Ignorance of the law... But is it is a good gig for tax tics.

Unless you are involved in commerce, you need not register your conveyance nor possess a drivers license.

But we all know that makes life difficult for the small battles won. So I prefer to stick to the bigger ones for now, taxation. Read up on that, starting with my signature.

And people not understanding what constitutes inalienable rights is the reason we are in the mess we are in.

johnwk
12-24-2014, 07:06 AM
And people not understanding what constitutes inalienable rights is the reason we are in the mess we are in.

And you have a inalienable right to drive on the property of others without their consent or following their rules? Yup, seems that "people not understanding what constitutes inalienable rights is the reason we are in the mess we are in."


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

johnwk
12-24-2014, 07:26 AM
Yes, it is. The right to travel is part of being human. Licenses were solely for things that would otherwise be illegal.

Now we have to have a license to drive and a license to get married- BOTH of which are lawful actions.

Licenses are issued for a number of rights that are regulated by a community, such as driving on its public roads. No, you don’t have to have a license to get married. Common law marriages do not require a license. A married couple who wants their “marriage” recognized by the state is a different story.

Now, getting back to the subject of the thread, do you think Gov. Brewer should issue her own Executive “Memorandum” , as Obama does, and prohibit state employees to issue driver’s licenses to illegal entrants who are not a citizen of the State of Arizona?


JWK

Weston White
12-24-2014, 07:32 AM
Official ceremonial church weddings are also recognized as valid marriages by the state.

Ender
12-24-2014, 11:02 AM
And you have a inalienable right to drive on the property of others without their consent or following their rules? Yup, seems that "people not understanding what constitutes inalienable rights is the reason we are in the mess we are in."


JWK


The property of "who" exactly? Oh yeah- ALL of us- including the immigrants you despise; they also pay taxes.

Ender
12-24-2014, 11:07 AM
Licenses are issued for a number of rights that are regulated by a community, such as driving on its public roads. No, you don’t have to have a license to get married. Common law marriages do not require a license. A married couple who wants their “marriage” recognized by the state is a different story.

Now, getting back to the subject of the thread, do you think Gov. Brewer should issue her own Executive “Memorandum” , as Obama does, and prohibit state employees to issue driver’s licenses to illegal entrants who are not a citizen of the State of Arizona?


JWK

The "subject at hand" is your prejudice vs inalienable rights.

A common law marriage will not get anybody "benefits" and is NOT recognized by most of the states and only under certain circumstances by the few that do. The state should NEVER be involved in marriage or in any kind of lawful pursuit, including travel.

johnwk
12-26-2014, 10:01 AM
The "subject at hand" is your prejudice vs inalienable rights.

A common law marriage will not get anybody "benefits"
.

Ah yes! The yearning for free government cheese for those who have invaded our borders.

JWK

johnwk
12-26-2014, 10:11 AM
Originally Posted by johnwk

And you have a inalienable right to drive on the property of others without their consent or following their rules? Yup, seems that "people not understanding what constitutes inalienable rights is the reason we are in the mess we are in."


JWK


The property of "who" exactly? Oh yeah- ALL of us- including the immigrants you despise; they also pay taxes.

You confuse "immigrants" who knock on our door and then enter with permission with foreigners who do not enter with permission. And your insulting remark, that I despise "immigrants", is not only unsubstantiated, but a cowardly attack and ruse to avoid the distinction between those who knock and those who enter without knocking.

You, who make such insulting remarks would not survive in East Harlem where I grew up!

JWK




To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to prohibit America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

kcchiefs6465
12-26-2014, 10:11 AM
Ah yes! The yearning for free government cheese for those who have invaded our borders.

JWK
You can accuse people of being liberals, or in favor of "free" 'government cheese,' until your fingers cramp but the fact remains the same that you have very little concept of what freedom is.

I doubt much of anyone, at least here, advocating for a less gestapo-esque approach with regards to immigration, wishes for anyone to receive government handouts.

As it stands, your neighbors will elect another wooled tyrant, said tyrants will propose all sorts of unconstitutional measures, and they will squander your money in such a way that you'd wish it'd be burnt, instead.

But protectionism, and jobs, and America.

Seems that all but the fewest of the few have lost faith in the free market. Thus, their (and your) only solution is government and regulations and authoritarian decrees. It's unsurprising, frankly, but sad nonetheless.

Ender
12-26-2014, 11:01 AM
You confuse "immigrants" who knock on our door and then enter with permission with foreigners who do not enter with permission. And your insulting remark, that I despise "immigrants", is not only unsubstantiated, but a cowardly attack and ruse to avoid the distinction between those who knock and those who enter without knocking.

You, who make such insulting remarks would not survive in East Harlem where I grew up!

JWK


Right.

Those "illegals" still pay taxes. AND- the country was never better than when it allowed the "tired & Poor" in and there was a free market. But we couldn't allow them damned Irishmen in, now could we? :rolleyes:

You should be helping get rid of the welfare state and the WoD, which would take away entitlements and reduce crime, instead of preaching about more laws.

BTW- I grew up in LA and survived quite nicely- and I am a Cherokee; I know quite a bit about "illegal immigrants"

Ender
12-26-2014, 11:02 AM
You can accuse people of being liberals, or in favor of "free" 'government cheese,' until your fingers cramp but the fact remains the same that you have very little concept of what freedom is.

I doubt much of anyone, at least here, advocating for a less gestapo-esque approach with regards to immigration, wishes for anyone to receive government handouts.

As it stands, your neighbors will elect another wooled tyrant, said tyrants will propose all sorts of unconstitutional measures, and they will squander your money in such a way that you'd wish it'd be burnt, instead.

But protectionism, and jobs, and America.

Seems that all but the fewest of the few have lost faith in the free market. Thus, their (and your) only solution is government and regulations and authoritarian decrees. It's unsurprising, frankly, but sad nonetheless.

AMEN.

johnwk
12-28-2014, 06:21 PM
Right.

Those "illegals" still pay taxes. AND- the country was never better than when it allowed the "tired & Poor" in and there was a free market. But we couldn't allow them damned Irishmen in, now could we? :rolleyes:

You should be helping get rid of the welfare state and the WoD, which would take away entitlements and reduce crime, instead of preaching about more laws.

BTW- I grew up in LA and survived quite nicely- and I am a Cherokee; I know quite a bit about "illegal immigrants"

You bet I'm right.


:rolleyes:


JWK

johnwk
12-28-2014, 06:23 PM
.

SEE:24+ States File Lawsuit Against Obama's Executive Amnesty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtR4TbZBW18)


December 16, 2014

”Up to December 10 a total of 24 States have Filed a Lawsuit Against Obama's Executive Amnesty. Expect the number of states joining this lawsuit to rise over the next weeks. Originally 18 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas challenging President Obama's executive action on immigration.”

CLICK HERE (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203ImmigrationExecutiveOrderLawsuit.pdf) and open file for the original COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!

Ender
12-28-2014, 07:20 PM
.

SEE:24+ States File Lawsuit Against Obama's Executive Amnesty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtR4TbZBW18)


December 16, 2014

”Up to December 10 a total of 24 States have Filed a Lawsuit Against Obama's Executive Amnesty. Expect the number of states joining this lawsuit to rise over the next weeks. Originally 18 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas challenging President Obama's executive action on immigration.”

CLICK HERE (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203ImmigrationExecutiveOrderLawsuit.pdf) and open file for the original COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


JWK


From the PDF:


1. The State of Texas, the State of Alabama, the State of Georgia, the State of Idaho, the State of Indiana, the State of Kansas, the State of Louisiana, the State of Montana, the State of Nebraska, the State of South Carolina, the State of South Dakota, the State of Utah, the State of West Virginia, the State of Wisconsin, and Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi, Governor Paul R. LePage of Maine, Governor Patrick L. McCrory of North Carolina, and Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter of Idaho (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiff States”) seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States and the above-named federal officials (collectively, “the Defendants”) for their violations of the Take Care Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3, cl. 5, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

2. This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.


I agree with #2.

The Free Hornet
12-29-2014, 02:04 AM
You confuse "immigrants" who knock on our door and then enter with permission with foreigners who do not enter with permission. And your insulting remark, that I despise "immigrants", is not only unsubstantiated, but a cowardly attack and ruse to avoid the distinction between those who knock and those who enter without knocking.

Without YOUR permission or without your master's permission?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2014, 02:26 AM
Official ceremonial church weddings are also recognized as valid marriages by the state.
Sure, and if a pastor gets caught marrying an unlicensed couple, then he will lose the state-granted privilege of marrying people.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2014, 02:34 AM
Right.

Those "illegals" still pay taxes. AND- the country was never better than when it allowed the "tired & Poor" in and there was a free market. But we couldn't allow them damned Irishmen in, now could we? :rolleyes:

You should be helping get rid of the welfare state and the WoD, which would take away entitlements and reduce crime, instead of preaching about more laws.

BTW- I grew up in LA and survived quite nicely- and I am a Cherokee; I know quite a bit about "illegal immigrants"

I've done contract work on an HR database for a company that shall remain unnamed, who employed a lot of illegal aliens. They all claimed S-8 exemptions on their W2. I have spoken at length to illegal aliens, and it is common knowledge to file S-8 to avoid income taxes. Although I am sure there are some who do pay taxes, the vast majority only pay sales taxes in those states that tax sales.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2014, 02:39 AM
I've done contract work on an HR database for a company that shall remain unnamed, who employed a lot of illegal aliens. They all claimed S-8 exemptions on their W2. I have spoken at length to illegal aliens, and it is common knowledge to file S-8 to avoid income taxes. Although I am sure there are some who do pay taxes, the vast majority only pay sales taxes in those states that tax sales.
Good.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2014, 02:58 AM
Good.

Perhaps. I was not assigning a moral value to the situation, just describing it. Illegal immigrants by and large do not pay income/IRS taxes at all. The commonly heard claim that they do does not come from reality, but from messaging think tanks. Out here in reality the same people who are willing to hire illegal immigrants also have no problem overlooking the S-8 exemptions claims by their employees. They may even encourage it as being one of the reasons that labor costs so much less.

It's like this claim that the reason people hire illegals is because they are cheaper. Sure they are. And they take home more money than the American. Because they claim all the exemptions from the income tax and do not file on April 15. They cost the employer less than the American, AND they take home more cash every week than the American. Frankly arguments on both the left AND right on this issue like to just ignore reality altogether.

johnwk
12-29-2014, 06:03 AM
From the PDF:



I agree with #2.

And so do I.


JWK




To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!

Weston White
12-29-2014, 06:52 AM
Sure, and if a pastor gets caught marrying an unlicensed couple, then he will lose the state-granted privilege of marrying people.

That is how I am married, my marriage certificate is through the Catholic Church, have nothing to do with the State of California... This of course tends to cause issues with certain contracts as everybody wants only to see a state marriage license (as other alternatives are so unheard of), but my family not being bound to the state for our existence is so totally worth it.

AuH20
12-29-2014, 09:21 AM
Perhaps. I was not assigning a moral value to the situation, just describing it. Illegal immigrants by and large do not pay income/IRS taxes at all. The commonly heard claim that they do does not come from reality, but from messaging think tanks. Out here in reality the same people who are willing to hire illegal immigrants also have no problem overlooking the S-8 exemptions claims by their employees. They may even encourage it as being one of the reasons that labor costs so much less.

It's like this claim that the reason people hire illegals is because they are cheaper. Sure they are. And they take home more money than the American. Because they claim all the exemptions from the income tax and do not file on April 15. They cost the employer less than the American, AND they take home more cash every week than the American. Frankly arguments on both the left AND right on this issue like to just ignore reality altogether.

If they had to pay taxes in full, they wouldn't be here. It's that simple. And it's a symbiotic relationship with the employers while everyone else gets stuck with the costs.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/76/f6/58/76f6585e37c70935a6c6a0d7bfbe3ab9.jpg

Southron
12-29-2014, 01:51 PM
Why is it a problem for illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses?

Why is every state issue a national issue?

erowe1
12-29-2014, 07:17 PM
Why?

Is there some disadvantage of giving them drivers licenses?

TheCount
12-29-2014, 08:52 PM
Why?

Is there some disadvantage of giving them drivers licenses?

No. The people making an issue of this have an issue with their mere presence; everything on top of that is an afterthought.

Feeding the Abscess
12-29-2014, 09:23 PM
ITT:

A road and immigration socialist calling those who oppose socialism apologists and/or supporters of socialist globalism.

The public school system is amazing and does its job well.

johnwk
12-30-2014, 09:04 AM
What I can't seem to understand is, how can there be so many folks in Washington and around the country who seem to ignore the devastating financial and social effects which the ongoing invasion of our borders is having upon the general welfare of the United States and her CITIZENS?

If legislation is not quickly passed to encourage illegal aliens and their children to leave and return in compliance with our existing statutory law, I shudder to think of what America will devolve into in the next twenty or so years which predictable will look like England and France who have allowed their borders to be overrun and now suffer the financial and social consequences.


CLICK HERE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807465/Illegal-immigrants-trying-reach-Britain-turned-Calais-lawless-jungle-says-French-far-right-leader-Marine-Le-Pen.html) to get a peek into our country’s future if illegal immigration is not stopped and reversed!

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by!

AuH20
12-30-2014, 09:49 AM
What I can't seem to understand is, how can there be so many folks in Washington and around the country who seem to ignore the devastating financial and social effects which the ongoing invasion of our borders is having upon the general welfare of the United States and her CITIZENS?

If legislation is not quickly passed to encourage illegal aliens and their children to leave and return in compliance with our existing statutory law, I shudder to think of what America will devolve into in the next twenty or so years which predictable will look like England and France who have allowed their borders to be overrun and now suffer the financial and social consequences.


CLICK HERE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807465/Illegal-immigrants-trying-reach-Britain-turned-Calais-lawless-jungle-says-French-far-right-leader-Marine-Le-Pen.html) to get a peek into our country’s future if illegal immigration is not stopped and reversed!

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by!

The irreparable damage has been done for decades by the natives. Now the illegals have been brought in for the final makeover.

TheCount
12-30-2014, 11:35 AM
What I can't seem to understand is, how can there be so many folks in Washington and around the country who seem to ignore the devastating financial and social effects which the ongoing invasion of our borders is having upon the general welfare of the United States and her CITIZENS?

That would be because the exact same trope you're repeating here was used regarding Irish immigrants, Catholic immigrants in general, Chinese immigrants, and any of a dozen other nationalities at different times and locations within the United States.

johnwk
12-30-2014, 12:13 PM
That would be because the exact same trope you're repeating here was used regarding Irish immigrants, Catholic immigrants in general, Chinese immigrants, and any of a dozen other nationalities at different times and locations within the United States.


Why do you confuse those who enter our country illegally with immigrants who came here legally? Our situation has nothing to do with race, color, religion or the origin of immigrants, and every thing to do with an uncontrolled ongoing invasion of our borders.


JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!

Ender
12-30-2014, 01:34 PM
Why do you confuse those who enter our country illegally with immigrants who came here legally? Our situation has nothing to do with race, color, religion or the origin of immigrants, and every thing to do with an uncontrolled ongoing invasion of our borders.


JWK


It has EVERYTHING to do with race, color, religion and the origin of immigrants. Always has.

Here is an interview on the book "How Immigration Became Illegal" by Aviva Chomsky


AVIVA CHOMSKY: We often hear people saying this is a country of immigrants, as if that explains something. But I think when we say this is a country of immigrants, we’re actually—we’re actually hiding as much as we’re explaining. And, OK, so let me try to explain that. So this is a country of immigrants. People have in mind Ellis Island. They have in mind the European immigrants. They have in mind the people who, under U.S. law, have been considered immigrants since really the founding of the country. And we need to think about how immigration and citizenship work together. That is, those who the law has considered immigrants are those who were considered to be potential citizens.

Now, citizenship law in the United States restricted citizenship to white people until the Civil War. And after the Civil War, citizenship was restricted to white people and people of African descent. So, those who were immigrants—so, prior to the Civil War, many people who were not white were brought into the country, were physically present in the country, came into the country on their own, were conquered and incorporated into the country, but they could not be citizens. And they were not considered immigrants when they entered the country. The only ones who were were considered immigrants were the Europeans. After the Civil War, not only is citizenship extended to people of African descent, none of whom are immigrating to the United States or coming to the United States in the aftermath of centuries of slavery, and finally the war and the abolition of slavery, but other people, for example, the Chinese, who are coming into the country, are still not eligible for citizenship. In fact, they’re legally defined as racially ineligible to citizenship.

And what really makes things complicated for immigration law is, when citizenship by birth is created with the 14th Amendment in 1868, also in the aftermath of the Civil War, because it creates this sort of logical impossibility that people who have been declared racially ineligible to citizenship, people who are not considered immigrants even when they come to the country—they’re considered workers, but not immigrants—that they can then obtain access to citizenship by birth. And it’s this logical impossibility of people who are legally defined as racially ineligible to citizenship, and then, because of being physically present, able to obtain immigrant citizenship by birth, that leads Congress to start setting up restrictions on immigration, and restrictions against people who are considered to be racially ineligible to citizenship—that is, the Chinese and eventually all Asians, and Asia is very broadly defined under this law.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Avi Chomsky, I wanted to ask you—in your introduction, you refer to a phrase that I’ve heard often from readers and callers, angry—usually angry readers and callers to me at the Daily News, when they say, "Mr. González, what part of 'illegal' don’t you understand?" And you raise the point that the concept of illegality in terms of immigration is actually a relatively new term in American history, and it’s also been changed over time. And its use is actually—has become—has always been racialized. Could you talk about that?

AVIVA CHOMSKY: Yes, absolutely. I think it’s part of the same system that I was describing before that restricted immigration to white people and citizenship to white people and then started to cut off immigration. But as immigration started to be restricted for groups, including Asians and eventually even for Europeans who were considered to be inferior Europeans, like southern and eastern Europeans in the 1920s, Mexican border crossing was never restricted. And Mexican border crossing was never restricted because Mexican labor was so utterly necessary in the Southwest of the United States and because Mexicans were not considered immigrants, so therefore their immigration did not have to be restricted. They were considered to be workers, legally discriminated against for—on what were considered racial grounds—that is, they were racially so-called "Mexican." That was perfectly legal. To deprive them of citizenship was perfectly legal. And the system worked from the perspective of maintaining the United States as a white country, because unlike the Asians, Mexican migration was generally a circular migration. That is, Mexicans came, worked for a season or year or couple of years, and returned to Mexico. So the history of border migrations for 150 years was one of circular migrations that were basically either completely unregulated or, as, for example, during 1942 and 1964, extended through ’67, government-sponsored through the Bracero program, but migrations that denied citizenship and denied rights to the Mexicans who were in the country.

So, the creation of illegality and starting to call this migration illegal happens in 1965, really, when Mexican migration is for the first time considered to be immigration and is legally restricted—that is, a quota is put on Mexican migration, as it is on every country of the world. And in a situation where tens of thousands of Mexicans have been crossing the border legally and recruited and sometimes even coerced every year, all of a sudden this is made illegal. It’s not stopped, but it’s given a different name. Instead of calling it the Bracero program, it’s called illegal migration. It’s still just as necessary to the economy of the Southwest, it’s still encouraged by all different sectors, but the discrimination against these workers is now justified by the introduction of this new terminology and status of illegality. I hope I explained that; it’s a little complicated.

Rest of the interview here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/30/how_immigration_became_illegal_aviva_chomsky

TheCount
12-30-2014, 01:46 PM
Why do you confuse those who enter our country illegally with immigrants who came here legally? Our situation has nothing to do with race, color, religion or the origin of immigrants, and every thing to do with an uncontrolled ongoing invasion of our borders.

My French-Canadian ancestors immigrated to the United States to work for Ford at the beginning of the 20th century. What legal process did they follow that makes them different than the current "invasion?"

CPUd
12-30-2014, 02:46 PM
No. The people making an issue of this have an issue with their mere presence; everything on top of that is an afterthought.

This is why he spams up the board here and 12-24 other places; for whatever reason, he wants to bring out the racist sentiment wherever he can find it. Before this, he was spamming with a lot of tax protestor material on other boards until he go banned or quit posting. Definitely one of the most prolific issue spammers on the web today.

Ender
12-30-2014, 04:10 PM
My French-Canadian ancestors immigrated to the United States to work for Ford at the beginning of the 20th century. What legal process did they follow that makes them different than the current "invasion?"

They were white. ;)

GunnyFreedom
12-30-2014, 07:32 PM
To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!



Sure, but that won't stop the hardest of the hard-core anti-immigrationists from voting for Jeb in the Primary when Karl Rove tells them to.

Danke
12-30-2014, 09:13 PM
This is why he spams up the board here and 12-24 other places; for whatever reason, he wants to bring out the racist sentiment wherever he can find it. Before this, he was spamming with a lot of tax protestor material on other boards until he go banned or quit posting. Definitely one of the most prolific issue spammers on the web today.


I'm not following, who?

heavenlyboy34
12-30-2014, 09:48 PM
.... really I don't know if I care right now. Im not a fan of state identification cards, my heart is in the ruggedness of this land and I know my roots. My grandparents were here before it became Arizona in 1912, and driving in the 1920s in the desert before there were roads. They were citizens of Arizona before the social security card was even assigned to every citizen in the nation . A free nation, and free people don't need this shit, its all these barriers and walls of corporations that has lobbied for it, and the fear mongering over immigration is ridiculous in retrospective...people actually believe they have fair elections anyhow? Seriously, this previous election...entire precincts were not allowed to vote, I know eye witnesses who worked at polling centers that had to turn away voters because their votes were already somehow cast illegally without them ever voting. Stopping people from learning how to drive, or being able to drive is just another "war on drugs" type of situation it doesnt work. As for insurance purposes...maybe cars and trucks wouldn't be so expensive if they weren't subsidized by government for shitty designed american models of vehicles, and if people would actually take more seriously the consequences of a road without big brother insurance to bail everyone out for reckless behavior/reckless accidents. I sound crazy, because I am..I was born in the wrong era.
U sure? In AZ, polling places have always (in my lifetime) had a provisional ballot box alongside the usual box in case someone forgets their ID or some other irregularity.

johnwk
12-31-2014, 07:45 AM
It has EVERYTHING to do with race, color, religion and the origin of immigrants. Always has.



Only in your perverted mind!


JWK

johnwk
12-31-2014, 07:49 AM
Quote Originally Posted by johnwk


To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!



Sure, but that won't stop the hardest of the hard-core anti-immigrationists from voting for Jeb in the Primary when Karl Rove tells them to.

Sad, but true!


JWK




To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

Ender
12-31-2014, 10:15 AM
Only in your perverted mind!


JWK

MY perverted mind. :rolleyes:

Before the Civil War only white people were allowed, if they weren't Catholics-. Through the 1920's even inferior Europeans (Eastern & Southern) were not allowed.

Asians were not allowed citizenship for almost a century. And then we rolled up the American Japanese into concentration camps. Mexicans were allowed in as "workers" until 1965- then they were called "illegal immigrants" but still allowed in because the economy needed them.

Maybe you should try reading a little REAL American History.