Gary Johnson: Calling illegals “illegal” is “very incendiary” (video)

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.

Pure unmitigated fiction.

It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.

ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You can argue that we shouldn't have immigration laws, but as long as we do you can't say that the term "illegal alien" is inaccurate. It's wholly accurate, and the most apt description. This is how Marxists always operate, by changing the language. You can't convince people that we should open the borders, so you change the language to alter perceptions.

ETA: LMAO would be more response than your sophistry was worth.

Yes! Sophistry is precisely what he is doing. I am so glad that someone else knows what sophistry is and can identify it here.

 

[Superfluous Man]

That's because almost nothing on this planet pisses me off more than sophistry. Laughing is a defence mechanism to keep me from ripping off your head and shytting down your neck.

I haven't resorted to any sophistry. Words mean things, and the distinctions are important, especially in law. The words "unlawful" and "illegal," when used in laws, have different meanings. And the difference is totally relevant to this conversation. The actual law that you yourself referenced designates the people you and others call "illegal immigrants" as "unlawful residents." You seem to think those terms are synonymous, but they are not.

The question of whether or not there is any federal law that so-called "illegal immigrants" perpetually violate by virtue of merely existing in the USA is a question of fact. And it is a fact that there is no such law. You have tried to prove me wrong about that and failed.

The colonies were controlling human emigration as early as 1763

That's not the federal government.

and then in US Law the Intrusion Act of 1807 (dealing with un authorized immigrants settling land designated for American settlers) criminalized illegal settlement and authorized fines and imprisonment for lawbreakers.

That was for specially designated land, not the whole USA.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the legal settlers in those lands could welcome onto their own property as guests, renters (so long as they fulfilled their own requirements of living there), or employees, the very same immigrants whom the federal government prohibited from settling those lands, and those legal settlers would not thereby be in violation of any federal laws. That's totally different than what today's immigration laws impose on each and every one of us regarding our own property.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Ron Paul carried primary platform planks in 2008 and 2012 to enforce the immigration laws on the books.

Perhaps some immigration laws on the books, but not the ones that are most impactful.

Check out Numbers USA's write ups on it (which I'm surprised you haven't already done, since you seem like you'd be a fan of theirs).

 

[Superfluous Man]

Right. Because doing something unlawfully is so much different from doing something illegally.

And there we have it.

I'm sorry I missed this line my first time through your responses.

Yes, "unlawful" and "illegal" are significantly different.

I have already addressed this more than once in the thread, but for the sake of you and other text-speak users, here is what Black's Law Dictionary says about the difference:

What is UNLAWFUL?
That which is contrary to law. “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S

Because that would mean they are attempting to maintain legal status.

On the contrary. They are actual unlawful residents trying to get, not maintain, legal status.

An unlawful presence is an illegal presence. What you are doing is a type of sophistry called "equivocation."

As you see, no it isn't. So in fact, it's you who are equivocating. You are taking laws that refer to people as "unlawful" residents and trying to treat that word as though it is the same as designating them as "illegal."

The whole reason the US Code does not use the word "illegal" in this context is because of this difference between unlawful and illegal.

 

[Superfluous Man]

That's not a choice that you get to make. Elected persons swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

It's also not a call Congress, or SCOTUS, or the US Constitution itself get to make. The Creator makes the call of what is right and wrong. And any law that is unjust is no law at all, constitutional or not.

That said, a legislator could take an oath to uphold the Constitution and still recognize that the Creator's law is the highest one, because that oath to uphold the Constitution generally should only keep them from passing unconstitutional laws. It doesn't obligate them to pass any given law just because it exercised a power the Constitution delegates to them.

And, consistent with your command of terminology so far in this thread (illegal, unlawful, naturalization, equivocate), you need a refresher on treason. The Constitution itself defines "treason," and it is not simply any time a legislator violates their oath of office. It is when somebody wars against the states.

It's funny how the men who actually wrote the Constitution seemed to think it covered immigration

They didn't. But more importantly than what they thought is what it actually says. You can't take its use of the word "naturalization" and just willy nilly extrapolate that out to include "immigration." That's not what "naturalization" means.

Also, in my opinion the proper way to approach originalism is not just to consider what the writer of the Constitution's words intended (especially Hamilton), but more importantly what they signified to those who ratified them.

And even when it comes to those who wrote them, it's fallacious to fall into the trap so many big-government conservatives often do of appealing to unconstitutional actions of early politicians as proof that their unconstitutional actions were actually constitutional just because they were "founders" and had to know what the original intent was. For while they were "founders," they were also corrupt politicians.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I haven't resorted to any sophistry.

Bullshit. And that's why I'm not going to waste my valuable time answering your same concern trolls over and over and over.

 

[Superfluous Man]

The parts of the US Code Gunny already copied sufficiently proved my case. But there's another part that puts the nail in the coffin. It's Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part IV, § 1229c - "Voluntary Departure."

I won't copy and paste the whole long section, but here's the opening subsection:

(a) Certain conditions
(1) In general
The Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to depart the United States at the alien’s own expense under this subsection, in lieu of being subject to proceedings under section 1229a of this title or prior to the completion of such proceedings, if the alien is not deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229c

So, in fact, depending on the circumstances, it can actually be illegal for unlawful residents to leave the USA. They're mere existence in the USA isn't a violation of any law, but rather an actual requirement of the law.

Also, here's another portion from elsewhere in the Code. This one might at first make the people who think that just being in the USA is a continuous breaking of a law for unlawful residents, until you notice a key part. Then it's clear that it doesn't support that claim. It's Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, § 134d - "Civil Penalties for Failure to Depart."

(a) In general
Any alien subject to a final order of removal who—
(1) willfully fails or refuses to—
(A) depart from the United States pursuant to the order,
(B) make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or
(C) present for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General; or
(2) conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper the alien’s departure pursuant to the order,
shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $500 to the Commissioner for each day the alien is in violation of this section.

The key part to which I referred is that this daily accrual of civil penalty only applies to aliens who are subject to a final order of removal. For unlawful residents in general, there is no such continuously growing penalty, for indeed, until they receive that order, they are not perpetually breaking any law, but rather have only committed some singular misdemeanor at the time they entered the USA (similar to jay walking).

 

[Superfluous Man]

Bull$#@!. And that's why I'm not going to waste my valuable time answering your same concern trolls over and over and over.

Good idea.

Rather, invest that time in looking up definitions of all the words you misuse.

But this hasn't been a total waste of time. I can already see that you are getting incrementally more articulate than when you first engaged me.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

He's right about the door to door knocking and paperz pleez

No. Gary is LYING about door-to-door knocking. Trump is not proposing that. It's a shame Gary feels he has to lie so much.