Should we Deport Her? College student never "broke the law" until now.
- Thread starter dannno
- Start date
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
I'm not sure the people who are using Tom Woods to bolster their argument realize that he's an anarchist, the very thing they've been deriding in this thread.
I don't care if Tom Woods is an anarchist or communist, the fact he's able to say what founding fathers believed about immigration contrary to another person's cherry picked argument, is all I needed to prove. I wasn't using Tom Woods to bolster any argument about immigration, just to debunk Enforcer's claim that founding fathers were ________ (fill in the blank with anything, it's going to be cherry picked, unless the word is "white" or "men").
Last edited:
It's resolved. Between onlyrp's attacks upon the foundational principles upon which this country was founded, his ignorance about the Declaration of Independence (such as it being at the head of the United States Code Annotated), his lies about me and his stupidity about the campaign of Ron Paul, we've covered all the ground we can.
Your complaint was???
You understand USCA is printed by West, not the government, right? Although if you said it's printed in USC, government original version, you would also be correct. I find it funny people always tell me it's described in USCA ......not knowing that A means it's the Westlaw private version.
Let me tell you something dumbass. I went to your article. Tom Woods did not prove anything. He came to the conclusion that the founding fathers did not say much about immigration, except to the extent that filling your country with foreigners as citizens was a sure fire way to lose the Republic.
That is a position that I have clearly stipulated to over and over. HOWEVER, GUEST WORKERS ARE NOT "IMMIGRANTS" FOR PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD. Guest workers do not get on welfare; Guest Workers do not vote; Guest Workers are not part of the body politic. Tom Woods does not even address Guest Workers and he does not agree with you.
Your stupidity is annoying at this point. Please go back to high school, get a diploma and leave fully grown adults alone.
The OFFICIAL version is the United States Code ANNOTATED. You aren't even funny at this juncture. You're being an idiot.
No appeals court will even entertain an appeal that does not cite the official version of the law.
Official - Under contract with the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomson Reuters has helped organize and maintain the official U.S. Code since 1926.
From the Westlaw site
Last edited:
LMAO. No, official version is just called USC. That's the first thing you learn in law school.
Annotated codes
Practicing lawyers who can afford them almost always use an annotated version of the U.S. Code from a private company. The two leading annotated versions are the United States Code Annotated, abbreviated as U.S.C.A., and the United States Code Service, abbreviated as U.S.C.S. The U.S.C.A. is published by West (part of Thomson Reuters), and U.S.C.S. is published by LexisNexis (part of Reed Elsevier), which purchased the publication from the Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co. in 1997 as a result of an antitrust settlement.[19] These annotated versions contain notes following each section of the law, which organize and summarize court decisions, law review articles, and other authorities that pertain to the code section, and may also include uncodified provisions that are part of the Public Laws. The publishers of these versions frequently issue supplements that contain newly-enacted laws, which may not yet have appeared in an official published version of the Code, as well as updated secondary materials such as new court decisions on the subject. When an attorney is viewing an annotated code on an online service, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, all the citations in the annotations are hyperlinked to the referenced court opinions and other documents.
Official GPO website
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
Westlaw's USCA
http://store.westlaw.com/westlaw/statutes/usca/default.aspx
Find me ONE SOURCE that says "USCA is official government authored annotation, not published by a private company".
*facepalm* what do you know about appeals?
Last edited:
onlyrp,
Since post #438 I have no less than 50 posts with links that expound on the subject matter we've discussed. If it is important for people to know the truth, they will begin there and read them. For now you can engage in mental masturbation and fantasize that you have a monopoly on the truth and understanding.
Know this: Ron Paul does not agree with you and, quite frankly, I don't know of any politician on Capitol Hill that would agree with you... damn few Americans would agree with you.
Since post #438 I have no less than 50 posts with links that expound on the subject matter we've discussed. If it is important for people to know the truth, they will begin there and read them. For now you can engage in mental masturbation and fantasize that you have a monopoly on the truth and understanding.
Know this: Ron Paul does not agree with you and, quite frankly, I don't know of any politician on Capitol Hill that would agree with you... damn few Americans would agree with you.
I done the research for one case that went to the United States Supreme Court that was won. I have a lot of cases that were never over-turned by the opposing party. I worked in immigration law for six years; constitutional law for twenty. I also worked in insurance and taxes for another five.
Now that you know my resume', is it not a fact that you are willing to work for $10 an hour because you do not have an education? Be careful not to lie. I'll be back home this afternoon. Adults actually WORK for a living.
http://www.gpo.gov/help/about_united_states_code.htm
Back to the westlaw page, I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. When they mean "official" they meant everything contained in USCA, which is USC, is official and authorized, the "A" part is not authorized, and not used by GPO.
Access the official text of the U.S. Code, enhanced with related annotations.
Build a solid framework for federal law research with a trusted, preferred resource. United States Code Annotated (USCA) combines the official text of the U.S. Code with relevant cases, historical notes, indexes, cross-references, and other annotations. A point of entry to the entire Thomson Reuters Westlaw research system, USCA also includes the U.S. Constitution (annotated), selected Code of Federal Regulations provisions, presidential documents, and federal court rules.
USCA is a great resource, but don't confuse the fact that something is in USCA as "therefore it's a law".
I have an education, not a very valuable or useful one. So yes, you can say I don't have an education, I'm not ashamed to admit that. I am willing to work for $10 an hour because I'm poor, it's that simple. Are you a lawyer? If so, you'd know that appeals courts allows citing mandatory and persuasive authority, and USCA contains more than law, so the fact somebody cites to USCA for anything USC, means they might as well be citing USC. They could just as well cite USCS, since it's the same thing as long as they're using USC. If they were citing anything else in USCA, USCS, it might not be considered, nor does it make it a law by virtue of a person using it.
When you need money you'll take what you can get, having a college education doesn't guarantee you'll be paid more, just ask the thousands of college grads who are unemployed. Many people turn down job offers because they think they can do better, I'm a little less picky than the average person, not to say I won't jump ships if I see another better one. But $10 an hour beats nothing unless it puts your life or health at risk.
Last edited:
I certainly don't have a monopoly on truth and I don't care how many politicians agree with me (apparently you don't either). I don't mix rights with law, and I never lied about my disbelief in "unalienable rights".
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,001
Cindy Reyna's dad is a U.S. citizen who legally immigrated from Guatemala. She got a Visa and was petitioning for citizenship and due to the wait, aged out of the system. So she didn't break the law coming here, making that argument invalid. Due to our broken immigration system, Cindy who came to the U.S. at age 15 with her father is not a U.S. citizen. Why did our broken immigration system give a father citizenship and hope for a great new life here in our country and then deny it to his child after giving him hope for his daughter's citizenship and time to setup a new life here? Seems cruel and unusual, to me.
She got a DUI (article says her BAC was above .08) and now they want to deport her.
Also comes up is the debate over DUI laws, since she didn't hurt anybody.
http://www.independent.com/news/2012/mar/01/ucsb-student-faces-deportation/
For the record, this is why you never agree to a blood or breath alcohol test. If you don't agree to the test, most states have implied consent laws where your license will be suspended for a year. But if you get convicted that will happen anyway. Further where I live they only offer deals to DUI suspects that didn't agree to the test. If your tested (and your BAL is over .12) you will not get a deal. If you aren't tested, and they might offer you reckless driving + violation of the implied consent, but you're still better off than getting a DUI. Note, while watching court I saw one immigrant with on his 4th DUI being plead down to a 3rd DUI just to avoid it messing with his immigration status. Not sure why the book is being thrown at this young lady on what is apparently her first DUI. But regardless, if they ask you to blow, just say no!
Took me a while to dig this out, but here's what our constitutional expert and resident Bircher has to say about "equality" and the Declaration of Independence. Anybody who thinks they know more about him is free to challenge. Next time somebody brings up "Our founders believed in egalitarianism, equality", I hope they've found a good response to this.
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
I didn't have a complaint. I was responding to the person that actually wrote the OP making an observation about the thread. You had an ad hom. If it was so verily resolved, I don't see how it could have possibly gone two more pages, but more power to the OP; this really is the longest thread he's ever started.
1) A lot of people you insist on calling "illegal aliens" are willing to put their lives at risk for less than $10 an hour. If they're willing to do work that you won't do, you should leave them alone
2) I don't mind what you're willing to do for money. I have few standards myself. If it's illegal, immoral or painful I have to think really hard on it
3) If you had even a basic education and some kind of skill set, you would not have to work for $10 an hour and you would not care who else is willing to work for that
4) You asked me to prove to you that the United States Code Annotated was the official laws of the United States... I did that
5) If you're such an authority on the law, you should be ashamed to try and argue the law online when a lot of lawyers are willing to pay up to $50 an hour for paralegals, legal research professionals, investigators, etc.
6) You are trying to tell me what you learn in law school, but you've never been. I did go... and graduated. So now it's me laughing my a55 off
7) NONE of this private whizzing contest has any bearing on the issues at hand
8) Ron Paul is the self described Defender of Liberty. According to Ron Paul:
"America's history and political ethos are all about liberty. The Declaration of Independence declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, but notice how both life and the pursuit of happiness also depend on liberty as a fundamental bedrock of our country..."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul734.html
(Cite provided so that others can see, NOTHING is being "cherry picked."
The word Liberty means:
1.
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.
freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty
If Liberty is the freedom from external rule, despotic government control, etc. then you have to be able to articulate WHY an individual is due Liberty and all that follows. If government is making that determination, you still live in despotism. Government does NOT get to decide what your Rights are in a lawful, de jure Republic. So, Rights emanate from somewhere. From where do they come?
onlyrp claims I'm "cherry picking" but, has no counter to the facts:
In the case of United States v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542, 1876)
"Bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this … means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Well now, there we have it from the United States Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is not a right granted by the Constitution, but the right exists. onlyrp, where did that Right come from? It is NOT dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, so the Right, in American law must have an origination point. Let me quote from my previous links:
"Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed on to a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and government..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Did you catch that connection? The Second Amendment, by legal rulings of the United States Supreme Court declares that the Right is not granted by government. ALL of the "BILL" of Rights became effective in 1791, so common sense ought to dictate that, by law, we have the unalienable Rights that were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. I left the citing sources and onlyrp is encouraged to read those links so that he will not make an a55 of himself with a weak criticism of this aspect of the issue
9) When we finagle ways to circumvent the Constitution, the reigning powers that be, which no longer care about the constitutional Republic, are happy to assist in the destruction of constitutional guarantees. More often than not, the constitutionalist - the person who aspires to defend Liberty is the first victim of such laws, regardless of who the masses think the intended target may be
10) onlyrp, like so many of the anti - immigrants, genuinely FEAR what they do not understand. There is a border between Georgia and North Carolina. I can jump into the car with you with a hundred dollar bill in my pocket and get a job in North Carolina, come home every week-end and NEVER threaten North Carolina's sovereignty as a state. I don't need a North Carolina driver's license unless I become a resident of that state. I cannot draw unemployment there (although they will be glad to help me apply to the state I'm a resident of if I qualify under that state's laws.) Unless I have proof of residence in North Carolina, I cannot vote there. onlyrp cannot understand the same distinction when it comes to Guest Workers - and that went beyond the scope of this thread.
But, to try and end the whizzing contest: Send the chick my way and I'll take care of her.
Last edited:
Every time I come on this board, I have to listen to what onlyrp can dig up about what other people's non - binding opinions are about the status of the law of our nation. Feel free to check out the links I provide.
As for any JBS member or in house guru, I prefer to go straight to the horse's mouth. Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you with Ron Paul in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzZjmZ-1dc
Watch the video and THEN argue with me.
As for any JBS member or in house guru, I prefer to go straight to the horse's mouth. Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you with Ron Paul in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzZjmZ-1dc
Watch the video and THEN argue with me.
I won't leave them alone if they're affecting me other ways which I dislike, just like you don't leave somebody alone if they're counterfeiting money.
We must live in different parts of the country, if you get unemployment or can find better jobs, go for it, but if not, $10 beats nothing by a lot (at least for me). Worse yet, some have debts to pay, I luckily don't. I don't care per se who is willing to work for close to nothing, I care about them becoming voters, having voter children, taking their kids to public schools, giving birth in emergency rooms and walking away hands empty.
The annotated part is not, the part where it contains USC is.
Those people are idiots, because they don't know where to shop for cheap law students who will do it for minimum wage or free, I can send you some. I'm not an authority on law, I just know a little bit more than most people who haven't been to law school or paralegal training.
So you would know that USCA is published by westlaw, and not GPO. And while USCA contains USC, which is official code, the A part is not official law (at least not automatically, it CAN BE). By the way, you could've just said DoI is in USC, and that'd end it, you wouldn't need to deal with whether USCA is published by whoeverthehell. Even if I granted you that DoI is law, it wouldn't change the most contradicting facts, that we needed 3 damn amendments to fulfill its dream. By your logic, "merciless Indian savages" is law too, and it's OFFICIAL (don't you reneg on me now), there's NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT REPEALS OR CORRECTS CALLING INDIANS SAVAGES. (this is the spirit by which this beautiful nation was founded on, or are you going to say that part doesn't count because you can't dig me up a Supereme Court decision citing it?)
How's that, Mr. cherry picker?
There's no shortage of poor Mexican girls with a nice booty, move out here to the west coast if you want to take care of them. I'll even train some to do cheap legal research for you.
Last edited:
onlyrp,
You've wasted enough of my time and the time of this board. You blame Hispanics because you are lazy. If you wanted a job, rather than to argue with someone on the Internet, you would be looking for fucking job. All of the things you accuse the foreigners of are things YOU yourself are doing. Most here can understand that.
You are probably a high school drop out and all of 17. Since you don't have a clue as to what the law is, you damn sure cannot show anyone how to do legal research. Even being a process server is a ten buck an hour job... one you could get if you weren't on welfare and sitting on your ass, trying to win a fight that nobody gives a rat's ass about.
Those who are bitching the loudest about the freebies that the foreigners are not getting are the very ones living off the welfare dole because they are addicted to the Internet, their state of the art Dumb Phone, video games, beer, cigarettes and pot. You appear to be the spokesman for them.
Now, one last time in big letters for your pea brain:
"Official. Under contract with the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomson Reuters has helped organize and maintain the official U.S. Code since 1926."
http://store.westlaw.com/westlaw/statutes/usca/default.aspx
If you want to argue with Westlaw that they do not publish the official version of the USC, do so with them and the judges.
"Congress has placed the Declaration of Independence at THE HEAD OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, under the caption 'The organic Laws of the United States of America.' [1 US Code xxxv-xxxvii (1982 ed.)] The Supreme Court has accorded it binding legal force, for example, in resolving questions of alienage (Ingles v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 1830)."
You've wasted enough of my time and the time of this board. You blame Hispanics because you are lazy. If you wanted a job, rather than to argue with someone on the Internet, you would be looking for fucking job. All of the things you accuse the foreigners of are things YOU yourself are doing. Most here can understand that.
You are probably a high school drop out and all of 17. Since you don't have a clue as to what the law is, you damn sure cannot show anyone how to do legal research. Even being a process server is a ten buck an hour job... one you could get if you weren't on welfare and sitting on your ass, trying to win a fight that nobody gives a rat's ass about.
Those who are bitching the loudest about the freebies that the foreigners are not getting are the very ones living off the welfare dole because they are addicted to the Internet, their state of the art Dumb Phone, video games, beer, cigarettes and pot. You appear to be the spokesman for them.
Now, one last time in big letters for your pea brain:
"Official. Under contract with the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomson Reuters has helped organize and maintain the official U.S. Code since 1926."
http://store.westlaw.com/westlaw/statutes/usca/default.aspx
If you want to argue with Westlaw that they do not publish the official version of the USC, do so with them and the judges.
"Congress has placed the Declaration of Independence at THE HEAD OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, under the caption 'The organic Laws of the United States of America.' [1 US Code xxxv-xxxvii (1982 ed.)] The Supreme Court has accorded it binding legal force, for example, in resolving questions of alienage (Ingles v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 1830)."
Last edited:
Similar threads
