maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 ... 127  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19168
Reputation points: 18052
chijohnaok wrote:
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox:

Quote:
"God didn't create borders. We shouldn't have a border,"


https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/for ... er-at-all/


:roll:


Ef U Frmr President Fox



I continually find it amusing when Mexican politicians complain about US border control & immigration. Yet the Mexican immigration control is far more strict.

Trump should make Mexico pay for part of the wall. By implementing a tax on remittances to Mexico. Two birds, one stone. :ugeek:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 26673
Reputation points: 20000
Vicente Fox is a complete hypocrite. They guy is descended from European royalty not from the Aztecs.

Anyone here believe that guy ever picked lettuce? Why is Mexico a shithole-in-the-making? They are a net oil exporter but half the buildings in Jalisco have rebar sticking out of the first floor because the owner is in the US trying to make enough money to send back home. The richest guy in the world sells cell-phones to taco vendors who make $2 a day. How the fuck did that happen?

Mexico has had a feudal-style, blindingly racist, anti-capitalist system of patrones and peones for centuries. You can't get a fucking license plate without paying a bribe.

Hey, Vicente, you are part of the problem, amigo. FU.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm
Posts: 10081
Reputation points: 17509
Build it.

_________________
This post was prepared by C_S as a service to the Internet community. It is intended, but not promised nor guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date. Do not act or rely on any of this information without first seeking the advice of an attorney


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11299
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14720
jack t ripper wrote:
Vicente Fox is a complete hypocrite. They guy is descended from European royalty not from the Aztecs.

Anyone here believe that guy ever picked lettuce? Why is Mexico a shithole-in-the-making? They are a net oil exporter but half the buildings in Jalisco have rebar sticking out of the first floor because the owner is in the US trying to make enough money to send back home. The richest guy in the world sells cell-phones to taco vendors who make $2 a day. How the fuck did that happen?

Mexico has had a feudal-style, blindingly racist, anti-capitalist system of patrones and peones for centuries. You can't get a fucking license plate without paying a bribe.

Hey, Vicente, you are part of the problem, amigo. FU.


That is IT, in a taco shell.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 29941
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -born-stu/

Quote:
Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Friday, January 26, 2018

The crime rate among illegal immigrants in Arizona is twice that of other residents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday, citing a new report based on conviction data.

The report, from the Crime Prevention Research Center, used a previously untapped set of data from Arizona that detailed criminal convictions and found that illegal immigrants between 15 and 35 are less than 3 percent of the state’s population, but nearly 8 percent of its prison population.

And the crimes they were convicted of were, on the whole, more serious, said John R. Lott Jr., the report’s author and president of the research center.

His findings also challenge the general narrative that immigrants commit fewer crimes. Those past studies usually don’t look at legal versus illegal populations, Mr. Lott said.

Mr. Lott said the Arizona data is able to peek behind that curtain, and the differences between the populations were stark.

“There appears to be a huge difference between the two groups,” Mr. Lott said. “The type of person who goes through the process to legally immigrate in the United States appears to be very law-abiding versus even the U.S.-born population. The reverse is true for undocumented immigrants — they are committing crimes, and more serious crimes.”

Among nearly 4,000 first- and second-degree murder convictions, undocumented immigrants accounted for nearly 13 percent — significantly higher than their percentage of the population. Legal immigrants, by contrast, were less than 1 percent of convicts. Native-born made up the rest.

Undocumented immigrants also accounted for five times the rate of convictions for money laundering and kidnapping, and were three times more likely to be convicted of drive-by shootings.

The data covered from 1985 to 2017. For his data purposes, Mr. Lott defined undocumented immigrants as those who weren’t U.S. citizens or green card holders, signaling permanent residency.

He said the crime rates of the undocumented who were ages 18 to 35 was particularly important, given the ongoing debate over legalizing illegal immigrant “Dreamers.” He said the Arizona data showed that population had crime rates 250 percent higher than their share of the population would have predicted.

The Washington Times had asked several experts to look at Mr. Lott’s research paper but some didn’t respond, while one said he was unable to get Mr. Lott’s data and had questions about Mr. Lott’s methodology.

Mr. Lott said told The Times that the data belonged to Arizona and his agreement was that he wouldn’t give out the raw data without their approval.

Mr. Sessions’ citation of the data Friday inserted the information directly into the ongoing immigration debate.

“They’re more likely to be convicted of sexual assault, robbery, and driving under the influence. They’re more than twice as likely to be convicted of murder,” Mr. Sessions said in remarks prepared for a speech in Norfolk, Virginia.

He continued: “Tens of thousands of crimes have been committed in this country that would never have happened if our immigration laws were enforced and respected like they ought to be.”



_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 26673
Reputation points: 20000
Interesting take on "birthright citizenship". According to the author, a law of Congress could change it.

Quote:
Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship (Photo Illustration: NRO)

Donald Trump continues to bewilder political experts. He unabashedly wades into politically dangerous territory and yet continues to be rewarded by favorable poll results. He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote. Establishment Republicans believe that the future of the party depends on being able to capture a larger share of this rapidly expanding electorate. Trump’s plan, however, may appeal to the most rapidly expanding electorate, senior citizens, and may have an even greater appeal to the millions of Republicans who stayed away from the polls in 2012 as well as the ethnic and blue-collar Democrats who crossed party lines to vote Republican in the congressional elections of 2014. All of these voters outnumber any increase in the Latino vote that Republicans could possibly hope to gain from a population that has consistently voted Democratic by a two-thirds majority and shows little inclination to change. RELATED: Not Hard to Read the 14th Amendment As Not Requiring Birthright Citizenship — And Nothing Odd About Supporting Such a Reading Critics say that Trump’s plan is unrealistic, that it would require a constitutional amendment because the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship and that the Supreme Court has upheld this requirement ever since its passage in 1868. The critics are wrong. A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true. (; Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” RELATED: End Birthright Citizenship Now: Barack Obama Makes the Case Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. Furthermore, there has never been an explicit holding by the Supreme Court that the children of illegal aliens are automatically accorded birthright citizenship. In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority’s holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship. Get Free Exclusive NR Content The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms “citizen” or “citizenship.” The idea of birthright subjectship, as Blackstone admitted, was derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant: All who are born within the protection of the king owed perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under common law is the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies . . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” So, the common law — the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance — could not possibly serve as the ground of American citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain. RELATED: Trump’s Immigration Plan Is a Good Start — For All GOP Candidates Consider as well that, in 1868, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the 14th Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common-law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The notion of birthright citizenship was characterized by another member as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government. Nor was this the only legislation concerning birthright citizenship that Congress passed following the ratification of the 14th Amendment. As mentioned above, there was almost unanimous agreement among its framers that the amendment did not extend citizenship to Indians. Although born in the U.S., they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe-by-tribe basis.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... p-edward-j

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 26673
Reputation points: 20000
Quote:
(cont.)


Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become a citizen. Thus Congress used its legislative authority under Section Five of the 14th Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A constitutional amendment is no more required today than it was in 1923. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation. Legislation to end birthright citizenship has been circulating in Congress since the mid ’90s and such a bill is circulating in both houses today. It will, of course, not pass Congress, and if it did pass it would be vetoed. But if birthright citizenship becomes an election issue and a Republican is elected president, then who knows what the future might hold. It is difficult to imagine that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer the boon of citizenship on the children of illegal aliens when they explicitly denied that boon to Indians who had been born in the United States. Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation. No one is advocating that those who have been granted birthright citizenship be stripped of their citizenship. Equal protection considerations would counsel that citizenship once granted is vested and cannot be revoked; this, I believe, is eminently just. The proposal to end birthright citizenship is prospective only. More Immigration The Truth about Immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa ‘The people,’ &c. The Talking Stick Senators Political pundits believe that Trump should not press such divisive issues as immigration and citizenship. It is clear, however, that he has struck a popular chord — and touched an important issue that should be debated no matter how divisive. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party want to avoid the issue because, while both parties advocate some kind of reform, neither party has much interest in curbing illegal immigration: Republicans want cheap and exploitable labor and Democrats want future voters. Who will get the best of the bargain I will leave for others to decide. — Edward J. Erler is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.


_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:01 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11299
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14720
Yes I agree. It doesn't make sense to automatically afford citizenship to anyone born inside the U.S. geographic boundaries. Being born inside the boundaries AND being subject to U.S. "jurisdiction" (else undergoing the naturalization process as it is legally defined) is clearly what was meant and how it should be applied.

"Citizens" of a nation are not just people who live in a common geographic space or who were born in that common geographic space. The founders and the legislators who followed them in the mid-19th century clearly understood this.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:15 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 29941
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/I ... 544863.php

Quote:
Immigration agents raid 77 Northern California workplaces; no arrests reported

By Hamed Aleaziz Updated 9:42 am, Friday, February 2, 2018

Federal immigration agents raided 77 businesses in Northern California this week, demanding proof that their employees are legally allowed to work in the United States, officials said Thursday.

It was believed to be the largest such localized sweep of workplaces by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency since President Trump took office. ICE agents swept into nearly 100 7-Eleven stores nationwide last month and arrested 21 suspected undocumented immigrants.

Thomas Homan, the agency’s acting director, has called for a “400 percent increase” in such workplace operations.

ICE did not identify any of the businesses its agents visited in the Bay Area and the Sacramento region Monday through Wednesday. The businesses were served notices of inspection and given three working days to comply, and no immediate arrests were made.

Experts were struck by the scale of the operation.

“Serving 77 notices of inspection on different employers in the last three days within a single area of responsibility, in this case, San Francisco, appears unprecedented,” said Angelo Paparelli, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles with the firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

James Schwab, a spokesman for ICE, said the raids the reflected “stepped-up” efforts to enforce laws prohibiting businesses from hiring undocumented workers.

The operation is part of a strategy, he said, “focused on protecting jobs for U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully employed, eliminating unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and strengthening public safety and national security.”

Homan has repeatedly criticized California for state and local efforts to protect undocumented immigrants and limit law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with immigration officials. In December, he told Fox News, “We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on. We’ve got to take them to court, and we’ve got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”

ICE has formulated plans for a broader operation in Northern California, intended to arrest large numbers of people considered deportable, but those have been placed on hold because of the sensitivity of congressional negotiations over immigration changes, said a source familiar with the matter.

Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said this week’s raids appeared to be a “retributive move by ICE to punish California and the Bay Area for their decision to not cooperate with other federal enforcement efforts.”

ICE inspections can lead to fines for businesses and criminal arrests of employers, in addition to immigration arrests of undocumented workers. During the last fiscal year, ICE served 1,360 such audits, making 139 criminal arrests and 172 immigration arrests. Businesses were ordered to pay nearly $100 million in forfeiture, fines and restitution.

In raids such as the ones this week, ICE agents demand that employers produce what are known as I-9 forms for their employees, which show that workers produced valid identification such as a Social Security card to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Sometimes agents also ask for employees’ proof of identity and work authorization.

Employees whose documentation fails to prove they have a legal right to work must be fired, and the businesses must verify to ICE that they have discharged the workers, Paparelli said.

The investigations from this week’s ICE raids “remain ongoing,” agency spokesman Schwab said. “Any potential criminal charges or other penalties will be coordinated with the U.S. Department of Justice.”

State legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this year requires that employers notify their workers of such an audit and provide them with the results. The law also mandates that employers ask ICE to obtain a judicial warrant before granting agents access to a work site.

Hamed Aleaziz is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: haleaziz@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @haleaziz



San Francisco wants to be a 'sanctuary city'...well this is the Trump Administration sending San Francisco and California a message

Image

:lol:

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Crusade continues - illegal immigration
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:11 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19168
Reputation points: 18052
Quote:
Homan has repeatedly criticized California for state and local efforts to protect undocumented immigrants and limit law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with immigration officials. In December, he told Fox News, “We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on. We’ve got to take them to court, and we’ve got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”


Fuckin A.

Of course, until that happens places like CA will just give them cover, as evidenced by the Governor's legislation resisting enforcement.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 ... 127  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group