Liz Cheyney is of the ilk that tried to find witches in Salem!! (Page 16): Dude, that isn't the legal code either. Also, the DOJ inst their attorneys to use the term illegal rather...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

straightUp wrote:

LOL - Nice try, but the report that you are refere... (show quote)

Dude, that isn't the legal code either.

Also, the DOJ inst their attorneys to use the term illegal rather than undocumented as it blurrs the line between those here legally and those not.

BIRDMAN

Big Bass wrote:

Don’t forget the huge amounts of f******l some of these animals are bringing in. I believe straight down wants that. To him, it’s time to rejoice over dead Americans.

Yes over 100,000 Americans k**led last year lefty Democrats could give a s**t

Big Bass

Birdmam wrote:

Yes over 100,000 Americans k**led last year lefty Democrats could give a s**t

They rejoice over their deaths.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

https://www.14thamendment.us/info/illegal_alien.html

straightUp Loc: California

Birdmam wrote:

Two of my best friends were k**led by Illegal i*****l a***n fucking scumbags they are scum of the earth

OK, now we know there's a reason why you're so emotional and h**eful toward people you don't even know. I'm sorry you lost your friends but you need to be a man and deal with it. Just because some people k**led your friends doesn't mean everyone that looks like them is guilty.

BIRDMAN

straightUp wrote:

OK, now we know there's a reason why you're so emotional and h**eful toward people you don't even know. I'm sorry you lost your friends but you need to be a man and deal with it. Just because some people k**led your friends doesn't mean everyone that looks like them is guilty.

Lefties disgust me

straightUp Loc: California

nwtk2007 wrote:

Dude, that isn't the legal code either.

It's not a law if that's what you mean, but it IS a legal dictionary and YOU were the one linking to it thinking it proved your point, when in fact it proved mine.

nwtk2007 wrote:

Also, the DOJ inst their attorneys to use the term illegal rather than undocumented as it blurrs the line between those here legally and those not.

First of all, the DOJ does not write the laws. Secondly, I've never heard about this and finally, if it's true, it would suggest that the DOJ, probably under Trump, was trying to manipulate the language in a court to sway opinions. This was common during the Trump regime. I remember when the Trump distributed memos to the CDC, the EPA, NASA and several other agencies with lists of forbidden words. "Science-based" for instance was on the list. None of those agencies were allowed to write "science-based" in any of their reports.

In any case, "i*****l a***n" is not a legal term, no matter how much Trump's DOJ wanted to use it... Nice try though ;)

straightUp Loc: California

Birdmam wrote:

Lefties disgust me

Trust me - any "lefty" that knows you would take that as a compliment. ;)

straightUp Loc: California

nwtk2007 wrote:

https://www.14thamendment.us/info/illegal_alien.html

That's a website called the 14th Amendment and the page says "i*****l a***n" is the term THIS WEBSITE uses...

So you're coming up with a lot of opinions but so far, your only reference to legal terms is telling us that I am correct and you are wrong.

On the other hand, your references to web pages and reports is really showing us how tenacious this battle over legal terminology is. People are obviously making great efforts to validate their use of the term i*****l a***ns. So it begs the question... why?

Why is it so important to refer to them as illegal people? Can you think of any other reason other than persecution? I can't.

BIRDMAN

straightUp wrote:

Trust me - any "lefty" that knows you would take that as a compliment. ;)

Then I’m doing my job

BIRDMAN

straightUp wrote:

First of all, the DOJ does not write the laws. Sec... (show quote)

So since this country was formed we were calling them i*****l a***ns do you know President Eisenhower deported 3 1/2 million what would you call them you guessed it i*****l a***ns

straightUp Loc: California

Blade_Runner wrote:

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

i b James Madison, Property /b br br 29 Mar. 1... (show quote)

Blade, I appreciate the copy/paste here but I have a copy of the Federalist Papers right here on my desk, so in future you can save some time and effort by just referencing the specific paper and telling me what your point is.

You posted this in response to my statement that what Jefferson said about republicanism was not a reference to the Republican Party which wouldn't exist for another century. I don't know what property rights have to do with that.

straightUp Loc: California

Birdmam wrote:

So since this country was formed we were calling them i*****l a***ns.

Incorrect. We didn't even have i*********n l*ws until the 20th century when Americans decided they don't like Chinese people coming here. Before that, people just came here - they hopped on boats, got to New York, or Boston or wherever, stepped off and start looking for places to work and live. None of those Irish or Italian immigrants that came here in the 19th century ever went through an immigration process because there wasn't one which means it would be impossible to actually be an "i*****l a***n". Most of them never even became citizens - they just had children that were citizens by virtue of being born here.

Birdmam wrote:

do you know President Eisenhower deported 3 1/2 million what would you call them you guessed it i*****l a***ns

I had to look that one up and in doing so learned that you are referring to something called "Operation Wetback". (Nice!) This was an operation in which 3.5 million Mexican immigrants were deported and many of them were actually U.S. citizens. I can't find any reference to Eisenhower calling them "i*****l a***ns" either but according to what I've read so far, it wasn't really Eisenhower's baby. The plan was drawn up by some r****t assholes who had to really sell it to Eisenhower who eventually approved it.

So, you're no closer to proving that "i*****l a***n" is a legal term but you're doing a great job exposing the dark chapters in our history that validate things like critical race theory. ;)

straightUp Loc: California

Birdmam wrote:

Then I’m doing my job

You have a job?

Big Bass

straightUp wrote:

You have a job?

Don’t you?