-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
THE BANNED--- THE LIST MAY GROW..
- Thread starter countryclubjoe
- Start date
bill clinton's
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996 (often referred to as "i-RAI-ruh," and sometimes abbreviated as "IIRAIRA" or "IIRIRA") vastly changed the immigration laws of the United States.
This act states that immigrants unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days but less than 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless they obtain a pardon. If they are in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. If they return to the United States without the pardon, they may not apply for a waiver for a period of ten years.
didnt see that much uprising from his act!
ipse
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996 (often referred to as "i-RAI-ruh," and sometimes abbreviated as "IIRAIRA" or "IIRIRA") vastly changed the immigration laws of the United States.
This act states that immigrants unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days but less than 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless they obtain a pardon. If they are in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. If they return to the United States without the pardon, they may not apply for a waiver for a period of ten years.
didnt see that much uprising from his act!
ipse
OC for ME
Regular Member
Do not forget the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Amendments. Unfortunately, they too are subject to the unconstitutionally interpreted 10th Amendment.
OC for ME
Regular Member
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
[h=1]8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens[/h]
Continue to display facts to factless liberals.
[h=1]8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens[/h]
Continue to display facts to factless liberals.
All American Nightmare
Regular Member
Today and tomorrow and the following day. Would you like us to take donations for a one way plane ticket to one of those countries? While I don't think Trump was the answer he was the best of what we were given to choose from. Let's all hope he does the right thing for the nation.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk
All American Nightmare
Regular Member
I think it will take up to one yr to really know.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Now if we can get McCain to quit whining.
Proud to be an American and have no fear of being put on some damn list. I respect the laws of the land as well as prioritizing what must be done to ensure our nation's Sovereignty is maintained.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
If Obama had declared a 90 day shutdown of NICS to strengthen its security (including firearms already purchased and paid for and in transit, and those at the dealer awaiting pickup), but had only applied it to semi-automatics and not all firearms, would any of our members here argue that it wasn't a gun ban because it didn't ban all guns and was only temporary? And if his campaign website still held a promise to ban all guns, wouldn't his supporters secretly smile and think, "Yes we will... just not yet!"
There's a consistent misuse of the constitution and "rights" in this thread. Every person in the world has the same rights. They don't flow from any government document. The constitution is a limitation upon government, not a list of permissions given to people. The constitution limits the government no matter where it acts, or against whom.
Apparently they don't control them tightly enough to keep them out of the hands of murderous, white nationalist, Trump fans -- like the shooter.
Sunday morning they had to back off and admit that rejecting LPRs was wrong and beyond the authority of an EO.
This whole goat screw was because arrogant people who think they're above the law found out that they're not.
After eight years of complaining about Obama doing the same thing, I shake my head at Trump apologists cheering their guy doing it.
There's a consistent misuse of the constitution and "rights" in this thread. Every person in the world has the same rights. They don't flow from any government document. The constitution is a limitation upon government, not a list of permissions given to people. The constitution limits the government no matter where it acts, or against whom.
Apparently they don't control them tightly enough to keep them out of the hands of murderous, white nationalist, Trump fans -- like the shooter.
Yes, it's rather like trying to point out to Trump supporters that the EO illegally ordered rejection of legal permanent residents. Over the objection of DHS, Bannon forced it through, with the order finally reaching points of entry at 3 a.m. Saturday, effective immediately, causing mass confusion.
Sunday morning they had to back off and admit that rejecting LPRs was wrong and beyond the authority of an EO.
This whole goat screw was because arrogant people who think they're above the law found out that they're not.
After eight years of complaining about Obama doing the same thing, I shake my head at Trump apologists cheering their guy doing it.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The constitution only covers 'people' IN THE US. It also covers citizens outside the US in regards to actions from US government. It does not even cover rights of citizens from other governments outside the country.
We should not, and should never have serve as the world police force. The size of our military is based on being world cops, and it needs to stop. We are not, and the constitution makes no case for being the savior of the world.
We should not, and should never have serve as the world police force. The size of our military is based on being world cops, and it needs to stop. We are not, and the constitution makes no case for being the savior of the world.
did you mean 'every US citizen' or 'every individual in the US' or did you mean the Batswana who suffers w/o electricity in the Kalahari desert as every person of the world.
if every person in the world has the same rights...there would be no strife nor war or poverty or, or, or...
other administrations have done the same activities, except w/o the fanfare and circus big top..
ipse
Seriously? If you are not a US citizen, YOU HAVE NO US "RIGHTS!" You're ILLEGAL!! Not "undocumented". No voter rights. No social security card. No drivers license. No food stamps. No public education or birth control. No right to protest or demand a new president. You're ILLEGAL!!!! This really isn't that hard of a concept, not sure why so many Libs can't grasp it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JoeSparky
Centurion
So, a permanent US Resident (green card holder) who is NOT a US Citizen but is within the US has no rights? Just where in the US Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS does it say or imply one must be a citizen to have the protections provided or guaranteed by these documents?
Please note: The preceding is a specific request for a cite from you to support your claim of law.
Last edited:
suggestion joe, might check out post 15 as it contains the 1896 cite per se, if the individual is in the US territory.
outside, green card, visa, eh ~ outta luck!
ipse
oh might catch up on post 18 also
Last edited:
no- joe is right. everyone on US soil has constitutional rights. that's just how it works.
read the text carefully:
"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
correct me if i'm wrong, but here's how i read it:
person born in US or naturalized = citizen of US + the state
subject to jurisdiction = under US law first, state law cannot override, but can create where law is absent federally
no state make/enforce = citizens of US
not deprive any person = anyone: citizen of US or non-citizen of US, non state-citizen of their state or citizen of their state
deny any person = anyone in their state follows the laws of that state
Last edited:
Lostboy
New member
That's what I've been saying. They keep bringing up rights and the constitution but neither apply to these people.... yet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Correct. Our federal constitution is not a constitution for the world. It is for the citizens of this nation only. That is clearly spelled out in the first seven words of the document. And there is nothing in the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or the Fourteenth Amendment that would restrict President Trump's actions.
Lastly, Trump's actions do have precedence. See the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The concerns of congress were the same then as now.
hammer, that is the distinction, after being kindly corrected, i made in post 15, as cited in the 1896 decision..protection is afforded only on our soil!
the few, and i mean few, out of the total number of daily influx of individuals entering this country affected by this EO, is statistically insignificant!
so why is the response completely out of proportion ?
sorry, something is going on and is totally amiss ~ huge uncharacteristic demonstrations by citizens in this country, candidly could care less about others protesting in other world venues, over a myriad on who gives a crap issues?
can someone provide a viable explaination why this phenomenon is occuring?
if you notice, nobody is mentioning this phenomenon as being uncharacteristic or questioning nor normalizing the situation with facts ~ is it like a lynch party running a muck, ranting and raging, seeking their brand of justice, on an innocent situation.
wondering out loud, the situation is almost like the country, as a whole, is being played, setup if you will, for....
remember i'm thinking aloud...
ipse
the few, and i mean few, out of the total number of daily influx of individuals entering this country affected by this EO, is statistically insignificant!
so why is the response completely out of proportion ?
sorry, something is going on and is totally amiss ~ huge uncharacteristic demonstrations by citizens in this country, candidly could care less about others protesting in other world venues, over a myriad on who gives a crap issues?
can someone provide a viable explaination why this phenomenon is occuring?
if you notice, nobody is mentioning this phenomenon as being uncharacteristic or questioning nor normalizing the situation with facts ~ is it like a lynch party running a muck, ranting and raging, seeking their brand of justice, on an innocent situation.
wondering out loud, the situation is almost like the country, as a whole, is being played, setup if you will, for....
remember i'm thinking aloud...
ipse
Last edited:
are you saying he can ban green card holders?
but also- you're correct. i think the biggest reason for my outcry against it isn't anything to do with trump (or obama), but the fact that people blindly support things they aren't aware are illegal or unconstitutional.
just because a majority of americans like or approve something, doesn't mean it's right.
oh be careful on this path...let's see here...
a. jim crow
b. segregation
c. lgbt
d. cold war
e. japanese interment
f. oh something near and dear ~ hb2 about to be passed in texas
g. LBJ, Clinton, Bush, & Obama intervention w/society's educational activities...
ad nauseam...
ya know hammer, this is an off the top of my bald spot, a quickie list if you will i am sure you can contribute..
but remember, some items were legal and later discerned and found to be against our society's likings, some items were initally illegal and our society has now made them legal and in some quarters like same sex rights, society's religious are still quite in an uproar over the issue(s).
we are quite the fickle bunch...
ipse
Last edited: