It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Francisco to pay $190G to undocumented immigrant over sanctuary law violation, lawyer says

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: andrew778
a reply to: Krakatoa

This is insane.. How he won this case makes no sense and is complete and utter BS that your tax dollars are going to support this illegal alien.



In 2013, San Francisco passed the “Due Process for All” Ordinance. This ordinance limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person’s release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests, sometimes referred to as “ICE holds.” 

These ordinances were last amended in July 2016. Under current law, City employees may not use City resources to:

A. Assist or cooperate with any ICE investigation, detention, or arrest relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of federal immigration law.

B. Ask about immigration status on any application for City benefits, services, or opportunities, except as required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision.

C. Limit City services or benefits based on immigration status, unless required by federal or state statute or regulation, public assistance criteria, or court decision.

D. Provide information about the release status or personal information of any individual, except in limited circumstances when law enforcement may respond to ICE requests for notification about when an individual will be released from custody.

E. Detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody.


sfgov.org...



Reap the whirlwind San Francisco..... REAP IT!!

ILLEGALS know they are illegal and simply don't give a sh!t or they would have come here legally.

Opportunists one and all. They are taking advantage of our systems without having ANY right to do so. Now they just hit the lottery at the expense of the taxpayer......... AGAIN!! SMH

This is just the beginning. Wait until this becomes a "benefit" to seek out, manipulate and exploit.

Scumbag lawyers are smiliing all the way to the bank.


edit on E30America/ChicagoFri, 30 Jun 2017 04:06:22 -05006amFridayth04am by EternalShadow because: add link




posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: misskat1

Its to bad Shasta is amazing, that's where I've seen very very odd things in the sky and on the ground



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Krakatoa

OMG...this is such insanity it would be funny if it were not true. This ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT


Well, it's the law.

All laws have to be obeyed.

The people make the law.

The immigrants have rights too.

Just because a person breaks one law, doesn't mean he isn't protected by other laws.



Federal law trumps state law...its... the law... how does that fit into your statement?




posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

How can someone who isn't even legally allowed to be in the country have the right to use our court system to sue and make a claim? You have to wonder who our political representatives are protecting, it's citizens or illegals?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Krakatoa

OMG...this is such insanity it would be funny if it were not true. This ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT


Well, it's the law.

All laws have to be obeyed.

The people make the law.

The immigrants have rights too.

Just because a person breaks one law, doesn't mean he isn't protected by other laws.



Federal law trumps state law...its... the law... how does that fit into your statement?



The Constitution trumps all laws. It's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution says that whatever Law is not specifically authorized by the Supreme Law to be of Federal concern, is automatically relegated to the States.

So, State Law trumps Federal Law, when the issues are not specifically allocated to the Fed by the U.S. constitution.


edit on 30-6-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Krakatoa

OMG...this is such insanity it would be funny if it were not true. This ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT


Well, it's the law.

All laws have to be obeyed.

The people make the law.

The immigrants have rights too.

Just because a person breaks one law, doesn't mean he isn't protected by other laws.


Illegals must be deported. It's the law. Obey that.


There's no law that says illegals "must" be deported.

The Law allows that people "may" be deported, at the discretion of the officers of immigration.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
cali deserves w/e it gets



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
The Constitution trumps all laws. It's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution says that whatever Law is not specifically authorized by the Supreme Law to be of Federal concern, is automatically relegated to the States.

So, State Law trumps Federal Law, when the issues are not specifically allocated to the Fed by the U.S. constitution.


Correct, 'but' the Constitution also says "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Sec 8), so this means that the laws regarding immigration and naturalization are the Federal Governments purview not the States.

Sanctuary Cities and States are in violation of a Constitutionally mandated Federal power.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Krakatoa

OMG...this is such insanity it would be funny if it were not true. This ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT


Well, it's the law.

All laws have to be obeyed.

The people make the law.

The immigrants have rights too.

Just because a person breaks one law, doesn't mean he isn't protected by other laws.



Federal law trumps state law...its... the law... how does that fit into your statement?



The Constitution trumps all laws. It's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution says that whatever Law is not specifically authorized by the Supreme Law to be of Federal concern, is automatically relegated to the States.

So, State Law trumps Federal Law, when the issues are not specifically allocated to the Fed by the U.S. constitution.



I wish someone would have said that about the constitution to the Obama and Bush administrations...

He already broke federal law. Which is illegally being opposed by the state. Then the state punished itself for breaking their own illegal law.

There's a major disconnect here.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad

originally posted by: AMPTAH
The Constitution trumps all laws. It's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution says that whatever Law is not specifically authorized by the Supreme Law to be of Federal concern, is automatically relegated to the States.

So, State Law trumps Federal Law, when the issues are not specifically allocated to the Fed by the U.S. constitution.


Correct, 'but' the Constitution also says "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Sec 8), so this means that the laws regarding immigration and naturalization are the Federal Governments purview not the States.

Sanctuary Cities and States are in violation of a Constitutionally mandated Federal power.


Section 9 clearly says,



The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress ...but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


So, the most the Feds can do, is impose a $10 tax on each undocumented alien that the state thinks proper to admit.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah. Eff everything.

Good job being asshats.




posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: LockNLoad

originally posted by: AMPTAH
The Constitution trumps all laws. It's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution says that whatever Law is not specifically authorized by the Supreme Law to be of Federal concern, is automatically relegated to the States.

So, State Law trumps Federal Law, when the issues are not specifically allocated to the Fed by the U.S. constitution.


Correct, 'but' the Constitution also says "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Sec 8), so this means that the laws regarding immigration and naturalization are the Federal Governments purview not the States.

Sanctuary Cities and States are in violation of a Constitutionally mandated Federal power.


Section 9 clearly says,

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress ...but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

So, the most the Feds can do, is impose a $10 tax on each undocumented alien that the state thinks proper to admit.



Really you're just going to snip out the part that says "prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," so before the year 1808, I'm fairly sure were past that limitation.

Full quote of pertinent paragraph of Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad

Really you're just going to snip out the part that says "prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," so before the year 1808, I'm fairly sure were past that limitation.


Right. I was hoping you'd notice that. Because you "left out Section 9" entirely, when you quoted Article I. And both Section 9 and Section 8 were written at the same time. And further, the Section 8 only talks about Naturalization. It clearly says,



To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization


That's it.

So, if you want to become a "Citizen" of the United States, the Federal Government decides this.

But, if you're an alien visitor, or any classification of "immigrant" that isn't asking for Naturalization, then the States decide who they will import, give "safe harbor", or grant "Sanctions".

Now, as you rightfully point, after 1808, the Congress "could" introduce a law restricting the states power to decide who they want to "import", but you haven't pointed out any law, that appeared after 1808, where Congress actually "did" remove this power from the States.

So, until you find such a law, enacted by Congress, that removed those powers mentioned in Section 9, they are still valid and operational today, and as effective as before 1808.



edit on 30-6-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   


Never mind the mental gymnastics in trying to equate the phrase "prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight" to mean that the States have any authority in immigration after 1808...

The very act of enacting a law that states/makes immigration and naturalization the responsibility of the Federal Government would remove State powers.

Here ya go, all the laws on US Immigration and Naturalization as laid out by the Federal Government, including people like "migrant workers"

US Citizenship and Immigration Services web site
The whole Immigration and Nationality Act (updated Feb 2013)

And "migrant workers" information because that would be a State by State need... And yet the Feds control that too.

The H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers

Now with all this immigration law information at your finger tips please show me where the Federal Government turned over any immigration and naturalization authority to the States.

Here also is an "appeal to authority":
Federal vs. State Immigration Laws



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad


Now with all this immigration law information at your finger tips please show me where the Federal Government turned over any immigration and naturalization authority to the States.


It's not the Federal Government that has to turn over the power to invite aliens in to the States. It's the States that have that power, as granted by the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, and the States would have to cede that power to the Federal Government through an act of Congress.

The fact that the States "allow" the Federal Government some authority in immigration matters, as a matter of practical convenience, and ongoing "operational policy", doesn't mean that they have "given up" their right to assert their own power, as granted by the Constitution, should they so choose, if and when it becomes necessary for them to do so.

The U.S. Constitution clearly "only" gives the power to "Naturalize citizens" to the Federal Government, and not to determine who the States let in to visit or work there.

This is important, because the State has the right to set its own population goals, its own economic plans, determine its own need for workers, and so the two most important powers the State Legislators require is the power to influence "migration" of people to boost their economies, and "taxation" to raise revenues to provide services and pay for infrastructure. These are the "two levers" of an economy. And no state would give up either power, without a fight.

Of course, the Federal Government has been grabbing more and more power over time, and taking on more roles in many areas of governing, as any institutional entity is wont to do, to enhance their own significance. But, until the rights and powers granted by the Constitution to the States are officially transferred to the Federal Government through some specific act of Congress, the State retain those rights, even if they "allow" the Federal Government to manage those issues on an ongoing basis on their behalf.

For example, when an alien gets a Visa to come to work in the U.S., that Visa doesn't allow him to go work anywhere he wants, it's linked to a specific State and particular Corporation within that state. It is the State that invites him in. If he wants to go work for another corporation, in a differnent state, he has to apply to immigration to make that change. He can't just go, like American Citizens, once he is in the country, and work wherever he wants. He needs either a "Green Card" or "Citizenship" to wander about from State to State changing jobs, and looking for work. So, it's indeed the State that invites the aliens in to work. With regard to visitors, some visitors are also restricted in what states they can visit. So, immigration is really a State issue, rather than a Nation issue.

The thing is, you have to consider why the State of California, with all it's lawyers, who are experts in the Constitutional Law, would think that they have the power to introduce a law declaring the undocumented aliens welcome in their Cities.

If they think they have this power to "invite" in the aliens, that belief must come from somewhere. And the only place it could come from, is that very "Section 9" of Article I, of the U.S. Constitution.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
It's not the Federal Government that has to turn over the power to invite aliens in to the States. It's the States that have that power, as granted by the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, and the States would have to cede that power to the Federal Government through an act of Congress.
The fact that the States "allow" the Federal Government some authority in immigration matters, as a matter of practical convenience, and ongoing "operational policy", doesn't mean that they have "given up" their right to assert their own power, as granted by the Constitution, should they so choose, if and when it becomes necessary for them to do so.


The final arbitrator of what the Constitution says or means is the US Supreme Court, and they disagree with you.
Appeal to authority


The U.S. Constitution clearly "only" gives the power to "Naturalize citizens" to the Federal Government, and not to determine who the States let in to visit or work there.


Well in order to be a “Naturalized citizen” one must immigrate first, and in order for those visitors/workers to the States to legally be within the border of the US they have to do what… Get permission from the Federal Government (visas and green cards)


This is important, because the State has the right to set its own population goals, its own economic plans, determine its own need for workers, and so the two most important powers the State Legislators require is the power to influence "migration" of people to boost their economies, and "taxation" to raise revenues to provide services and pay for infrastructure. These are the "two levers" of an economy. And no state would give up either power, without a fight.


The States still retain these “two levers of an economy” but still have to abide by Immigration law, which is why here recently in California there are foreign national workers that are concerned about not being able to stay and work in the US due to changes in the H-1B visa program.
Cite


Of course, the Federal Government has been grabbing more and more power over time, and taking on more roles in many areas of governing, as any institutional entity is wont to do, to enhance their own significance. But, until the rights and powers granted by the Constitution to the States are officially transferred to the Federal Government through some specific act of Congress, the State retain those rights, even if they "allow" the Federal Government to manage those issues on an ongoing basis on their behalf.


Yes and that is why we have the US Supreme Court, to arbitrate issues of Constitutionality and I have already shown that the USSC has consistently ruled that the US Federal Government (Congress) is who determines immigration law.


For example, when an alien gets a Visa to come to work in the U.S., that Visa doesn't allow him to go work anywhere he wants, it's linked to a specific State and particular Corporation within that state. It is the State that invites him in. If he wants to go work for another corporation, in a differnent state, he has to apply to immigration to make that change. He can't just go, like American Citizens, once he is in the country, and work wherever he wants. He needs either a "Green Card" or "Citizenship" to wander about from State to State changing jobs, and looking for work. So, it's indeed the State that invites the aliens in to work. With regard to visitors, some visitors are also restricted in what states they can visit.


All true, but ‘who’ issues those visas and green cards???


So, immigration is really a State issue, rather than a Nation issue.


No immigration as a whole is a national sovereignty issue.


The thing is, you have to consider why the State of California, with all it's lawyers, who are experts in the Constitutional Law, would think that they have the power to introduce a law declaring the undocumented aliens welcome in their Cities.
If they think they have this power to "invite" in the aliens, that belief must come from somewhere. And the only place it could come from, is that very "Section 9" of Article I, of the U.S. Constitution.


Well if H.R. 3003 passes and becomes law I guess we’ll see if these California lawyers know what they are talking about, because I’m sure this will go to the US Supreme Court.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That might cover his room and board expenses to the feds. ICE should seize the 190k immediately.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad


The final arbitrator of what the Constitution says or means is the US Supreme Court, and they disagree with you.
Appeal to authority


I don't see where they disagree with me. The Supreme law says two things:

1) the states have the power to "invite" in the aliens, and
2) the Congress can overturn this power by enacting legislation after 1808.

And if you look at the legislation they refer to, you'll see that Congress has been busy overturning the right of the state to invite in aliens of various classifications. So, they say, for example, you guys can't bring in any "prostitutes." Then, they say you guys can't bring in any person that would be "deemed guilty of a felony." And so on..





Well in order to be a “Naturalized citizen” one must immigrate first, and in order for those visitors/workers to the States to legally be within the border of the US they have to do what… Get permission from the Federal Government (visas and green cards)


But, there's no legislation that says, you guys can't bring in any aliens at all, that's the Federal Government's job. And the aliens don't even have to enter legally, to get citizenship etc..

Every so many years, the Federal Government grants "amnesty" to all the illegals, and gives them a path to citizenship. That means, you don't even have to come in "legally" to become a permanent resident then citizen, etc..Many citizens of the United States, walking about in America today, came and lived "illegally" in the US for many years, before they got amnesty and became "documented", and "normalized."

So, the idea that someone has to enter legally, to become a citizen, is proven wrong by historical fact.

So, the state invites the "undocumented" in, to work the fields, and then Congress passes an "amnesty" bill, that makes them all regular folks, like the rest of us.

So, there are no laws, but whatever we "make up".

There's no specific law that has removed the power from the states to continue to take in these "undocumented" aliens.



Yes and that is why we have the US Supreme Court, to arbitrate issues of Constitutionality and I have already shown that the USSC has consistently ruled that the US Federal Government (Congress) is who determines immigration law.


Well, in point of fact, no one can become a citizen without the Federal Government permission.

And, in point of another fact, many undocumented enter the states and are welcomed to work in the fields.

So, you have those two facts to deal with, all the rest is what you think things "should be."

The fact is, the Federal Government does exactly what The Supreme Law says they have authority to do: Naturalize people.

And the fact is, the states do exactly what "Section 9" of the same Supreme Law says they have authority to do: Invite in aliens.

That they do these actions, and have been doing them, for as long as the US has existed, is an indisputable fact.



All true, but ‘who’ issues those visas and green cards???


The Federal Government issues, on behalf of the states, and the states collect taxes on behalf of the Federal Government. They both provide services to each other.




No immigration as a whole is a national sovereignty issue.


Nope. But, the Federal Government does "try" to make it an "issue of National Security", in order to claim powers over the states on matters of alien entry. That's why so much "emphasis" is placed today on the "dangers" of letting in the wrong type of folks, because the Federal Government does have the authority over the "defense" of the nation, as granted by the same Supreme Law. They use that excuse, to rob the states of their "divine right" to invite in whomsoever they wish.

That's the battle we are seeing today.




Well if H.R. 3003 passes and becomes law I guess we’ll see if these California lawyers know what they are talking about, because I’m sure this will go to the US Supreme Court.


Well, they are trying to protect the independence of the states from the Federal Government. But, we all know that the Fed will "win" in the end. The founding fathers knew this, they knew that any governmental entity always evolves to absorb more power and responsibility, and they tried to "slow it down" by separation of powers, etc..but, in time, natural law will triumph over anything man constructs, and a dictator will emerge to rule over the land that was once free.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
I don't see where they disagree with me. The Supreme law says two things:
1) the states have the power to "invite" in the aliens, and
2) the Congress can overturn this power by enacting legislation after 1808.
And if you look at the legislation they refer to, you'll see that Congress has been busy overturning the right of the state to invite in aliens of various classifications. So, they say, for example, you guys can't bring in any "prostitutes." Then, they say you guys can't bring in any person that would be "deemed guilty of a felony." And so on..

1) The States can “invite” any foreign national they want, but in order for that person/s to be legally within the borders of the US they must follow Federal immigration and/or visitor laws.
2) Yep, exactly what I said earlier in the thread.
Yep, thank you for agreeing with me, Congress (who represents the States and Citizens of those States to our Federal Government) is who frames and implements immigration laws, not the individual States.


But, there's no legislation that says, you guys can't bring in any aliens at all, that's the Federal Government's job. And the aliens don't even have to enter legally, to get citizenship etc..
Every so many years, the Federal Government grants "amnesty" to all the illegals, and gives them a path to citizenship. That means, you don't even have to come in "legally" to become a permanent resident then citizen, etc..Many citizens of the United States, walking about in America today, came and lived "illegally" in the US for many years, before they got amnesty and became "documented", and "normalized."

Again thank you for agreeing with me that the Federal Government is who makes immigration law, and are the final word on who is within the borders of the US legally or illegally, not the States.


So, the idea that someone has to enter legally, to become a citizen, is proven wrong by historical fact.

And who gave them legal citizen status??? The Federal Government, not the States.


So, the state invites the "undocumented" in, to work the fields, and then Congress passes an "amnesty" bill, that makes them all regular folks, like the rest of us.

Actually the States invite H-2A workers to come and work the fields and H-1B workers to work in more technical/skilled jobs, and I’m sure they invite many other foreign nationals to visit, but as I been saying, in order for those foreign nationals to be legally within the borders of the US they must follow Federal law.
Also if “Congress passes an "amnesty" bill, that makes them all regular folks, like the rest of us” that’s still the Federal Government making the decision on immigration and naturalization, not the States.


So, there are no laws, but whatever we "make up".

This goes without saying, unless you want to talk about being in a true state of nature and natural law. But that would be way off the topic of this thread.


There's no specific law that has removed the power from the states to continue to take in these "undocumented" aliens.

Yes there is, you even acknowledged that fact when you mention… “2) the Congress can overturn this power by enacting legislation after 1808. And if you look at the legislation they refer to, you'll see that Congress has been busy overturning the right of the state to invite in aliens of various classifications. So, they say, for example, you guys can't bring in any "prostitutes." Then, they say you guys can't bring in any person that would be "deemed guilty of a felony." And so on..”


Well, in point of fact, no one can become a citizen without the Federal Government permission.

True and that’s what I’ve been saying, so thank you again for agreeing with me.


And, in point of another fact, many undocumented enter the states and are welcomed to work in the fields.

This also is true (to certain extent) but this does not change the fact that the undocumented worker and the company/person that hires them to work are in violation of Federal law.


So, you have those two facts to deal with, all the rest is what you think things "should be."

I’m pretty sure you are the one that has been operating on the thinking of how things should be.


The fact is, the Federal Government does exactly what The Supreme Law says they have authority to do: Naturalize people.

Again you are agreeing with me, the Federal Government is responsible for immigration and naturalization law, not the States.


And the fact is, the states do exactly what "Section 9" of the same Supreme Law says they have authority to do: Invite in aliens.
That they do these actions, and have been doing them, for as long as the US has existed, is an indisputable fact.

True, and I have never said that the States can’t invite any foreign national they want, but in order for those invited foreign nationals to be legally within the borders of the US they must follow Federal immigration and visitation laws.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
”No immigration as a whole is a national sovereignty issue.”
Nope. But, the Federal Government does "try" to make it an "issue of National Security", in order to claim powers over the states on matters of alien entry. That's why so much "emphasis" is placed today on the "dangers" of letting in the wrong type of folks, because the Federal Government does have the authority over the "defense" of the nation, as granted by the same Supreme Law. They use that excuse, to rob the states of their "divine right" to invite in whomsoever they wish.
That's the battle we are seeing today.

There is no “try” about it, it has been ruled again and again that; “The power of Congress “to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in” is absolute, being an attribute of the United States as a sovereign nation. “That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens, it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.... The United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.”

Cite


Well, they are trying to protect the independence of the states from the Federal Government. But, we all know that the Fed will "win" in the end. The founding fathers knew this, they knew that any governmental entity always evolves to absorb more power and responsibility, and they tried to "slow it down" by separation of powers, etc..

There are a lot of things that I think should be left to the States to decide but immigration is not one of those things, because what’s good for California, Arizona, New Mexico, or any other State may not be good for the country as a whole.


but, in time, natural law will triumph over anything man constructs, and a dictator will emerge to rule over the land that was once free.

History has shown that man made laws have trampled over natural law, and dictators are usually the result of rampant destruction of natural laws.
edit on 3-7-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join