Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > Priority Topics Section > Immigration

Immigration Topics relating to the subject of US Immigration

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-14-2011, 03:49 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Irli

For any who didn't know, FAIR has a companion organization IRLI Immigration Reform Law Institute that deals with the legal aspects of consequences to Citizens from illegal immigration.

IRLI has been active for many years and involved in helping to draft legislation for Towns all over America. Hazleton, Pa. is one of many.

http://www.irli.org/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-15-2011, 07:26 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbass View Post
Agreed. Troops are needed on the border. And the enablers need to be replaced.
Maybe those who are willing to go to the border should be redirected to tracking down the enablers.
According to some information I have received since my previous post, I am retracting my suggestion that a do over of the Minuteman project be attempted.
"
People should do what they feel best. It's not my place to judge other's activism.

I've been thinking of how to get to governmental enablers. Of course there are the election cycles in which candidates will suck the chrome off of political bumpers, so to speak, to get elected. Then they do what they want and find weasel words to justify turning their backs on their campaign rhetoric.

A lot of the problem, as I see it, boils down to numbers and areas of responsibility.

There are hundreds of congressional members who craft legislation and create the governmental budget, which is approved or vetoed by the President. A veto may be over ridden by a percentage vote in Congress.

There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of governmental employees who work in departments directly reportable to the President, including Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Congress may propose the laws and provide the funds these departments operate under, but they are not in the direct chain of command.

How do we get to Governmental employees who refuse to enforce the law? How is it that Obama or anyone in the chain of his command can dictate just which illegals are subject to enforcement and which will not be pursued?

The president can be impeached for dereliction of duty, but I don't see inclination in congress for this sort of action.

How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-15-2011, 10:05 AM
Eagle1 Eagle1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NOTAZTLAN
Posts: 406
Default

How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?


Ilbegone I've thought the same. I think that we can as a response to the unwilling politicians and legal entities that are unwilling to perform on the issue of illegal immigration we can, instead of going back to the borders as we did in 2005, gather under the concept of the American Grand Jury.

The idea is to make the needed accusations against those in power who are aiding and abetting the illegal invasion of this country. In addition we can protest for the removal from office and to have the offenders tried through the court system (even though they own it). This would only have impact if we can get media coverage.

The American Grand Jury can convene and try the politicians and such presenting evidence of their bias against the American People and their favoritism to the illegal alien.

Maybe I'm just desperate but at least it is an idea.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-15-2011, 12:42 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle1 View Post
How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?


Ilbegone I've thought the same. I think that we can as a response to the unwilling politicians and legal entities that are unwilling to perform on the issue of illegal immigration we can, instead of going back to the borders as we did in 2005, gather under the concept of the American Grand Jury.

The idea is to make the needed accusations against those in power who are aiding and abetting the illegal invasion of this country. In addition we can protest for the removal from office and to have the offenders tried through the court system (even though they own it). This would only have impact if we can get media coverage.

The American Grand Jury can convene and try the politicians and such presenting evidence of their bias against the American People and their favoritism to the illegal alien.

Maybe I'm just desperate but at least it is an idea.
There has to be something.

I'm not sure how much "they" own the courts, It may be a crap shoot depending on funds to pursue the strategy and quality of legal counsel retained.

Here in California, as I recall, judges are nominated by the governor then voted on by the population.

At the federal level, judges are nominated by the President and voted on and ratified by the senate. There are thousands of federal judges. With all the other decisions a president has to make, the president probably won't know much about the candidates he is advised to nominate - sometimes by members of his own party in the senate. As well, an attorney who accepts the position will most likely take a huge pay cut to do so, so the acceptance of the offer could boil down to this:

1) extremely dedicated to whatever the candidate perceives to be justice
...A) Is recognized for fair mindedness and fair application of law
...B) Has an agenda which is supported by the President and majority of the Senate at the time of nomination, or is willing to whore himself out for a title.

This is one reason for so many different decisions by different judges on similar issues at the same time and different rulings by appellate courts from the very bottom up to the supreme court.

2) The position is a stepping stone to market oneself as having inside knowledge and experience IE: Elrod Scheister, Att'y at Law, Former Federal Judge

3) A crony on his last gig who couldn't buy another job and lucked out getting lifetime employment on the taxpayers' nickle.

There's lot's of room for incompetence and biased rulings in all three scenarios.



Immigration court is different. An immigration judge is ultimately an employee of the president through the Department of Justice.


I'm not sure about the media. Most "coverage" is either biased opinion presented as fact or sensationalized bullshit. But, I think the story would find its way out.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.


Last edited by ilbegone; 04-15-2011 at 12:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-15-2011, 06:18 PM
Ronbass's Avatar
Ronbass Ronbass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 23
Default Yes, the enablers need to be dragged into court

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement activists need to sue the enablers in court or indict them through peoples grand juries.
Legal action seems to be the only legal way to force these people to do their jobs and obey the constitution or remove them from their positions.

But the question was asked previously; where are the lawyers on our side.

If we don't try it we'll never know whether it will work.

The other side has been dragging us into court for many years now.

A NJ County Sheriff told me that he would not enforce immigration laws agains illegal aliens because he did not want to be sued civilly for racial profiling and then have to come up with about $60,000 to defend himself.

As a matter of fact Arizona got dragged into court and lost the first round.

Sued by the two biggest race hustlers in the country at this time. Obama and Holder.

The civil rights movement has got this country in a strangled hold.

They sue us and we sue nobody.

Instead of going for the big fish like Napolitano, Holder or Obama we should practice on lesser enablers so we can get the hang of it, then as we get better at it go for the big ones.

I'm in: What organization do I send my first donation to.
__________________
www.UnitedPatriotsOfAmerica.com

Last edited by Ronbass; 04-15-2011 at 06:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-16-2011, 07:05 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbass View Post
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement activists need to sue the enablers in court or indict them through peoples grand juries.
Legal action seems to be the only legal way to force these people to do their jobs and obey the constitution or remove them from their positions.

But the question was asked previously; where are the lawyers on our side.

If we don't try it we'll never know whether it will work.

The other side has been dragging us into court for many years now.

A NJ County Sheriff told me that he would not enforce immigration laws agains illegal aliens because he did not want to be sued civilly for racial profiling and then have to come up with about $60,000 to defend himself.

As a matter of fact Arizona got dragged into court and lost the first round.

Sued by the two biggest race hustlers in the country at this time. Obama and Holder.

The civil rights movement has got this country in a strangled hold.

They sue us and we sue nobody.

Instead of going for the big fish like Napolitano, Holder or Obama we should practice on lesser enablers so we can get the hang of it, then as we get better at it go for the big ones.

I'm in: What organization do I send my first donation to.
There is nothing organized for bringing legal action against governmental immigration scofflaws that I know of. I bring it up because it may be possible and because we don't seem to have all the tools we need.

Years ago, in the old SOS, I brought up what I believe to be the necessity of having a legal defense fund. I think it was drowned in all the shouting by some about "blood in the streets" and other stuff I view as unnecessary and exploitable.

Look at how "they" are doing it - and toss aside anger and perhaps even hatred - look at it dispassionately; anger gets in the way of judgment and can be used against you.

As racist and far out there as many of "they" are in the pro illegal movement (and get away with it), they have one thing going for their movement. "They" are dedicated and they don't give up - they believe in what they do. They have a goal, they chip here and there, and they hang on to whatever they have gained. it adds up, and even though a number of them make their living off of racial discord and skimming undoubtedly occurs accumulating wealth doesn't seem to be a large factor in what most of them personally do for their cause.

There is a lot of pro bono and low cost on the pro illegal side.

And they put their egos aside and work together. Mostly, it is not about "I". The far left American political spectrum in general is not about "I", and they get much assistance from it.

Because of the backlash in the 60's against about much of what was before and worming their way into government, as minority organizations they have access to grants and funding just not accessible to us. There will be a lot of effort into continually campaigning for funds from the public. And, the donars will need to see results.

An organization to which members and others entrust with donations has to be accountable for the funds. One side of the house takes the money in and accounts for income, the other side pays the bills and accounts for expenditure. The middle accounts for the the flow between the two. And there are audits by at least two who are not a party to either side or the middle. Embezzlement will kill any effort - if not immediately, it will once suspicion and accusations go public.

And it has to be about illegal immigration and those who aid and abet it. Once cannonades of "Hispanics doing this", "Mexicans doing that", "blood in the streets" and "armed revolution" rhetoric along with conspiracy theory a la "you know who" are unleashed credibility is damaged and it will be used to chip out the organization.

Personal differences and disagreements need to be taken care of out of public sight, and everything has to be squeaky clean or the ship goes down.

Illegal Mexican and other foreign nationals are tools of pro illegal "activists", they are not the organizers nor are they the attorneys who chip away at immigration law and immigration enforcement. Nor are they the "educators" who tell children that race requires loyalty to a foreign nation, sell ethnic nationalism to kids, and spin brown racism as "cultural pride". The distinction needs to be understood that while illegals need to be prevented from entering and need to be deported, it is American citizens of all races who create the draw and aid and abet illegal migration. Nor, as hard as some work to make it so on both sides, illegal immigration is not about race. Although primarily from families with generations of American citizenship and few or no immediate ties to current illegal migrants, there are plenty of Brown skinned people with Spanish last names who don't really sympathize with illegal aliens. That is, until some white yokels get loud with them with the "go back to Mexico" treatment when many of them might never have been to Mexico even as a tourist - and many who did were ripped off and screwed with even more than Mexicans will sometimes do to white Americans in Mexico: because Ortega or Gonzalez born In America somehow turned his back to Mother Mexico, even if he might eat beans with tortillas.

We don't need racial alienation.


Just my two cents.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.


Last edited by ilbegone; 04-16-2011 at 08:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-18-2011, 09:51 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Ron:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbass View Post
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement activists need to sue the enablers in court or indict them through peoples grand juries.
Legal action seems to be the only legal way to force these people to do their jobs and obey the constitution or remove them from their positions.

But the question was asked previously; where are the lawyers on our side.

If we don't try it we'll never know whether it will work.

The other side has been dragging us into court for many years now.

A NJ County Sheriff told me that he would not enforce immigration laws against illegal aliens because he did not want to be sued civilly for racial profiling and then have to come up with about $60,000 to defend himself.

As a matter of fact Arizona got dragged into court and lost the first round.

Sued by the two biggest race hustlers in the country at this time. Obama and Holder.

The civil rights movement has got this country in a strangled hold.

They sue us and we sue nobody.

Instead of going for the big fish like Napolitano, Holder or Obama we should practice on lesser enablers so we can get the hang of it, then as we get better at it go for the big ones.

I'm in: What organization do I send my first donation to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>

Ron:

First thanks for participating.

Judicial Watch is probably the most aggressive law firm that sues the government,

IRLI is also very active.

The NRA-ILA also sues but for gun issues.

I have a couple of others who E-mail me regularly asking for donations.

On the mater of volunteers for the border we note your position. You believe that it has become too dangerous for volunteers.

Lets examine.

* The regular military will not go due to Posse Comitatus.

* The National Guard are all volunteers. These are working stiffs who are called up from their civilian jobs.

* The difference in volunteers is that the Militias/Minutemen are civilian volunteers who are unpaid by the government while the National Guard are civilians paid by the government.

* The border is too dangerous for volunteers but these volunteer's come from the same well spring, our red blooded Americans.

* For my part if the border is too dangerous for one it is also too dangerous for the other.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-22-2011, 04:59 AM
Ronbass's Avatar
Ronbass Ronbass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 23
Default The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.

US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress
http://www.unitedpatriotsofamerica.c...5/default.aspx
__________________
www.UnitedPatriotsOfAmerica.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:20 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

They were on the border in a limited fashion for anti drug smuggler duties before, but it seems it was withdrawn after the kid was killed. I would like to see them there, but I see this to be the main publicly verbalized objection to deploying military along the border. The argument against would be formulated around posse comitatus about Using the military against US citizens. As I recall, Posse Comitatus came about because of the Union occupation using the Military for policing the south after the Civil War with the connotation of the Army being used against against American citizens. The kid was a US citizen.

It's like a war zone from what I understand, we could use them there.

One link to the incident of the kid who died: http://www.ndsn.org/july97/goats.html, I haven't researched enough to draw an opinion of whether it's slanted or not, I just remembered the incident a few minutes ago. I think the article dates it in 1997.


Edit in: I posted this before I read Ron's link to the posse comitatus - the link is a great read, adressed the argument against posting troops on the border.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.


Last edited by ilbegone; 04-22-2011 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-23-2011, 03:59 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Excellent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbass View Post
The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.

US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress
http://www.unitedpatriotsofamerica.c...5/default.aspx
Great article. I agree completely. But we will need a totally new Government before anything like that happens.

Interestingly a Pentagon spokesman testified before Congress last week and offered DOD assistance with the border invasion !!

Now the shocker. Here-to-fore 230 cities in the USA were said to be have the Cartels operating within. The newest just out is - 1,238 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved