Your post is incorrect in any language.
1 Like
Why do you constantly make ■■■■ up? In fact, Texas is acting lawfully as indicated by the Supreme Court in ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
In ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES we find Texas is now acting within the law when it comes to those attempting to enter, or have entered, the State of Texas illegally.
From the case:
Why do you constantly post misrepresentations and knowingly lie in almost every thread you post in?
JWK
There is no “humanitarian crisis” at our southern border as erroneously reported by our big media. It is an outright invasion of the United States, intentionally orchestrated and perpetuated by the leadership of our tyrannical federal government which includes traitorous, judges, legislators, and our current president of the United States.
Absolutely disturbing.
What’s more disturbing is that people don’t learn from the past, they ignore the red flags.
Same was done in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Hitler was on his way to own the World.
That’s what today’s one of the 3 major religions is doing.
Just like Hitler was propped up by white supremacists today’s concorers are propped up by these indoctrinated bleeding hearts that support Hamas.
They believe that THAT support will win them consideration when the ‘stuff’ hits the fan yet the truth is they will be first to be beheaded because they are at their feet, kissing their feet and close by and stupid.
I so agree…and today’s enemy will not win using a single grain of powder but using a strategy of psychological indoctrination, manipulation and playing on impressionable minds in our colleges and Unis like we see today.
2 Likes
So then…LET’S SHALL find another meaning for this ‘multi-meaning’ term “Shall” in this English language.
Here, I’ll help you with a “Let’s shall”. 
Yes, I am a foreigner but is it a proper language if a conversation between you and I goes like this:
You: ‘Shall we go to the park?’
I: ‘Yes…let’s shall’.
What do you think?
Is that what you were thinking when you say “Shall” is an ambiguous word?
I don’t think so.
In the Constitution “Shall” has only ONE meaning.
You reminded me of Clinton and his “Depends on what the meaning of IS is”.
2 Likes
They are soooo firm in anything against Constitution that they even pick Biden for THE MAN to lead the free World KNOWING he is unable to find the exit from the stage or has only enriching him self and the familly for decades on the Gov. dole and shady deals with enemies of US.
Deep State…not the Constitution is what they bow to.
If the rest of USA had a back bone he would be thrown out long ago.
Maybe now with all the fraud comming out…God willing.
1 Like
And what seems to be ignored is, it cannot be an accident that millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and terrorist foreign nationals are being invited into our country. It is in fact intentional, and thoughtfully executed with full knowledge immigration laws are being flouted, and totally ignored, and the consequences of this massive introduction of millions of foreign nationals is destructive to the common defense and general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
Is it not self-evident this is a carefully planned operation to weaken and destroy the United States as a world power, and that former President Trump was absolutely correct when he referred to the Democrat Party Leadership’s unregulated and massive immigration as a Trojan horse?
What will it take for the American people, regardless of their political party affiliation, to conclude that the United States is under attack and the current Administration is participating in the attack against the United States?
JWK
As the fall of ancient civilizations proves, there is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal and terrorists, of other countries.
2 Likes
Once again you make ■■■■ up. Texas LEOs have authority to arrest illegal entrant foreign nationals.
According to ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES the Texas law is constitutional and State Law enforcement officers may arrest suspects for violating § 1325(a), and also investigate for evidence of illegal entry.
From ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES:
Accordingly, in our hypothetical case, the Arizona officer may arrest the driver for violating § 1325(a) if the officer has probable cause. And if the officer has reasonable suspicion, the officer may detain the driver, to the extent permitted by the Fourth Amendment, while the question of illegal entry is investigated.
And . . .
In our hypothetical case, therefore, if the officer, after initially stopping the car for speeding, has a reasonable suspicion that the driver entered the country illegally, the officer may investigate for evidence of illegal entry.
So, as it turns out, not only may the State of Texas law enforcement officers arrest suspects for violating § 1325(a), State Law Enforcement Officers may investigate for evidence of illegal entry.
Why do you find it necessary to make ■■■■ up and constantly gaslight?
JWK
When will our apathetic Republicans in Congress adopt a resolution, confirming the Democrat Party Leadership is actively participating in and perpetualing an ongoing and planned invasion of the United States of America?
We were discussing 8 USC 1227 which is in the US Code, not the Constitution, and written in contemporary language. We don’t spell it “fhall” any more either like in the Constitution.
People in NY and Chicago are realizing that having the government flood their communities with the world’s poverty isn’t the utopia they were promised:
Hopefully enough Americans realize the fact that this Democrat Party cares NOTHING about them, their families, or their children, but ONLY about power and personal wealth. Hopefully they realize that this Democrat Party cares NOTHING about our National sovereignty and are intentionally using asylum as a ruse to flood the nation with people who they see as easy voters to buy.
i. A state’s right to offer asylum is well known in international law. It follows from the principle that each sovereign state is considered to have exclusive control over its territory and, consequently, over persons present in its territory. One of the implications of this widely accepted rule is that each sovereign state has the right to grant or deny asylum to individuals within its borders. In international law, therefore, the right of asylum has traditionally been seen as the right of a state, rather than the right of an individual.
2 Likes
It’s good to know our Supreme Court has confirmed that every state, and its law enforcement officers, may arrest illegal entrant foreign nationals and investigate for evidence of illegal entry as documented HERE
JWK
America citizens and their children will, and are, paying a very dear price for their apathy in allowing the Democrat Party Leadership to ignore our immigration laws, and their country to be invaded by millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and terrorist foreign nationals.
us v texas settled in June.
thats not made up.
Allan
Which has nothing to do with the fact Texas LEOs have authority to arrest illegal entrant foreign nationals and investigate for evidence of illegal entry.
According to ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES the Texas law is constitutional and State Law enforcement officers may arrest suspects for violating § 1325(a), and also investigate for evidence of illegal entry.
From ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES:
Accordingly, in our hypothetical case, the Arizona officer may arrest the driver for violating § 1325(a) if the officer has probable cause. And if the officer has reasonable suspicion, the officer may detain the driver, to the extent permitted by the Fourth Amendment, while the question of illegal entry is investigated.
And . . .
In our hypothetical case, therefore, if the officer, after initially stopping the car for speeding, has a reasonable suspicion that the driver entered the country illegally, the officer may investigate for evidence of illegal entry.
JWK
When will our pathetic and spineless Republicans in Congress adopt a resolution, confirming the Democrat Party Leadership is actively participating in an ongoing and planned invasion of the United States of America?
Where did you see “fhall”?
What are you talking about?
By the time SCOTUS gets it it will be over with election and too late.
THIS is actually how Democrats play all the time…with smoke and mirrors, with streaching the truth and running out the clock.
That’s what I call playing in the mud.
And if you try to walk the high road there is no chance of winning anything because we are in a different Universe.
All I see ‘spoiled’ here is your spelling of ‘Au Contraire’
Let me enjoy this for a few minutes…
I, one who gets belittled for my spelling and comprehension, IS entitled to these few minutes of joy.
And you, who respects equality, acceptance and all else in the name of ‘Democracy’ will not deny me this, I am so sure of it.
I just went and looked at your cite. “Shall” still means the same “shall.” And it is consistent across DOD, DoS, DoL…
Perhaps if you narrow it down in the code, I could help you.
Is this what is confusing you?
Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:
I’m not confused at all. Context is your friend - read the whole discussion and you’ll see.
No need. I’m reading your posts
1 Like
I see you have posted an article mentioning Arizona v. United States in relation to your comment that “. . . feds have sole authority.”
In that case (Arizona v. United States) we find “The authority to control immigration — to admit or exclude aliens — is vested solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). But after a thorough review of our federal Constitution’s text, the asserted authority is nowhere to be found, nor is it found in the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to. In fact, what we do find in relation to aliens is, Congress is vested with a limited power to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]. And, in another S.C. case we find clarity, regarding the power delegated: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849).
So, to assert today that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive, omnipotent power “. . . to admit or exclude aliens . . .”, and in exercising this alleged power may force upon a State a massive influx of unwanted aliens, is to embrace a subjugation of the very DOCUMENTED REASONS for which Congress was delegated a limited power to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization."
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
