Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If they get good sponsors like Coinbase and Palantyr...
You didn't answer the question.....not that I am surprised. It is typical of your responses.
You are right: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
See above.....
Actually immigration law came much later.....
www.usconstitution.net
As long as they are on US soil. I think Canada would object to Border Patrol being on the Canadian side giving orders.....but you can always ask them.
I try to avoid answering idiotic questions. One that asks if I'm aware of the fact that some illegal immigrants commit crimes falls into that category.
I wasn't talking about the penalty for arriving illegally. As you know. Go back to the example. Would you be happy with one of the guys who assaulted your wife simply getting a free ride home? I'll class that as a hypothetical so you don't have to do any contortions in order to avoid answering it. I think we all know the answer.
As if you are trying to suggest that any immigration law therefore trumps due process? Don't be so nonsensical. And while you're here, get someone to tell the supposed legal expert who goes by the title of Attorney General that prejudging a case by stating on camera that she knows what he did and that the system will find him guilty is just something his defence lawyer will use to help his client. She even accused him of accessory to murder - an offence for which he has not even been charged! No, I'll correct that. She didn't accuse him of it. She baldly stated that he had done it.
I suspect they did a little practice, but not enough to suffice for two or three miles in sweltering humidity at the position of attention.
Oh, well good to know. From you writing some of us here are sure you are aware of much of anything at all.
Oh, I thought that is what this whole conversation was about not some what if/hypothetical contortion exercise on your part. Try sticking to the subject for a change.
No, you are the one who pointed out that immigration was dealt with in the US Constitution. I was simply correcting your error by pointing out that laws affecting immigration came much later.
The conversation was about due process. I thought that was crystal clear. I gave you a hypothetical in the hope that you'd understand the point being made. I guess it didn't help.
No, I said that due process is dealt with in the constiution. I literally told you so in post 127. So go check the fifth and the fourteenth amendment.
They are dumbed down sufficiently in any case, so no need to make any extra effort on my behalf.
Frankly, I don't see a problem here. It's not like Hunter Biden's father is in charge of the federal agency that regulates art or something.
Hypotheticals never make a point except for the lack of a substantial argument.
Where did that come from? You were the one who claimed immigration law was based on the Constitution; I simply pointed out it followed out much later than 1789.
Except he was selling his 'art' while Biden was still in office.
nypost.com
Selling art is just about literally the least conflicted thing a son of a president could possibly do.Except he was selling his 'art' while Biden was still in office.
Hunter Biden sold $1.3M in art — and one buyer was a Dem donor ‘friend’ Joe appointed to a prestigious commission: report
First son Hunter Biden’s novice artwork has raked in at least $1.3 million — with buyers including a Democratic donor “friend’’ who his dad named to a prestigious commission, a report said.…
Such as mobile phone service? Bibles? Boots and sneakers?
I constantly find that hypotheticals are rejected because there's a desire not to give the obvious answer. Needless to say, the person refusing to answer (you in this case) doesn't realise that the refusal itself tells us just as much as the answer would have.
It's due process that is embeded in the constitution. Can you hear that grinding noise? It's your president shredding that very document.
