| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 May 2007 06:16:28 PM |
| Object: |
Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
I can't keep up with all the newsgroup messages and emails I'm getting
about this, so I'm forced to post a general message here and on my
blog.
Consuetudo is a universal legal term meaning, to make it snappy, "a
law that no one cares about anymore". Illegal immigration is a crime
we never gave a damnt about until 9/11.
Desuetude (from the French word d=E9suet, outdated) is a doctrine that
causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and
become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of
time.
The seminal case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion
regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va.
182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992). In that case, the West Virginia state
supreme court held that penal statutes may become void under the
doctrine of desuetude if:
* (1) The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum
and not malum in se;
* (2) There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of
the statute for a long period; and
* (3) There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the
statute.
This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in West Virginia v. Blake, ___ S.E.
2d ____ (W. Va. 2003)
I believe the millions of people who came to the US through our
southern border before 2007 should be granted amnesty out of this
basic principle. To make it very simple, we've been encouraging
illegal immigration for the past 200 years in order to get cheap
hamburgers at Mcdonalds; we can't just all of a sudden tell these
people we're going to separate them from their families and ignore the
fact that we wanted them to come here in the first place.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
.
|
|
| User: "Lets Roll" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 06:17:14 PM |
|
|
<carmelomodica@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178406988.322462.22430@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I can't keep up with all the newsgroup messages and emails I'm getting
about this, so I'm forced to post a general message here and on my
blog.
Consuetudo is a universal legal term meaning, to make it snappy, "a
law that no one cares about anymore". Illegal immigration is a crime
we never gave a damnt about until 9/11.
Desuetude (from the French word désuet, outdated) is a doctrine that
causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and
become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of
time.
The seminal case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion
regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va.
182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992). In that case, the West Virginia state
supreme court held that penal statutes may become void under the
doctrine of desuetude if:
* (1) The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum
and not malum in se;
* (2) There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of
the statute for a long period; and
* (3) There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the
statute.
This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in West Virginia v. Blake, ___ S.E.
2d ____ (W. Va. 2003)
I believe the millions of people who came to the US through our
southern border before 2007 should be granted amnesty out of this
basic principle. To make it very simple, we've been encouraging
illegal immigration for the past 200 years in order to get cheap
hamburgers at Mcdonalds; we can't just all of a sudden tell these
people we're going to separate them from their families and ignore the
fact that we wanted them to come here in the first place.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
The United States most certainly has not been encouraging illegal
immigration for any 200 years. In fact, the United States had fairly
restrictive immigration policies through 1965. The massive immigration
tsunami that is now overwhelming us began in the late 70's and early 80's,
and accelerated after the first "one time only" amnesty during the Regean
administration. Certainly since 1986 the United States has made sporadic
effort to staunch the flood, but malfeasance and greed among the merchant
class and political class has subverted the will of We the People time and
time again. We have built fences, we have increased law enforcement
personnel and presence, we have written new laws, established more
bureaucracy to obtain legitimate identification of legal residence, we
capture and deport, we have done everything but pull out the guns and start
shooting. But there is a certain minority criminal element within our
society, primarily among the business class and the political class, who
will stop at nothing to acheive power or increase their personal wealth.
Nothing suggests that the average American finds it desirable to be served
by illegal aliens; quite the contrary, ergo the repeated attempts to bring
it under control through legislation, which is again circumvented by the
criminal elements.
But, I'll tell you what. We'll make you a deal.
We will amnesty the illegal aliens - sans the criminals - they gotta go
home, or join their business and political cronies.
But, only if you will also let us draw and quarter every business person or
political hack that in any way contributed to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations that did encourage violation of our laws and thwarted
the will of We the People at every turn.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "strabo" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 02:43:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I can't keep up with all the newsgroup messages and emails I'm getting
about this, so I'm forced to post a general message here and on my
blog.
Consuetudo is a universal legal term meaning, to make it snappy, "a
law that no one cares about anymore". Illegal immigration is a crime
we never gave a damnt about until 9/11.
Wrong.
1. Mexican intruders were pushed across the border back into
Mexico by the US Army (Pershing) and by executive order (Eisenhower).
2. The Border Patrol has arrested hundreds of thousands and deported
them.
3. All polls to date show that the majority of Americans understand
the border issues and want illegal aliens out of the country.
Desuetude (from the French word désuet, outdated) is a doctrine that
causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and
become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of
time.
The seminal case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion
regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va.
182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992). In that case, the West Virginia state
supreme court held that penal statutes may become void under the
doctrine of desuetude if:
* (1) The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum
and not malum in se;
* (2) There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of
the statute for a long period; and
* (3) There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the
statute.
The borders of the US are protected by the US Constitution and not
by legislative statute.
This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in West Virginia v. Blake, ___ S.E.
2d ____ (W. Va. 2003)
I believe the millions of people who came to the US through our
southern border before 2007 should be granted amnesty out of this
basic principle. To make it very simple, we've been encouraging
illegal immigration for the past 200 years in order to get cheap
hamburgers at Mcdonalds; we can't just all of a sudden tell these
people we're going to separate them from their families and ignore the
fact that we wanted them to come here in the first place.
1. "we" have not been ignoring illegal aliens.
2. Borders are a constitutional guarantee without which
there would be no nation and no need for an incompetent
or treasonous government.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 01:17:15 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 3:43 am, strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
1. Mexican intruders were pushed across the border back into
Mexico by the US Army (Pershing) and by executive order (Eisenhower).
These facts are so old, you're proving my point for me. Since these
isolated facts, our government has not only failed to secure our
border, they have actually encouraged illegal immigration by their
lack of policy. Our government has in fact made our border a joke. We
cannot throw illegals out now. If we do, the joke will be on us. Let's
not be hypocrites.
2. The Border Patrol has arrested hundreds of thousands and deported
them.
That's nothing compared to how many we've purposely allowed to cross.
It's the same with jaywalking. Even if 0.01 percent of perpetrators
are ticketed, it doesn't mean the law isn't a joke.
3. All polls to date show that the majority of Americans understand
the border issues and want illegal aliens out of the country.
The polls you're talking about are today's polls. I acknowledge that
our policies have changed in the past year. I'm talking about up until
2006.
1. "we" have not been ignoring illegal aliens.
Really? Then how did millions of Mexicans illegally cross our borders?
If we haven't been ignoring them, then we must want them to be here.
Either way, you've proved my point for me. Our immigration laws have
been a joke up until 2006. Mexican illegals already in our country
must have amnesty, or else the world will see us as hypocrites.
2. Borders are a constitutional guarantee without which
there would be no nation and no need for an incompetent
or treasonous government.
Of course they are a constitutional guarantee. But when our governemnt
decides to allow people to freely cross our southern border, we can't
just turn around and pretend that we've had border control policies
where we clearly did not. All I'm saying is that our lawmakers not be
hypocrites, that they admit that the illegal immigration problem is
their fault and accept the consequences, namely amnesty.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "strabo" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 08:51:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On May 6, 3:43 am, strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
1. Mexican intruders were pushed across the border back into
Mexico by the US Army (Pershing) and by executive order (Eisenhower).
These facts are so old, you're proving my point for me. Since these
isolated facts, our government has not only failed to secure our
border, they have actually encouraged illegal immigration by their
lack of policy. Our government has in fact made our border a joke. We
cannot throw illegals out now. If we do, the joke will be on us. Let's
not be hypocrites.
2. The Border Patrol has arrested hundreds of thousands and deported
them.
That's nothing compared to how many we've purposely allowed to cross.
It's the same with jaywalking. Even if 0.01 percent of perpetrators
are ticketed, it doesn't mean the law isn't a joke.
3. All polls to date show that the majority of Americans understand
the border issues and want illegal aliens out of the country.
The polls you're talking about are today's polls. I acknowledge that
our policies have changed in the past year. I'm talking about up until
2006.
1. "we" have not been ignoring illegal aliens.
Really? Then how did millions of Mexicans illegally cross our borders?
If we haven't been ignoring them, then we must want them to be here.
Either way, you've proved my point for me. Our immigration laws have
been a joke up until 2006. Mexican illegals already in our country
must have amnesty, or else the world will see us as hypocrites.
This is not a legal issue. The Constitution is clear. Illegal aliens
have no standing in US courts and attempts to sanction and protect their
existence are unlawful.
2. Borders are a constitutional guarantee without which
there would be no nation and no need for an incompetent
or treasonous government.
Of course they are a constitutional guarantee. But when our governemnt
decides to allow people to freely cross our southern border, we can't
just turn around and pretend that we've had border control policies
where we clearly did not.
Ultimately the American people govern the US and they have spoken -
illegal aliens are not welcome here under any circumstances. The
unlawful entry of millions of foreign nationals constitutes an
invasion and represents a clear and present danger.
It only remains to see if those in office have the
courage to abide by their oaths. If they do not then
the people will either replace them or take direct action.
All I'm saying is that our lawmakers not be
hypocrites, that they admit that the illegal immigration problem is
their fault and accept the consequences, namely amnesty.
Amnesty is the legal grant of pardon for crimes committed. The
people do not approve of this proposal. Such an amnesty would
be an abdication of office and capitulation in the face of
an enemy. Amnesty would invariably lead to further blackmail and
conflict.
The people will not pay for the corruption and poor character of
politicians and bureaucrats. The Constitution stands regardless
of their failure.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MURS radios" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Deportation of ILLEGALS |
06 May 2007 01:24:21 PM |
|
|
If the glove fits, you must DEPORT.
(Hey, it worked for OJ).
- Stewart (San Diego Minutemen)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Useful Info" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
05 May 2007 07:49:36 PM |
|
|
Illegal Mexicans and US employers are teaming up to screw the Ameican
worker.
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/mexico.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ramon F Herrera" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
05 May 2007 09:12:48 PM |
|
|
On May 5, 7:49 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Illegal Mexicans and US employers are teaming up to screw the Ameican
worker.
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/mexico.html
Jobs have no owners and therefore cannot possibly be stolen.
If you like countries where jobs have owners, try the British Chamber
of Lords, any Muslim country, Cuba or Venezuela:
http://www.aa.com
(click on "International Travel, one way".
-Ramon
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steely from Yokohama" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 02:14:45 PM |
|
|
On 5 May 2007 16:16:28 -0700, wrote:
I can't keep up with all the newsgroup messages and emails I'm getting
about this, so I'm forced to post a general message here and on my
blog.
Consuetudo is a universal legal term meaning, to make it snappy, "a
law that no one cares about anymore". Illegal immigration is a crime
we never gave a damnt about until 9/11.
Desuetude (from the French word désuet, outdated) is a doctrine that
causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and
become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of
time.
The seminal case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion
regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va.
182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992). In that case, the West Virginia state
supreme court held that penal statutes may become void under the
doctrine of desuetude if:
* (1) The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum
and not malum in se;
* (2) There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of
the statute for a long period; and
* (3) There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the
statute.
This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in West Virginia v. Blake, ___ S.E.
2d ____ (W. Va. 2003)
I believe the millions of people who came to the US through our
southern border before 2007 should be granted amnesty out of this
basic principle. To make it very simple, we've been encouraging
illegal immigration for the past 200 years in order to get cheap
hamburgers at Mcdonalds; we can't just all of a sudden tell these
people we're going to separate them from their families and ignore the
fact that we wanted them to come here in the first place.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
"We" haven't been doing anything of the kind, we've been screaming
about it in every way there is. The "We" you are referring to are not
the American People, they are some ugly business interests and the
politicians to whose campaigns they contribute to. If we are talking
about "we the people", as you seem to be aluding, a court would have
to be blind to more than justice.
For that matter, there is no "We" for hispanic individuals when they
make half-baked attempts to forward their ugly racial or racist
interests in this manner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 04:30:51 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 3:14 pm, Steely from Yokohama <was-hoy-
pa...@postamerica.net> wrote:
"We" haven't been doing anything of the kind, we've been screaming
about it in every way there is. The "We" you are referring to are not
the American People, they are some ugly business interests and the
politicians to whose campaigns they contribute to. If we are talking
about "we the people", as you seem to be aluding, a court would have
to be blind to more than justice.
Just to remind you: the politicians you're talking about are elected
by and represent the PEOPLE, and the corporations you hate so much are
supported by the PEOPLE. You seem to think it's everybody's fault
except the people's. What have the people done to stop the
corporations and the politicians from allowing illegal immigration? We
could have solved this problem long, long ago, but we were too busy
buting french fries from illegal Mexicans at McDonalds.
For that matter, there is no "We" for hispanic individuals when they
make half-baked attempts to forward their ugly racial or racist
interests in this manner.
I'm not Hispanic. I'm just a logical person who does not want to be a
hypocrite.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steely from Yokohama" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
07 May 2007 10:15:38 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2007 14:30:51 -0700, wrote:
On May 6, 3:14 pm, Steely from Yokohama <was-hoy-
pa...@postamerica.net> wrote:
"We" haven't been doing anything of the kind, we've been screaming
about it in every way there is. The "We" you are referring to are not
the American People, they are some ugly business interests and the
politicians to whose campaigns they contribute to. If we are talking
about "we the people", as you seem to be aluding, a court would have
to be blind to more than justice.
Just to remind you: the politicians you're talking about are elected
by and represent the PEOPLE, and the corporations you hate so much are
supported by the PEOPLE. You seem to think it's everybody's fault
except the people's. What have the people done to stop the
corporations and the politicians from allowing illegal immigration? We
could have solved this problem long, long ago, but we were too busy
buting french fries from illegal Mexicans at McDonalds.
I understand what you're saying, but after being involved with
supporting lobbying for a while and reading on how these players
actually think, you are supposing too much passivity on the part of
corporations and business interests. This is big money involved in
this, enough so that some very-serious manipulation is employed to get
the edge on what is desired. And politicians have been doing that
forever themselves.
Politicians work for the people who get them their job and keep them
in it. Sometimes this is grassroots and they represent their voters
faithfully. Most of the time this is not how they see it however. They
understand that most people are basically idiots and will vote for the
campaign commercial they see, the one they like, especially the one
that attacks the other side. That is bought with money. If you have
more money, you will probably win your election, the odds are much in
your favor. Money doesn't come much from voters, it comes from special
interests.
Your point about the doings of corporations being supported by the
People, because people spend money on the crap put in front of them...
that really is wacked out and I don't know how to comment on that. I
think we could all draw a list and show how absurd that notion is.
Corporate businesses, and politicians, understand that they can get
away with anything if they pare down their "customers" options or make
their options difficult to exercise. This is pretty basic stuff
actually.
For that matter, there is no "We" for hispanic individuals when they
make half-baked attempts to forward their ugly racial or racist
interests in this manner.
I'm not Hispanic. I'm just a logical person who does not want to be a
hypocrite.
-Carmelo Modica
http://modicapolitics.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: Illegal Immigration: The Case For Amnesty, Part 2 |
06 May 2007 02:20:23 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 3:14?pm, Steely from Yokohama <was-hoy-
"We" haven't been doing anything of the kind, we've been screaming
about it in every way there is.
You are a racist and a pig. No one gives a damn what you think.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
