Do they really deserve a green card because our economy sucks ass?

[reaperman lx:ix]

article:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

From what I gathered in the article, some dumbass democrat is going to pass out greencards for illegals because our economy sucks. What is funny is not all Democrats are for this. Now if they do do that, yes the illegals will now have to pay taxes which means they are not going to come forward. If taxes are the issue, why not decrease federal taxes and increase sales taxes? Everyone has to pay sales tax because you have to buy shit to live.

[LEATHERFACE]

You don't think that it's every illegal's dream to become a citizen? I hardly think many would pass up the opportunity to qualify for better jobs and not have to live underground just to not pay taxes.

[lawbster]

You have such a tenuous grasp on reading comprehension that it literally boggles the mind.

[liamgyu]

well we have americans coming to the uk to have kids and get treatment for aids.

is it cos were commie bastards,you dont see me complaining every five fuckin seconds

[eze028]

Amnesty is another way for politicians to build up the voter pool in their favor. The Federal Income Tax is illegal to begin with, it should be abolished, not decreased. Go about getting a green card the proper way like millions of others.

[reaperman lx:ix]

Originally Posted by LEATHERFACE

You don't think that it's every illegal's dream to become a citizen? I hardly think many would pass up the opportunity to qualify for better jobs and not have to live underground just to not pay taxes.

Its not the fact they want to be legal, its the fact that because the are illegal they get all ther free shit our government hands out. Once they are legal some of that shit dropps of and as far as job opportunities, that means they would have to learn other languages and get educated. Which is not a bad idea but would you come forward and pay for shit if you didnt have to?

[G℞EYface]

Sigh. How many children are your educated women getting on avarage? Enough to support your information economy? You should be standing at the borders, begging people to become americans.

Just make sure to capture a lot of Chinese and Indians. Indians because they are very docile and humble, and it is time to pay back for what you did to their land and mother nature, and Chinese because they are not easy to spot and good at maths. Mexicans and Arabics might not be the greatest assets.

[reaperman lx:ix]

I agree with eze028 when he says go about it the way millions of others have.

[lawbster]

Originally Posted by eze028

Amnesty is another way for politicians to build up the voter pool in their favor. The Federal Income Tax is illegal to begin with, it should be abolished, not decreased. Go about getting a green card the proper way like millions of others.

Explain to me why the Federal Income Tax is illegal. Take your time, and show your work. I'd love to hear your ideas on the subject, and perhaps, one day subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously though, explain.

[eze028]

It is unconstitutional for starters.Also it was never fully ratified by the Senate when it was established in 1913. The first 50 seconds is off topic slightly, the rest explains it nicely.


&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385">

[lawbster]

Originally Posted by eze028

It is unconstitutional for starters.Also it was never fully ratified by the Senate when it was established in 1913. The first 50 seconds is off topic slightly, the rest explains it nicely.

[/YOUTUBE]

No, YOU explain, don't just post some conspiracy theorist's video that is clearly batshit.

[lawbster]

Also, be prepared to justify your choice of the term "unconstitutional" with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

[ZZOTH]

Originally Posted by lawbster

Also, be prepared to justify your choice of the term "unconstitutional" with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

where do YOU get off acting like you know shit about the law???

[kaneda33]

hes a cross between ivebeenrocked and twocockstouching


someone please just face fuck this moron already and get it over with

[Angry Amadeus]

I'm not a big fan of borders, but am a huge fan of individual immunity. If I make a ton of money and can afford a manse with a hedge maze, I need some cheap labor to maintain it. If the Jason Anderson's of the world won't do it for cheap, perhaps the Manuel Consuelo Rodriquez Hosecano's of the world will.

[eze028]

Unconstitutional as in if you read the 16th amendment you will find that not enough states ratified it.

It is not some conspiracy, the evidence is there, people just have to learn for themselves. A bit long, but very informative.


&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385">

[lawbster]

Originally Posted by eze028

Unconstitutional as in if you read the 16th amendment you will find that not enough states ratified it.

It was ratified by 38 states. Try again.


I quote US v. Thomas:

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

[El Duderino]

Awesome.

I'll take two please.

[lawbster]

Originally Posted by eze028

Unconstitutional as in if you read the 16th amendment you will find that not enough states ratified it.

Also, where in the body of the 16th Amendment does it say that not enough states ratified it?

How would that even be possible?


I'm not done with you, please continue to explain your remarkable theories to me.

[Mauddib]

Originally Posted by lawbster

It was ratified by 38 states. Try again.


I quote US v. Thomas:

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”