This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
nefarious101

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,072

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 4:27 pm » wrote: Do you have an actual comment?

yeah....you seem to lack gender completely.....how did Mr. Pointer get you to post a pic of yourself?

User avatar
ConsRule

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 2,029
Politics: Conservative

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 4:42 pm » wrote: The ruling isn't partisan.  Saying that it is - is nonsense.

Immigration, All immigration, is a Federal (and Federal only) responsibility and duty.

That you aren't happy with it doesn't matter a damn.  You can no more declare War on France than you can play ICE like Abbott did.  He doesn't have that authority.  Federalism, eh?

But they weren't arrested on immigration charges...even the article you linked said that.

And if you don't think this (fairly) young demonrat woman made a partisan ruling to further her career, you are incredibly naive.
 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

ConsRule » 14 Jan 2022, 4:54 pm » wrote: But they weren't arrested on immigration charges...even the article you linked said that.


 
It doesn't matter what they were charged with, it matters what they are.

Abbott was trying to beat the system, for political reasons, and has been shut down.  All those people, men I'm better, will have to be released to ICE, who should have had them in the first place.

Abbott is not the Federal Government.  Nor can he act in its place without being authorized to do so.  End of debate, there isn't any.
 

User avatar
ConsRule

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 2,029
Politics: Conservative

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 4:58 pm » wrote: It doesn't matter what they were charged with, it matters what they are.

Abbott was trying to beat the system, for political reasons, and has been shut down.  All those people, men I'm better, will have to be released to ICE, who should have had them in the first place.

Abbott is not the Federal Government.  Nor can he act in its place without being authorized to do so.  End of debate, there isn't any.
It does matter what they were charged with.  Texas law enforcement has every right to arrest someone for violating Texas law...it matters not if they are a citizen of the US.  Foreign nationals can be arrested for breaking Texas law whether they are legally here or illegally here. It happens all the time.

They will have to be released to ICE only after they are adjudicated in the Texas courts for violating Texas laws.

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

ConsRule » 14 Jan 2022, 5:12 pm » wrote: It does matter what they were charged with.  Texas law enforcement has every right to arrest someone for violating Texas law...it matters not if they are a citizen of the US.  Foreign nationals can be arrested for breaking Texas law whether they are legally here or illegally here. It happens all the time.

They will have to be released to ICE only after they are adjudicated in the Texas courts for violating Texas laws.
All of that is untrue in this case, as the men were "intentionally" arrested by the State and not turned over to ICE.  Those arguments died in court and don't bother trying them on me - they are DOA (as is Abbott's usurpation of Federal Authority).

They should all sue the State of Texas, and Abbott personally, for damages...

 
 
Last edited by Pengwin on 14 Jan 2022, 5:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

nefarious101 » 14 Jan 2022, 3:30 pm » wrote:  Texas judge rules apprehension of illegal immigrant by soldiers during Gov Greg Abbott's 'Operation Lone Star' along Rio Grande was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, opening floodgates for claims from others arrested
  • Operation Lone Star was created by Abbott amidst a wave of illegal immigrants from Honduras and El Salvador crossing the US-Mexico border 
  • Judge Jan Soifer ruled in favor of Jesus Alberto Guzman Curipoma, an Ecuadorian engineer arrested in September and charged with trespassing 
  • Angelica Cogliano, Curipoma's lawyer, said that Operation Lone Star was unconstitutional because it tries to supersede federal immigration law 
  • She added that Curipoma was jailed rather than being considered for asylum, which is within his right 
  • Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza, acting on behalf of the state, actually agreed with the argument that Operation Lone Star violates federal law
  • David A. Schulman filed on behalf of the state in Kinney County, where he argued the case should be heard, because that's where Curipoma was arrested
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... IONAL.html

Wasn't it a Texas judge that gave us birthright citizenship? This is kritarchy ****. 

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:16 pm » wrote: All of that is untrue.  Those arguments died in court and don't bother trying them on me - they are DOA (as is Abbott's usurpation of Federal Authority).

They should all sue the State of Texas, and Abbott personally, for damages...
Apparently this idiot feels illegals can enter our country and break any state or local law with impunity.

You're a **** moron.

 
 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:16 pm » wrote: Wasn't it a Texas judge that gave us birthright citizenship? This is kritarchy ****.

Highly doubtful since that existed long before Texas was even a state.

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:19 pm » wrote: Highly doubtful since that existed long before Texas was even a state.
Texas existed before even the 14th ammendment, retard. 

and birthright citizenship was explicitly based on a rather imaginative interpretation of the 14th ammendment.. 

As always you have no clue what you are talking about.. 

a negro born in the usa was not a citizen until after the 14th

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:21 pm » wrote: Texas existed before even the 14th ammendment, retard. 

and birthright citizenship was explicitly based on a rather imaginative interpretation of the 14th ammendment.. 


 
Yes.

No.

And it had a long history, even before the 14th Amendment, which made it very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthrigh ... al_history

 

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:26 pm » wrote: Yes.

No.

And it had a long history, even before the 14th Amendment, which made it very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthrigh ... al_history

you are opening your mouth before you know ****. As always. As late as the 1920s thousands of high caste Indians were deported from the usa back to India because the Supreme Court decided that high caste Indians are not white. 

Being white was a prerequisite to being a US citizenci.outside of very special examples (a handful of ****** given citizenship for their participation in the revolutionary war for example) until quite recently...Indeed until after birthright citizenship became an arbitrary precedent...which was NOT prior to the state of Texas, as you ignorantly claimed. 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:21 pm » wrote:
a negro born in the usa was not a citizen until after the 14th
That is because - most of them were "property", like women and children and livestock.

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:30 pm » wrote: That is because - most of them were "property", like women and children and livestock.
don't tell me what it was because of. You have already been exposed as not knowing ****. It is because the usa was seen as a country where whites were sovereign, like Israel is a country where jews are sovereign. 
 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:29 pm » wrote: you are opening your mouth before you know ****. As always. As late as the 1920s thousands of high caste Indians were deported from the usa back to India because the Supreme Court decided that high caste Indians are not white. 

Being white was a prerequisite to being a US citizenci.outside of very special examples (a handful of ****** given citizenship for their participation in the revolutionary war for example) until quite recently...Indeed until after birthright citizenship became an arbitrary precedent...which was NOT prior to the state of Texas, as you ignorantly claimed.

Two Americans have a baby in France.  They return the U.S. with the baby, 200 years ago.

Was the baby a citizen?  Yes.  

And I doubt, but I can likely find it, many references to women who came here and had babies, who were then citizens, long before the 14th Amendment made it absolutely clear, which only came about because of the Civil War.

Brithright was as old as the hills here and in England.  That's where we got it from.
 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:31 pm » wrote: don't tell me what it was because of. You have already been exposed as not knowing ****. It is because the usa was seen as a country where whites were sovereign, like Israel is a country where jews are sovereign.

Save the White Pride, Hitler Youth.
 

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:34 pm » wrote: Two Americans have a baby in France.  They return the U.S. with the baby, 200 years ago.

Was the baby a citizen?  Yes.  

And I doubt, but I can likely find it, many references to women who came here and had babies, who were then citizens, long before the 14th Amendment made it absolutely clear, which only came about because of the Civil War.

Brithright was as old as the hills here and in England.  That's where we got it from.
Even the 14th ammendment makes clear that a person is not a citizen if their natural allegiance is to another state. 

You can assert that **** is otherwise because it is some prior in your own arbitrary ethic...but the historical fact is that birthright citizenship was generally seen as absurd. 

This is because people used to have a sane idea of what makes a nation sovereign. You do not. You can act smug because modern us law does promote birthright citizenship...but your great grandchildren I'm Vietnam, if you had children there,, would still not be citizens. That is actually the norm globally today and throughout history. 
 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:38 pm » wrote: ...but the historical fact is that birthright citizenship was generally seen as absurd. 

 
Not here, and not in England, if it is still on the books there (haven't checked), where we got it from.

It has allowed us to become the racially diverse nation that we are today, and you can shove that up your Hitler Youth shorts, Whitey.
 

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:35 pm » wrote: Save the White Pride, Hitler Youth.

exactly only people who support Hitler can even put forth the possibility of having their own country. Thay is why Israel is full of ardent Hitler supporters. 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

FOS » 14 Jan 2022, 5:42 pm » wrote: exactly only people who support Hitler can even put forth the possibility of having their own country. Thay is why Israel is full of ardent Hitler supporters.
Why should anyone - religion, race, culture, whatever, need their own nation?

They don't and that is not the real world now is it?
 
And the U.S. is the nation for - everyone.  We have it all here, good for us.
Last edited by Pengwin on 14 Jan 2022, 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,104
Politics: Fascist

Pengwin » 14 Jan 2022, 5:42 pm » wrote: Not here, and not in England, if it is still on the books there (haven't checked), where we got it from.

It has allowed us to become the racially diverse nation that we are today, and you can shove that up your Hitler Youth shorts, Whitey.
Lol ****. Only after jews took over in the 1960s did the former precedent of white only citizenship become challenged. Historically no. The assumption ways was that a white country has whitr citizenship. Just like all other countries represent their own respective people. You are just wrong. 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Beekeeper, Buffalo, ConsRule, Crazytrain, DeplorablePatriot, dickens, FJB, FOS, GHETTO BLASTER, Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Isabel, Jinn Martini, leftist, LibDave, nefarious101, Neo, neue regel, OdeToJoy, PaperLi [Bot], Pengwin, Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, pwingly, Semrush [Bot], SharminSultana, SJConspirator, Steve Jobs [Bot], supraTruth, Taipan, thelion, Twitter [Bot], Vegas, Yandex [Bot], Zeets2 and 596 guests