Thread: Illegal alien arrested under trespass law (New Hampshire)

Shaw,

Oh what beautiful news Watchman, and thank you.

Watchman... you write very, very well. Can we plagerize you and take you off to other forums?? Ahh... again?

You're welcome .. it IS good news.

What did I write .. I'm confused .. I've had little sleep lately .. can you plagerize what?

Ahh .. again?

I'm lost ... but what else is new?

Dear David,

Yes, I certainly agree with you technically.

It is not being done in secret. Everything is being run 'up the flagpole' right in front of you and you fail to understand the processes happening in front of you.

I personally agree with the FLAGPOLE!

Perhaps I should have been more articulate. The press, which is the majority of citizens' education {hopefully not for long} will not touch these "public" actions with a ten foot pole. Once in a while for a 30 sec. segment and then it's "out of sight and out of mind."

Unless we do just what we do, lol, research and dig + know where to find information, most of these deals & agreements are not readily available to the average Joe. The average Joe is usually too busy, pooped & strapped with daily living to accomplish this.

You're an exception, David, as are the good people on this site. Happily so, may I add.

Thanx for the great information.

You are not lost, Watchman.

You are blazing a trail for the rest of us. Thank you for that and everything else!

Dear 2ndamendsis;


Thanks. I find you are also an exception. Supposing you are right about the news media. I steer clear of it. Even articles like the one starting this Topic are pretty much too spun for me. I received the article on an email and just went through it really quick before I deleted it. But David Brooks' name stuck and I started looking around for it. David and I had a discussion about enacting clauses and subject matter jurisdiction so I asked him to send the link so that I could reread the article and when the link failed I hit here as a backup.

The major fallacy in the article is that the police had law in their hand in the first place. RSA 635.3 is for Revised Statutes Annotated. Revised means no enacting clause and without that, the RSA is non-law; the trespass charge is empty because the Mexican man was charged with violating non-law. David and I were enjoying that for a moment.

That is like a layer of an onion. When peeled away we start to realize the law the Mexican man was charged with is nothing more than municipal policies of the home rule city New Ipswich. Internal memorandum and State of New Hampshire corporate policy. Not law. So we start to see the commercial and global municipal structure unfolding. Understanding the information infrastructure dispels the fear and paranoid illusions so one can understand the nature of the illegal immigration "problem". [So often I become presumptious when I hear people talking about secrets.]

Defining the problem is about 90% of the solution.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Everything is being run 'up the flagpole' right in front of you and you fail to understand the processes happening in front of you.

This is all too true, unfortunately. The part that bothers me is that we are electing people to public offices who don't know what it all means any more than I do and the people who know what it means tend to keep that information to themselves. It's like trying to read cryptic messages. And, pardon me for being dumb, but even after it was so graciously spelled out for me, I still don't know what it means. All I know it that it isn't good for any government to be spending way more money than it collects. Seems to me that what we need is a simplified system of letting the people know what is going on right under their noses.

(Clinton ran for office the first time blowing his horn that he had a balanced budget as governor of Arkansas. I used to live in Arkansas and it is my understanding that their state constitution dictates that they MUST retain a balanced budget.)

The NAFTA agreement was so long that people signed it without even reading it. The CAFTA and the FTAA agreements are even longer. All of them leave plenty of avenues for entry for illegal immigrants along with the ones who are going to be invited to take what's left of American jobs if we don't start screaming bloody murder to our legislators. If the people don't put the pressure on, we are going to be floating in dookie up to our eyeballs ten years from now. I don't really care to be living in a third world country that I'm ashamed of. A whole bunch of high-brow explanations of what's going on around us don't mean anything to the average person. simple English would be really nice. Half explanations like the President gives are little better but at least you can understand what the hell the words mean when he talks. If he only knew what he was talking about once in awhile, it might be nice, too. He went to school in TX?

The reason I got interested in the illegal immigrants and their activities is because it is blatant, right there under my nose, and I can't miss it from where I am. I don't need anyone to explain to me that I get turned down for a job but a person who can't even speak English and who is probably an illegal immigrant gets the job? As for the financial end of things dealing with this country, I am sure that if there were any way for one party to call the other on even the most minute details it would have been done long ago. God knows both parties are masters at smoke and mirrors.

There is a base problem here folks. The Feds will not pay for the jail time on the illegal aliens. They hem and haw... they won't pay for any hospital services, and they generally won't pay for anything the States do in the field fo immigration control. They insist it is a Federal Responsibility... they refuse to pay for it. Neat trick... we need to tell the cheapskates at the Whitehouse to pay for the jail time... and the building of new detention centers for housing the illegal aliens!!

Sorry for the double post but I scrolled up as I was leaving the page and noticed this.

It is true. The Federal Gov't dictates what must be done for these people who keep sneaking into our country. The Federal Gov't refuses to secure our country's borders OR defend them. Still, when the states make an attempt to do anything to stop this incessant thievery of the state taxpayers' funds, then the Federal Gov't rains down venom on the states and jerks like the ACLU take them to court over it. So what in the world is it going to be? States rights? Federal rights? Individual rights? Or is it that nobody but the illegal immigrants are supposed to have any rights. It literally makes me sick to my stomach some days!

I pointed out illegal Chinese campaign contributions to get Clinton reelected on a radio talk show and within hours the western ports were closed to all Chinese ships. When it all settled over the weekend (calls between Clinton and Chirac) a new stock market was formed and crashed - the Eastern Market. America and France managed the restructure on Monday so they called it Turnaround Tuesday. The Chinese lost the investment. So Clinton managed to secure the Iridium System of contracts to launch the Global satellite system. Prior to that China had nuclear technology but was shaky about deployment - no rocket technology.

Thanks to Clinton and the other idiots who run this country the Chinese now have so much money invested in our country that if they pulled it out it would ruin us.

Thanks to Clinton and the other idiots who run this country the Chinese now have so much money invested in our country that if they pulled it out it would ruin us.

And they have so much second class crap for sale in our stores that if we don't get them out of here and open our own factories back up it will kill us anyway.

And what else besides that Chinese junk comes into this country in those cargo-tainers? I know that illegal Chinese aliens have been smuggled in. Do we know that a terrorist attempt won't be made by smuggling in anthrax or something in with the toys and kitchen utensils and smelly textiles sent by the Chinese?

Anthrax-maybe.But here in the Bay Area they have been found to have a new strain of Hepatitis previously unknown here.Let's not forget Bird Flu either as a real possibility.

The NAFTA agreement was so long that people signed it without even reading it. The CAFTA and the FTAA agreements are even longer.

What most elected officials do when it comes to reading a bill is start at the back. The back is where the "attachments" that tell you what is going to happen if the bill actually passes are located.

Just like when the AgJobs Bill was attached to the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill. Had it not been for lots of attention focused on this particular bill, it might have gone unnoticed by elected officials who were not on the floor until the bill actually cames up for the cloture vote.

A perfect example is HB 1183. The elected officials came right out and said they "skimmed it" and thinking "it sounded good", they signed up to Co-Sponsor it. Then, upon "closer inspection" they realized it was not a good idea and then removed their names.

In other words, they thought it would make them look good to the public so they signed it. When they realized that 90% of North Carolinians and about the same amount in the rest of America were AGAINST it, they withdrew their co-sponsorship.

At least they have the guts to admit they made a mistake and removed their names. The ones that really get me are the ones who will not withdraw their names simply because they do not want to appear "wish-washy". The following quote is from the article appearing in today's Raleigh N&O by Ruth Shehan:

So ferocious was the reply that we saw a handful of Jell-O-jointed lawmakers who had co-sponsored the bill (for bidness) ask to have their names erased. The one bit of happy news here is that spineless lawmakers who equivocate always end up getting blasted from both sides.

You can see why the co-sponsors might shy away from removing their names. It is immaterial to me if their names remain on the bill. They still have to cast a vote. As long as they vote NO, they can remain on the bill as a co-sponsor as long as they like.

It is not rocket science that if one legal citizen of America gets turned away (with in or out of state tuition) because an ILLEGAL immigrant gets their spot in College with in-state tuition, it is an act of utter nonsense. If they get caught being here illegally, they should be sent packing -- not sent to College. Period.

It's not like the College system in North Carolina is lacking in admission forms from North Carolinians and the rest of our Nation! Seems to me with all the talks of lay-offs within the NC College System, we could use a few more out of state tuitioners!!!!!!