Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But this is what it looks like.

[Super-Surprise]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Pssssshhhhh in their case it's not confined to the law!

Although I can sense your frustration with such idiocy, thanks, for your informed and interesting posts

Woof!

Thanks, Dog!

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I've honestly have never seen someone soooo butt hurt about being soooo wrong before.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I've honestly have never seen someone soooo butt hurt about being soooo wrong before.

That's true. A gentleman like me would have just giggled and moved on when something like this was posted:

“Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens.”

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That sounds extraordinarily tedious. Like to the point that the only reason anybody would actually do it is because someone told they couldn't.

And keep in mind, the process is not just administratively individualistic; it is substantively individualistic. That is to say, visa revocation and deportation is ALWAYS related to the conduct or legal status of the individual. Because that is what the law mandates we do in this country -- adjudicate individual violations of law BY individuals.

 

[Pookie]

I've honestly have never seen someone soooo butt hurt about being soooo wrong before.

Oh, the irony.

Yes, Hogan did get a wee bit into the underbrush with you and Ish. But he's pulled himself out quite nicely.

Seriously, you and Ish were so non-responsive to his posts in the other two threads that I don't blame him for starting this one to summarize where everything stands.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

That's true. A gentleman like me would have just giggled and moved on when something like this was posted:

“Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens.”

A true gentlemen would post the complete quote as to try not to skew the context.


"Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants."

A statement that remains 100% accurate.

But I understand you don't understand that...

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Oh, the irony.

Yes, Hogan did get a wee bit into the underbrush with you and Ish. But he's pulled himself out quite nicely.

Seriously, you and Ish were so non-responsive to his posts in the other two threads that I don't blame him for starting this one to summarize where everything stands.

Why? Ignoring the fact it was Christmas and wasn't on. Again and again he assigned false postions and ignored the facts. Why would I engage that bullshit?

My knowledge of the law is limited. I know that. It is why I hire attorneys for anything legal. When several prominent law schools say it would be legal, I believe them. When I use cases those professors quoted and Hogan says they are bullshit I know he is a unreasonable idiot that has a fool for a client...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

A true gentlemen would post the complete quote as to try not to skew the context.


"Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants."

A statement that remains 100% accurate.

But I understand you don't understand that...

And when I specifically asked you if "constitutional protections that normally benefit...people on American territory" included non-citizens, you said "no" and cited the extremely narrow legal holding in Demore v. Kim for the apparent proposition that "non-citizen people on American soil" enjoy NO constitutional protections whatsoever.

Is that what you meant? Do they or don't they?

Here is your second chance to make a 100% accurate statement. Try not to fuck this one up.

 

[Pookie]

Why? Ignoring the fact it was Christmas and wasn't on. Again and again he assigned false postions and ignored the facts. Why would I engage that bullshit?

My knowledge of the law is limited. I know that. It is why I hire attorneys for anything legal. When several prominent law schools say it would be legal, I believe them. When I use cases those professors quoted and Hogan says they are bullshit I know he is a unreasonable idiot that has a fool for a client...

Which prominent law schools? Give a girl a link, woncha?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

And when I specifically asked you if "constitutional protections that normally benefit...people on American territory" included non-citizens, you said "no" and cited the extremely narrow legal holding in Demore v. Kim for the apparent proposition that "non-citizen people on American soil" enjoy NO constitutional protections whatsoever.

Is that what you meant? Do they or don't they?

Here is your second chance to make a 100% accurate statement. Try not to fuck this one up.

Bullshit you liar! I never suggested they enjoyed no protection. I pointed out the difference in protections between criminal and administrative law. As detailed in a article from Yale.

Once again you assign postions. Once again your Amateur knowledge of the law falls short.

Here is some free advice:

Do not ever think you are smart enough to represent yourself.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Why? Ignoring the fact it was Christmas and wasn't on. Again and again he assigned false postions and ignored the facts. Why would I engage that bullshit?

My knowledge of the law is limited. I know that. It is why I hire attorneys for anything legal. When several prominent law schools say it would be legal, I believe them. When I use cases those professors quoted and Hogan says they are bullshit I know he is a unreasonable idiot that has a fool for a client...

Who do you believe when the United States Supreme Court disagrees with law schools?

Or, God forbid, when they disagree with YOU?

 

[richard_daily]

Bullshit you liar! I never suggested they enjoyed no protection. I pointed out the difference in protections between criminal and administrative law. As detailed in a article from Yale.

Once again you assign postions. Once again your Amateur knowledge of the law falls short.

Here is some free advice:

Do not ever think you are smart enough to represent yourself.

Uhhh....

A true gentlemen would post the complete quote as to try not to skew the context.


"Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants."

A statement that remains 100% accurate.

But I understand you don't understand that...

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Which prominent law schools? Give a girl a link, woncha?

Why?

You want to continue to argue something that has been settled and my position proven correct?

Do the research yourself. I didn't bookmark them. Start with Yale, UCLA, and Brown...

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Uhhh....

Having a hard time understanding these words?

that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants."

 

[Pookie]

Why?

You want to continue to argue something that has been settled and my position proven correct?

Sure. I'd like to see which law schools and read their words.

So, link, pretty please?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Bullshit you liar! I never suggested they enjoyed no protection. I pointed out the difference in protections between criminal and administrative law.

Okay. I'm going to try this one more time.

Do "non-citizen people on American soil" under the general provisions of administrative law as SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED under the federal statutes governing immigration, naturalization, visa revocation and deportation, etc. enjoy ANY constitutional protections whatsoever?

Do they or don't they?

 

[richard_daily]

Having a hard time understanding these words?

that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants."

That doesn't change the meaning of what you said.

So did you say it, or were we just dreaming that you said it?

Did you mean it, or did you mean something else when you said it?

You guys and your Living Document... I swear.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Sure. I'd like to see which law schools and read their words.

So, link, pretty please?

You've got to be kidding. They don't make enough popcorn to sit back and watch the bullshit excuses you're going to get for him NOT providing that information.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Which prominent law schools? Give a girl a link, woncha?

There are several, Pookie.

Not just one, not just two, but SEV. ER. AL. As in, sevvvvvvvverrrrrrrraaaaaallllluh.

Do you know how much or many "several" is and how long it would take to concisely link to even half of them, much less all of them? No, you don't know! And better minds than those that commonly frequent this online establishment would know better — indeed, wiser — than to waste the valuable time of their lifespan by attempting a futile measure to teach those lesser minds the errors of their ways by linking to several existences of empirical evidence and proof to the knowledge of greater and better minds.

So yeah, that's where that's at. Yeah.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

That doesn't change the meaning of what you said.

So did you say it, or were we just dreaming that you said it?

Did you mean it, or did you mean something else when you said it?

You guys and your Living Document... I swear.

It most certainly does. It is not a blanket statement it is a statement clarified by additional words... Word you apparently do not understand.

It is not a simple statement like. " We fooled around in my car"

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Giving the morons starting to show up here... It makes me wonder how many actually understand that Hogan was 100% wrong.

Do they not understand words....

 

[richard_daily]

It most certainly does. It is not a blanket statement it is a statement clarified by additional words... Word you apparently do not understand.

It is not a simple statement like. " We fooled around in my car"

What did the additional words "clarify"?

Was the original statement

Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens

your hypothosis, or was it fact?

What was clarified later on that changed what you originally said in this:

Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens

?

If it's not a blanket statement, what is it?

How were the words you said afterwords modifying it to change it's original meaning?

Wait a second...

Is this one of those "cleaver traps" that your daddy is so well known for?

You totally got us, didn't you?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

What did the additional words "clarify"?

Was the original statement
your hypothosis, or was it fact?

What was clarified later on that changed what you originally said in this:

?

If it's not a blanket statement, what is it?

How were the words you said afterwords modifying it to change it's original meaning?

Wait a second...

Is this one of those "cleaver traps" that your daddy is so well known for?

You totally got us, didn't you?

I can certainly see why your wife seeks mental stimulation by searching for young men online.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Giving the morons starting to show up here... It makes me wonder how many actually understand that Hogan was 100% wrong.

Do they not understand words....

Do you not understand these words?

Do "non-citizen people on American soil" under the general provisions of administrative law as SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED under the federal statutes governing immigration, naturalization, visa revocation and deportation, etc. enjoy ANY constitutional protections whatsoever?

Do they or don't they?

And I'll make it even easier for you. If "non-citizen people on American soil" DO NOT enjoy any Constitutional protections under administrative immigration and naturalization law, then it follows that they would be legally INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM those who, as you've said, "Congress decides ... to admit [or] to exclude as immigrants or other entrants" and to whom you have said Constitutional protections do not appy. Is that not correct? Both groups would indistinguishably FAIL TO POSSESS the same spectrum of rights.

And if "non-citizen people on American soil" DO have Constitutional protections under administrative and naturalization law, then it follows that they ARE in some way DISTINGUISHABLE from mere "entrants" attempting to ENTER? Is that not also patently obvious to you?

I'm simply (and most likely vainly) attempting to get you to clarify your position with respect to the legal rights of two different groups of non-citizens -- those trying to GET IN versus those WHO HAVE LEGALLY AND SUCCESSFULLY ENTERED.

Is that really asking too much?