There's another possibility here, since you get these calls and I don't. Maybe she's read your posts and she's trolling you. barfo
Long answer. Lifetime registered/voting Dem until 2016. The party is almost a total opposite to what it used to supposedly stand for when I started voting in 1973. Accumulation of so much evidence of sedition over the years WikiLeaks, Snowden, over-enforcement and non-enforcement of selected laws capped by the obvious skullduggery in rigging the primary (I was planning on voting for Bernie Sanders) reached the point where I now use my vote against the Dem party in every single instance possible. I will until one of us is gone for good. The Rep party is just as corrupt and anti-American overall, but at least adhere to selected portions of our Constitution including the most crucial Amendment. They get my vote for now as they are the only weapon available today to damage/oppose the Dems. So I changed my registration last year to Republican. The party whose platform actually the closest with my views is the Libertarian Party.
According to your link, politifact, it does not describe any individual living in the U.S. without legal authorization.
Big deal. The term is used. The supreme court has used it multiple times. It's only "half true" because of this?? The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies. On balance, we rate McCraw’s claim Half True. By the way part of an introductory title OR limited to apply to felons are not the same thing so it is a term used in federal law. Anything else you'd like to be proven wrong on?
Uh no. In fact it is in federal law. Section 1252(c) of the "Aliens and Nationality" laws is titled: "Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens." The section authorizes state and local law enforcement officials "to arrest and detain an individual who— (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction."
Perhaps you can link me to were it says that because I've gone through that section of law line by line and can find no such statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1252 I guess you're saying that politifact as well as the Cornell law school are wrong. You're going to have to show me something more conclusive than your quote which appears to be in error. I'd like to go through the law a couple more times to be certain but I just don't have the time so I'll leave it up to you to tell me where in that law your passage is.
Is this federal law? https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1252.html IDGAF what they're defined as in federal law. It's callous.
My quote is directly from the politifact article I posted. So you'd be the one saying their content is wrong. I'm saying their conclusion is wrong. Well, half wrong using their idiotic scale.
On the plus side...I possibly told the governor of NV to go fuck himself today. Not really, I told some woman who sent a text that at first glance made me think it was Sandoval to go fuck herself. Still think it is a computer program, legal or not.
I went through it line by line and couldn't find it and that's why I'm asking you to direct me to where it's in the law as quoted by your link. Look, I'm blind in one eye and don't see particularly well in the other eye so I may have missed it. Can you show it to me?
Using the Windows Find command, the only time on the page the word "illegal" appears is near the bottom in (f)(1). So you are right, for the link you gave.
Here's a quote from within your link - "That act, we saw, relies on the established definition of "alien" spotted earlier. It doesn’t explicitly define "illegal alien," though by our count, the term appears nine times including in a section titled "Demonstration project for identification of illegal aliens in incarceration facility of Anaheim, California" and a section titled "Pilot programs on limiting issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens."" Given that there's no definition of "Illegal Alien" do you suppose a Federal judge would never use the term?
