Why Not Come Here?

Who Would Not Want To Come Here?

One of the justifications for letting illegal leans cross our southern border from Mexico is that we (America) is somehow responsible for the economic and societal conditions in the source country. Traditionally, these people have come from central Americas and Mexico. Now we are seeing large numbers hundreds of THOUSANDS of illegal aliens coming from Caribbean (Hati) and now other, non-western hemisphere countries.

The world's population is now well over seven billion. Of all the countries in the world, only a very few have economic and societal conditions equivalent to or better than the USA. Most of them are in Western Europe with a few from the Pacific rim. That leaves most of the rest living in conditions as bad or worse than Russia, China and India. Based on the home-country conditions justification for our open border, there must be four or five BILLION world citizens who would qualify. Name any African country for instance: Who wouldn't want to leave Namibia to live in the poorest area of anywhere in the USA?

The Preamble of the Constitution lays out the purpose for structuring the framework of our government the way it was set down. The policies that have lead us to this point violate most of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.

ICU - are you propagating teh myth of American responsibility for the wrold Poverty of Other Countries?
Advocating Open borders and a welfare state - an unsustainable burden for any country?
have You gone strk raving batshit DPST full bore sheeples?


The constituion is a set of rules for America - but ws written over 200 yers ago - in a very different world, where migration was very difficult.

I disagree - teh Constitution is to be interpreted as law by Our SC - and I do not beleive it mandates our countires' self- simplosion as teh DPST marxist insane nut jobs are trying their best t o inflict on our citizens.



America First

Citizens First

The Vote is a Right of Citizens
Safety and Security within our borders are a Right =- and a first Priority of Government in America./



I recognize dthe DPST marxist Lying fiden criminal cabal objects to all those concepts.

Which is why they are a criminal cabal!

Even giving billions to Haiti with no demands has added to the corruption , something like 29 of the 30 leaders are with sex and drug trafficking so hmm how did they get to are open border

We need to just close our borders and blast anyone who enters illegally. Fuck it! Civil War now! Get it over wit!!!!!!

OEB 11: Please re-read my OP.

I understand and generally agree with your assessment of the current state of affaires.

We need to just close our borders and blast anyone who enters illegally. Fuck it! Civil War now! Get it over wit!!!!!! Originally Posted by winn dixie

This is my understanding of Texas law. I may be wrong on some fine point, but generally speaking:

In Texas, it is legal for a private citizen to use deadly force against trespassers inside your home at any time. It is legal to use deadly force against trespassers outside, on your property at night.

As of Sept.1st, it is legal in Texas to openly carry a firearm in public. It has always been legal to posses and use a firearm on your own private property.

^^ reality not rue , Occupied Burglary is a forcible felony , if you let someone in and tell to leave at some point it becomes burglary not trespass Now I agree if that person is just sitting in your chair and not leaving you cant just shoot you got to call law.

The legal technicalities are like quick sand, for sure.

Yet my point is that a property owner on the border (or anywhere in Texas) may defend their property with deadly force to a degree not possible in other states.

Claymores. [/problem]

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Look at 9.31 (B)

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Yes ( and is the line ready )

Nice read Dutch man.

another dictator hero of eh marxist DPSTs!

Like in Gitmo, mine fields. Lotsa, lotsa of minefields. Make the Cubans pay a high price for overrunning the base.

Dutchman: Thanks for that.
The actual text of a law must be the basis for this type of discussion. IReading it reminds us why lawyers get more per hour than high end escorts.

In the near future we may see how justified (or not) a landowner is in protecting his property here in Texas.

In the past, here in Houston, there have been instances (not involving illegal aliens) where lethal force by a homeowner was used both inside and outside, resulting in the death of a trespasser. . . . and the grand jury refused to indicte. We may see m ore of that in the future.

Sorry right from tx laws ,,, BUT is the line ready ,,,