XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.conspiracy, alt.atheism   
   From: Kenito@Benito.Het   
      
   On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 04:58:22 -0500, Attila  wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 00:44:54 -0800, Kenito Benito   
   > in alt.atheism with message-id   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 16:39:58 -0500, Attila  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 05:57:47 -0800, Kenito Benito   
   >>> in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>><7mgqkk95ep8krv2g7f02tguag0rvelnpch@4ax.com> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 03:04:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>[...]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> U.S. deportation (or removal) laws, primarily under the   
   >>>>>> Immigration and Nationality Act, allow for the removal of   
   >>>>>> non-citizens for reasons like unlawful presence, visa   
   >>>>>> violations, or criminal offenses (e.g., controlled   
   >>>>>> substances, weapons). The process involves removal   
   >>>>>> proceedings (with an immigration judge) or faster expedited   
   >>>>>> removal for certain undocumented individuals.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Note "unlawful presence" is the first thing mentioned.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Immigration laws do require the deportation of illegals and   
   >>>>>> nothing more than being illegal is required.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Read your own post.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     "allow for the removal of non-citizens for   
   >>>>>reasons like unlawful presence"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Not REQUIRED as you claimed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>     I made a similar observation. It will be entertaining to see how   
   >>>>Attila diverts from his erroneous claim.   
   >>>   
   >>>The only claim I make is that I support the deportation of   
   >>>every illegal as soon as possible without exception. Federal   
   >>>law supports this position.   
   >>>   
   >>>Nowhere does any law say "They may be here illegally but   
   >>>they should not be deported".   
   >>   
   >>     You claim it's required, then that it's allowed, with no mention   
   >>it is required in what you quote.   
   >>     You destroy your own arguments.   
   >   
   >Generally speaking if a legal remedy to an illegal activity   
   >is allowed it would follow that remedy would be required.   
      
        Cite applicable statutory and/or case law. If you're just   
   "blowing smoke," you will not offer the cite(s).   
      
   --   
   Kenito Benito   
   Strategic Writer,   
   Psychotronic World Dominator.   
   And FEMA camp counselor.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)