Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 196

Thread: Federal Immigration laws are unconstitutional

  1. #1

    Default Federal Immigration laws are unconstitutional

    Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government get the power to pass immigration laws? If they are to be passed, it is a power reserved to the States.

    I don't support immigration laws even if they were constitutional. I also believe that property rights should be protected. Nobody, immigrant or native, should be allowed to trespass. Without welfare (medical, education, and cash assistance), the immigration problem would disappear. The people who come here will be the people you would be happy to have as neighbors. If you can get politicians to enforce border laws, you can get them to enforce laws that prevent immigrants from getting on the dole

    A person stepping across the border does not violate national sovereignty. Only a transnational government or a world government can do that. Borders only have political importance. They don't have economic importance.
    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. "


    "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. "


    Thomas Jefferson



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    In the Preamble to the Constitution, "provide for the common defense" means that the federal government would be responsible for protecting Americans from foreign invaders. Illegal immigrants are the responsibility of the federal government, but, being traitors to the nation, they have shirked their responsibility.

    I'm sure liberals and communists are quite upset that the constitution does not help them with the immigration question. They would suddenly embrace the constitution on that point if it did.
    Last edited by Dunedain; 02-28-2010 at 03:17 PM.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunedain View Post
    In the Preamble to the Constitution, "provide for the common defense" means that the federal government would be responsible for protecting Americans from foreign invaders. Illegal immigrants are the responsibility of the federal government, but, being traitors to the nation, they have shirked their responsibility.

    I'm sure liberals and communists are quite upset that the constitution does not help them with the immigration question. They would suddenly embrace the constitution on that point if it did.
    If the preamble meant anything we would not be murdering the posterity.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunedain View Post
    In the Preamble to the Constitution, "provide for the common defense" means that the federal government would be responsible for protecting Americans from foreign invaders. Illegal immigrants are the responsibility of the federal government, but, being traitors to the nation, they have shirked their responsibility.

    I'm sure liberals and communists are quite upset that the constitution does not help them with the immigration question. They would suddenly embrace the constitution on that point if it did.
    The Preamble only outlines what the Constitution is for. Where in the list of enumerated powers is the power to control immigration? Even if I were to concede that the Preamble had the force of law, immigrants are not an army. Any political power that they get is due to American politicians giving it to them. They are not invading and seizing power.
    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. "


    "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. "


    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Article 1 Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    Congress has the right to set an immigration policy after 1808. Also, under Article 1 Section 8 allows Congress to set a Naturalization policy. This together gives Congress the power to set an Immigration and Naturalization Policy.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    Article 1 Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    Congress has the right to set an immigration policy after 1808. Also, under Article 1 Section 8 allows Congress to set a Naturalization policy. This together gives Congress the power to set an Immigration and Naturalization Policy.
    No, Article 1 Section 9 says that a "tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation..." not that congress can limit immigration after 1808.

    ...and the powers of congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 anyway...

    Your statement requires a leap in logic...


    Quote Originally Posted by 10th Amendment
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Last edited by constituent; 03-01-2010 at 05:54 PM.

  8. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by constituent View Post
    No, Article 1 Section 9 says that a "tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation..." not that congress can limit immigration after 1808.

    ...and the powers of congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 anyway...

    Your statement requires a leap in logic...
    I am taking no leap, you are just completely ignoring the fact that after 1808 the Congress has the right to prohibit Migration, not just importation. The bill just doesn't talk about importation.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    I am taking no leap, you are just completely ignoring the fact that after 1808 the Congress has the right to prohibit Migration, not just importation. The bill just doesn't talk about importation.
    One. MORE. Time.

    The powers of Congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, not Article 1 Section 9. The clause in Article 1 Section 9 doesn't say that congress has the right to prohibit migration after 1808... it says that it cannot limit it before 1808, but can levy taxes or duties.

    Cannot limit before 1808, but can levy taxes or duties in Article 1 Section 9 ≠ Can limit after 1808 in Article 1 Section 8

    Yes, you're taking a leap.

    Now, if you would like to inform this debate a little, research why that little bit was included in Article 1 Section 9 in the first place. I don't know, but would love to find out.
    Last edited by constituent; 03-02-2010 at 05:53 AM.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    Article 1 Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    Congress has the right to set an immigration policy after 1808. Also, under Article 1 Section 8 allows Congress to set a Naturalization policy. This together gives Congress the power to set an Immigration and Naturalization Policy.
    That power only extends to the immigration laws of the States that existed at the time, which was probably 14. The current immigration laws apply to all the States, and therefore are unconstitutional.

    As far as Naturalization goes, that only concerns citizenship. I'm an advocate of free movement of people. I am most definitely not an advocate of immigrants becoming automatic citizens.
    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. "


    "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. "


    Thomas Jefferson

  11. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by constituent View Post
    One. MORE. Time.

    The powers of Congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, not Article 1 Section 9. The clause in Article 1 Section 9 doesn't say that congress has the right to prohibit migration after 1808... it says that it cannot limit it before 1808, but can levy taxes or duties.

    Cannot limit before 1808, but can levy taxes or duties in Article 1 Section 9 ≠ Can limit after 1808 in Article 1 Section 8

    Yes, you're taking a leap.

    Now, if you would like to inform this debate a little, research why that little bit was included in Article 1 Section 9 in the first place. I don't know, but would love to find out.
    No, after 1808 the government does have the right to prohibit migration. They didn't have the power to do so before 1808, but as of 1808 that prohibition on the congress restricting migration is lifted.

  12. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LastoftheMohicans View Post
    That power only extends to the immigration laws of the States that existed at the time, which was probably 14. The current immigration laws apply to all the States, and therefore are unconstitutional.

    As far as Naturalization goes, that only concerns citizenship. I'm an advocate of free movement of people. I am most definitely not an advocate of immigrants becoming automatic citizens.
    No, the power extends over all the states, but prior to 1808, all the existing states at the time of the Constitution had the right to set their own standards. This doesn't mean that Federal Immigration law only applies to those states, all it is saying is that those states prior to 1808 had the right to set their own standard.

  13. #12

    Default

    US Constitution,Article 1,Section 8:
    To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States


    Naturalization:the admission of a foreigner to the privileges of a native-Johnson's Dictionary 1836
    Johnson's 1836-
    http://books.google.com/books?id=SaARAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=johns on's+dictionary&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    As the federal government is clearly given the authority to establish uniform rule of naturalization in the Constitution,and being that naturalization meant at the time 'the admission of foreigners to the privileges of a citizen',the federal government clearly has the authority to regulate immigration by setting standards for the acquisition of citizenship by foreign nationals.This directly relates to immigration,because immigration is simply defined as "an entering into a place" which is what a foreigner must do to get here,with the end result of that immigration being naturalization if that 'entering into' was legal.

    Just like our immigration and naturalization statutes of today ask certain duties be fulfilled by a candidate immigrant who wishes to LAWFULLY become a citizen,there were laws that specified the same in the early history of America.

    If part of those standards state that a person may not 'immigrate' across our border without approval,which they do,and such a violation is grounds for denial of citizenship,which it is,then by quid pro quo a person who immigrates here without prior approval and cannot obtain lawful citizenship because of that violation is in fact here illegally,because they are not citizens of this nation and do not have permission to be here to become citizens.

    Unless you actually believe that the Founders meant in wording that clause to allow foreigners to come and go as they pleased,to participate in our nations economy and politics without ever attempting to attain citizenship,which they most certainly did not,there you have it.

    Constitutional authority over immigration.

    Now some of you may say "Well it doesn't actually SAY immigration,you jerk".

    Why should it?

    If the government can regulate 'the admission of foreigners to the privileges of a citizen',surly it can regulate how those foreigners 'enter into' the nation to become lawful citizens.
    Thats only common sense.

    Just like the First Amendment says in part-

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    Doesn't actually include the place of worship,but its common sense that churches are protected by the First Amendment.

    If the people have the right to free excersize of religion,its only common sense that the churches they worship in are protected too.

    The Constitution shouldn't need to be so particular as to negate the use of reasonable common sense in its understanding folks.

    The federal government does in fact have authority over immigration,just as it does the naturalization of those immigrants.
    Last edited by Kalashnikov Josh; 03-11-2010 at 11:21 PM.
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalashnikov Josh View Post
    US Constitution,Article 1,Section 8:
    To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States




    Johnson's 1836-
    http://books.google.com/books?id=SaARAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=johns on's+dictionary&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


    Unless you actually believe that the Founders meant in wording that clause to allow foreigners to come and go as they pleased,to participate in our nations economy and politics without ever attempting to attain citizenship,which they most certainly did not,there you have it.
    This is exactly my point with one exception. Non-citizens should not, IMO, be able to participate in politics. My point actually ties in with the whole enemy combatant thing. The Constitutional protections for criminal defendents are for "persons", not for citizens. Once you're in the jurisdiction of the US, you are protected by it's laws. This, however, does not give you any political rights such as the right to vote. That comes with citizenship. I do recall, however, that many states and municipalities did extend voting rights to non-citizens. But that was a long time ago. Either way, that would be a States' Rights' issue.
    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. "


    "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. "


    Thomas Jefferson

  15. #14

    Default


    Funny, just checked that link you posted (to the front cover of the dictionary). Using the google "search this book" feature to search that dictionary for "naturalization" returned zero results....

    so, uh... what were you saying again?

    As an aside, this is one of the most frustrating aspects about debating the pro-wall community. If the facts aren't on their side, they'll just make shit up.

    If you can show me "naturalization" in that dictionary as you defined it, I will not only take my statement back, I'll apologize. Until then, you're full of it.
    Last edited by constituent; 03-17-2010 at 10:13 AM.

  16. #15

    Default

    I understand that some folks may not have 'dictionary skills'.
    Its a symptom of pooblik skewl and the fact they do more to indoctrinate rather than educate.

    You don't have to apologize for that.Its not your fault the progressives think its funny to make people ignorant on purpose.


    You need to actually look through the darn thing instead of relying on the ease of technology to do it for you.You know,start by looking for the beginning letter 'N'....then find 'N' followed by 'a'....then find 'Nat'.....then 'Natu'...and if by that time you haven't found the word your looking for,you got problems......

    I'll make it easy fer ya-

    Heres where the entry is-

    Page Number 227,6th entry from the top.

    I guess it was actually a good thing I spent a lot of my years as a pupil going to military school,where conservative teachers actually cared if I could find words in dictionaries.......rather than trying to make me sing praises to the latest clown in office while trying to find ways around saying the word 'G-d' with the Pledge of Allegiance.......

    And what is it with people automatically assuming I'm for 'building a wall'?
    Please-I'm Jewish,and I have a disdain for walls of that sort.

    I argue instead for better internal enforcement of our naturalization laws-that when the police have just cause to ID people,for example at traffic stops (NOT the police state 'neighborhood sweep' tactics by OberstFuhrer Joe Arpaio thats quickly making his little enclave in Arizona look like Stasi East Germany),they should be just as able to check immigration status as criminal status.
    Arrest and deport as needed.
    Also,I believe that if we make it impossible for illegals to stay here by voiding them of benefits and employment-they will leave.
    We do need border enforcement like what we've been doing -but not just to stop illegals- but to stop the criminal enterprises and classic Mexican political corruption which is flourishing on our border.
    The technologically enhanced patrol thats been taking shape over the past few years in response to the general outcry against illegal immigration on the southern border is far better than any fixed position 'wall' anyway.....

    So if your going to make apologies,please apologize for saying I'm a part of any kind of "pro wall community".

    Next they'll coin the term "waller"....sheesh......
    Last edited by Kalashnikov Josh; 03-17-2010 at 01:39 PM.
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

  17. #16
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

  18. #17

    Default

    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 04-02-2010 at 10:25 AM.

  19. #18

    Default

    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 04-02-2010 at 10:26 AM.

  20. #19

    Default

    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 04-02-2010 at 10:25 AM.

  21. #20

    Default

    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 04-02-2010 at 10:24 AM.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die View Post
    Don't sweat it here is some context.

    If we go back and look at English Law and read works by Blackstone which is the law understood by the founders we can clearly understand what the concept of Naturalization is:





    It's about allegiance not borders...
    Quote Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die View Post
    On a side note Blackstone's writings go quite a ways to helping people understand the sovereign patriot movement when they speak of the corporation concept... take a look at this chapter.



    Getting back to Naturalization we can turn to Bouvier's Dictionary...

    There are links to both volumes in the wiki and the preface is a very good read.



    Naturalization: The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America

    page 205, Volume II
    http://books.google.com/books?id=2mk...age&q=&f=false

    Had the arrogant asshole poster in question done his homework he might understand the context of the quote he makes.

    Exactly, thank you! Great work.
    Last edited by constituent; 03-17-2010 at 08:43 PM.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalashnikov Josh View Post
    I understand that some folks may not have 'dictionary skills'.
    Its a symptom of pooblik skewl and the fact they do more to indoctrinate rather than educate.
    I'll make it easy fer ya-

    Heres where the entry is-

    Page Number 227,6th entry from the top.

    I guess it was actually a good thing I spent a lot of my years as a pupil going to military school,where conservative teachers actually cared if I could find words in dictionaries.......rather than trying to make me sing praises to the latest clown in office while trying to find ways around saying the word 'G-d' with the Pledge of Allegiance......

    [Mod: redacted reported insult] I would encourage you to read the definition of naturalization in the very dictionary you cited. It proves that you fudged the facts.

    Here it is.

    Naturalization - the admission of a foreigner to the privileges of a native.

    And you, K. Josh, are making this too easy!


    [Mod: redacted reported insult]


    The funny thing is that you expect that I owed you more than the courtesy of even clicking your link, much less using the search function when your link lead me to the front cover.

    (Your argument: I'm right, and here's a dictionary to prove it!)

    [Mod: redacted reported insult] I just love it when things end up that way!
    Last edited by Cowlesy; 03-21-2010 at 03:06 AM.

  24. #23

    Default

    Your putting words in my mouth 'constituent'.
    My argument is not that 'heres a definition so I'm right'.
    Try,heres Constitutional law,so I'm right.

    As far as me being ignorant and pompous 'constituent' -why are you still even in a conversation that you clearly cant be competently involved with when you don't even know how to read a dictionary?
    Your going to take a pompous air with me after putting your foot so squarely in your mouth you must've knocked out your own front teeth?

    Ignorant wretch....first you go back to 3rd grade,THEN well have a discussion like adults,ok?


    Despite what other people who seem to think the federal government has no authority to do anything at all will say,the Constitution does in fact provide Congress direct authority over naturalization-and being that naturalization IS about allegiance-you wont get an argument from me out of that one despite your trying to misrepresent my argument to make it seem I am claiming the naturalization clause provides for the defense of sovereignty-which it doesn't,another part of the Constitution I pointed out SURE DOES,the argument I make is just that,and was pointed out in another argument where Live Free was shown that,despite him dredging up historical accounts that have nothing to do with immigration and naturalization,like the "Kentucky Resolutions" which he was deliberately taking out of context to try to refute that the Constitution does in fact give congress the authority to-

    1.) Regulate naturalization,and

    2.) Provide for the sovereignty of the United States by ensuring a Republican form of government and protecting it against invasion.


    Please pay close attention-this is what is shaping the REALITY of immigration and naturalization law that we live with today-

    Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    Pay close attention to the Necessary and Proper part.As misused as these clauses are by government today,they still do have some legitimate authority.

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    If Congress is vested with the power to make regular naturalization,then given latitude to write and enact laws that are 'necessary and proper' for congress to do so,its not too difficult to understand that the Congress has the authority to write laws pertaining to immigration as well,immigration being a part of what a foreigner does to get here to attain naturalization.

    Congress is also given authority to-

    US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
    This makes the Constitutional Republic the Sovereign government of this land by default.Any form of invasion that attempts to overthrow said government in any state can be dealt with by the federal government and its military authority to call upon the militia to suppress such insurrection.

    Further,the Constitution is the Supreme Law-

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Live Free argued states rights,he argued individual property rights,he argued that government doesn't have 'police powers',and he made those convoluted historical shell game arguments he likes,taking little bits of history and attempting to try to place them in an argument where they don't quite really fit,he attempts to argue the meaning of the term 'to make regular'.....he still fails.

    Despite the fact that Congress has the authority to make immigration and naturalization laws as pertaining to the Enumerated duties,as well as,are you paying close attention?-


    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    This gives them authority to create officials and departments to carry out the 'necessary and proper' laws made by congress to facilitate their performing the duties enumerated.
    This gives such officials federal authority.

    The Constitution sets aside specific duties for the government to perform,sets limitations on government,and then declares itself to be the highest law of the land.The Constitution doesn't give Nancy Pelosi the authority to order us to buy health insurance or the government the right to enact and enforce gun control-but it does give government authority over naturalization and the foreign aliens who come here,as well as establish that the Republic is the sovereign in this nation.

    Live free must think,by admission of his own argument,that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government any authority besides the authority Jefferson declared it to have in the Kentucky Resolutions-where Jefferson was making an argument that was limited to specific grievances;not to mention that by the logic of his own argument in which he literally strips Congressional authority to the barest of bones-Jefferson himself also fell into error in his own argument during the Louisiana purchase by using his Presidential authority to buy land;some scholars also believe Jefferson had taken too much power for himself in the deal,thus making a bold contradiction of his earlier attempts at reigning in the powers of government during the time of the Resolutions.

    But thats ok with Live Free-as long as the brief glimpse in history provided by the Resolutions supports his argument,he doesnt care about actual historical context.

    He also obviously has nothing better to do with his time than chase around every post I make trying to refute the FACT I present with his contortions,half truths,and outright misrepresentations of history to try to somehow make me look wrong in the face of the reality that we,as a nation-do in fact write and enforce immigration and naturalization laws.

    Live free-you can keep doing your sleight of hand tricks with historical fact.

    It doesn't change reality.

    Keep living in denial.

    Its funny watching you tread the water trying to keep your head afloat.......


    Quote Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die View Post
    The arrogant asshole poster
    Oh and if you insist on continuing to curse and swear at me calling me foul little names over your computer screen,live free-we might just have to have this conversation in person.
    If you cant make a proper insult without using abusive language it not only shows your actual intelligence level for what it really is despite your being behind a keyboard-but its going to piss me off.Actual insults derived from political discourse or petty insults are fine-you call me an 'asshole' again and were going to have problems.
    I'm drawing the line on your nonsense at that.
    Don't disrespect me to that degree behind your keyboard again.
    Last edited by Kalashnikov Josh; 03-19-2010 at 01:18 PM.
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

  25. #24

    Default

    if we are being invaded by mexico, should we declare war on mexico?

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalashnikov Josh View Post
    Your putting words in my mouth 'constituent'.
    My argument is not that 'heres a definition so I'm right'.
    Try,hers Constitutional law,so I'm right.

    It speaks for itself. We'll leave that decision to the reader.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalashnikov Josh View Post
    As far as me being ignorant and pompous 'constituent' -why are you still even in a conversation that you clearly cant be competently involved with when you don't even know how to read a dictionary?
    Your going to take a pompous air with me after putting your foot so squarely in your mouth you must've knocked out your own front teeth?
    yawn, lol.

    Ignorant wretch....first you go back to 3rd grade,THEN well have a discussion like adults,ok?
    Ouch!

    (ok, not really.)


    Despite what other people who seem to think the federal government has no authority to do anything at all will say,the Constitution does in fact provide Congress direct authority over naturalization-and being that naturalization IS about allegiance-you wont get an argument from me out of that one despite your trying to misrepresent my argument to make it seem I am claiming the naturalization clause provides for the defense of sovereignty-which it doesn't,another part of the Constitution I pointed out SURE DOES,
    No, it sure doesn't! Keep plugging your ears and singing your la la las, cadet. It will not change the fact that the Enumerated Powers are found in Article 1 Section 8, and that the power to establish a uniform rule for naturalization is there, but the power to regulate the movement of people across state borders is not.

    The rest of your post is just hot-headed, hot wind and chest thumping.

    You're dismissed.
    Last edited by constituent; 03-19-2010 at 01:13 PM.

  27. #26

    Default

    And you still have no argument.

    Because we are not arguing about state lines.

    Were arguing about national borders.

    Two totally different things...but then with your obvious lack of education...I wouldn't presume you would understand that concept.
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalashnikov Josh View Post
    Two totally different things...but then with your obvious lack of education...I wouldn't presume you would understand that concept.
    guffaw. you win!

    i am no match for your masterful use of the ellipsis. your unparalleled education and vast wisdom astound me!
    Last edited by constituent; 03-19-2010 at 01:04 PM.

  29. #28

    Default

    Do you need to also prove yourself by having the last word rather than actually making a valid argument like 'live free'?

    Or are you just being silly?
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalashnikov Josh View Post
    Do you need to also prove yourself by having the last word rather than actually making a valid argument like 'live free'?
    ^ (get a load of that )

  31. #30

    Default

    Your beginning to show why arguing with idiots is a futile waste of time, 'constituent'.
    "......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."
    -Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    http://www.jpfo.org/
    III

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •