Federal Immigration laws are unconstitutional

[constituent]

Your beginning to show why arguing with idiots is futile 'constituent'.

Hey, you're catching on. Before long you'll figure out which of us is which.

Oh, wait! Don't tell me! You already know?!

lol.

[torchbearer]

I see an ad for the US immigration services on this thread.
Can i report someone for the lulz?

[constituent]

I see an ad for the US immigration services on this thread.
Can i report someone for the lulz?

repo'ded.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

I see an ad for the US immigration services on this thread.
Can i report someone for the lulz?

Yeah that is funny.

A bit of reality interjected into the delusion.

[constituent]

Yeah that is funny.

A bit of reality interjected into the delusion.

That's right. This very second somewhere, somebody is snitching on someone for trying to earn a buck. They'll be hunted down like animals, bound, thrown in cages and deported just to come right back, 'cuz Kalashnikov Josh is billy badass with something to prove. F*n Mexicans, dey took our jerbs.

[ARealConservative]

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.

you presented your position in a clear and concise manner.

It's sad that some people can't allow their ideology to be inconvenienced with verifiable facts (that actually pertain to the issue at hand)

[constituent]

you presented your position in a clear and concise manner.

It's sad that some people can't allow their ideology to be inconvenienced with verifiable facts (that actually pertain to the issue at hand)

Which ones? The case against him is actually quite easy to layout, and has been made on this very forum time and again.

ARealConservative, I'd say the very same thing about you.

No surprise that you would characterize his insult-laden rant (which is what it really amounted to) as "clear and concise," we've gone around a time or two...

[torchbearer]

I didn't see anywhere in the constitution that grants the federal government authority to regulate the travel of people in and out of the states, only to determine how one is to become a citizen.
if someone is arguing invasion, to be consistant, they should also be arguing for a declaration of war against the nation that is invading us.

[constituent]

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.

Yes, and "promoting the general welfare" means free healthcare for everyone! "Regulating Interstate Commerce" means it's ok to lock people in prison for smoking marijuana.... on and on, yada, yada, yada.

Now that aside, your statement might be true if everyone who immigrated to the United States sought naturalization (they don't), and/or if everyone who emigrated from the United States sacrificed their citizenship upon departure... neither is the case. Your logic is bunk. In fact, it's not even logic... it's rhetorical sleight of hand.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

Actually its amusing.

I wonder-after listening to actual Constitutional scholars like Dr.Ron Paul,how do you still cling to a position of 'open borders'?

Even the ACLU has argued that the jurisdiction over illegal immigrants is federal,not state-and while I tend to not side with the ACLU on much if anything at all,they are arguing in
FAVOR of the federal government having such jurisdiction-

http://www.suite101.com/blog/njkater...e_constitution

[constituent]

Actually its amusing.

I wonder-after listening to actual Constitutional scholars like Dr.Ron Paul,how do you still cling to a position of 'open borders'?

What has he said about it? Other than any number of political platitudes? I have yet to hear or see Ron Paul make a single consistent, logical, constitutional case for the current immigration enforcement regime...

All platitudes and demagoguery.

(Which is why I try to leave Ron Paul out of immigration discussions, but you brought it up.)

But hey, this should be easy enough for you to disprove... right?

Even the ACLU has argued that the jurisdiction over illegal immigrants is federal

I rest my case, thanks for playing.

[torchbearer]

Actually its amusing.

I wonder-after listening to actual Constitutional scholars like Dr.Ron Paul,how do you still cling to a position of 'open borders'?

Even the ACLU has argued that the jurisdiction over illegal immigrants is federal,not state-and while I tend to not side with the ACLU on much if anything at all,they are arguing in
FAVOR of the federal government having such jurisdiction-

http://www.suite101.com/blog/njkater...e_constitution

you do realize, that the only opposition Ron has to the open borders is the welfare state.
His position, ultimately, is open borders.
I've got a debate video i'm preparing for you.

[constituent]

you do realize, that the only opposition Ron has to the open borders is the welfare state.
His position, ultimately, is open borders.

Shhh... don't scare the single-issue voters!

[ARealConservative]

you do realize, that the only opposition Ron has to the open borders is the welfare state.
His position, ultimately, is open borders.
I've got a debate video i'm preparing for you.

your video better have Ron Paul calling it unconstitutional, as he does with other laws that extend beyond the intent of the constitution.

Because otherwise, I can prepare a video of Ron Paul talking about constitutional law he would like changed.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

Yes, and "promoting the general welfare" means free healthcare for everyone! "Regulating Interstate Commerce" means it's ok to lock people in prison for smoking marijuana.... on and on, yada, yada, yada.

Now that aside, your statement might be true if everyone who immigrated to the United States sought naturalization (they don't), and/or if everyone who emigrated from the United States sacrificed their citizenship upon departure... neither is the case. Your logic is bunk. In fact, it's not even logic... it's rhetorical sleight of hand.

The general welfare clause is a tax clause.Government may tax the people,but must spend the proceeds found within the rest of the text containing 'general welfare'.This actually limits governments taxation powers.
But still,within the limited scope of government power to tax,government may make all laws necessary and proper to carry out that duty.

The tax code is definitely another subject of contention that would be good to get into another day,but if you insist on making it part of this argument-know that your simply deflecting from the issue at hand.

The commerce clause has nothing to do with this argument either-it does not give government the expansive powers to do much other than make regular the commerce between the states.Government may make laws necessary and proper in regards to just that.

But the fact is that government may make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated duty of making uniform the naturalization of foreigners,further,that it may make all laws necessary and proper to ensure a Republican government is sovereign in this nations jurisdiction and secure from invasion.

That establishes solid ground for sovereignty of our nation as well as immigration law.

As for the Naturalization clause-no,it does not say anything about immigration,but as I've pointed out before,if government says that you must first migrate here lawfully in order to then naturalize,and you come here without following the proper procedure,you are then illegally here as you are noit obeying the naturalization law.

Period.

[torchbearer]

ok, here is the video- the answer is as complete as you can get in a timed answer at a debate:
YouTube - Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007

the most important part is near the end of his answer.

[constituent]

The general welfare clause is a tax clause.Government may tax the people,but must spend the proceeds found within the rest of the text containing 'general welfare'.This actually limits governments taxation powers.
But still,within the limited scope of government power to tax,government may make all laws necessary and proper to carry out that duty.

The tax code is definitely another subject of contention that would be good to get into another day,but if you insist on making it part of this argument-know that your simply deflecting from the issue at hand.

The commerce clause has nothing to do with this argument either-it does not give government the expansive powers to do much other than make regular the commerce between the states.

yaaawn, exactly...

Kalashnikov Josh starts talking in circles in

3..

2.

1

But the fact is that government may make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated duty of making uniform the naturalization of foreigners,further,that it may make all laws necessary and proper to ensure a Republican government is sovereign in this nations jurisdiction and secure from invasion.

This has already been explained to you.

That establishes solid ground for sovereignty of our nation as well as immigration law.

No it doesn't.

As for the Naturalization clause-no,it does not say anything about immigration,but as I've pointed out before,if government says that you must first migrate here lawfully in order to then naturalize,and you come here without following the proper procedure,you are then illegally here as you are noit obeying the naturalization law.

Again, in order for this statement to be true, everyone who migrates here must be doing so with the intent to become a citizen. This is not the case.

Your logic is bunk... you are wrong. You are driven by ideology to make all sorts of unfounded logical leaps (like establishing rules for naturalization = governing immigration), and there is nothing that can be said to you--no matter how politely or patiently--that will change that. Period.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

I already posted the video.

He talks about our sovereignty,which is part of my argument that some people refute.

He mentions an immigration problem and our national sovereignty.

He does not blatantly argue about the constitutional basis for immigration law,but he does make the point that we DO have national sovereignty.

'Open borders' ideology does not mesh with national sovereignty.

The two are contradictory.

And Ron Paul actually voted tin favor of a fence own the border,and wants to end birthright citizenship-

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

[torchbearer]

I already posted the video.

He talks about our sovereignty,which is part of my argument that some people refute.

He mentions an immigration problem and our national sovereignty.

He does not blatantly argue about the constitutional basis for immigration law,but he does make the point that we DO have national sovereignty.

'Open borders' ideology does not mesh with national sovereignty.

The two are contradictory.

And Ron Paul actually voted tin favor of a fence own the border,and wants to end birthright citizenship-

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

because?
the welfare state.
he also talks about people like you who use the mexicans as scapegoats.
he states, that if we had a free society(free markets), we'd be welcoming those people here and not using them as scapegoats for the ills of our country.
our country is based on immigration. that is why you are here today.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

No it doesn't.



Again, in order for this statement to be true, everyone who migrates here must be doing so with the intent to become a citizen. This is not the case.

Your logic is bunk... you are wrong. You are driven by ideology to make all sorts of unfounded logical leaps (like establishing rules for naturalization = governing immigration), and there is nothing that can be said to you--no matter how politely or patiently--that will change that. Period.

Yes,the Constitution does make valid Federal immigration law.once again,because patience is a virtue,the authority oiver naturalization and the necessary and proper clause gives congress the authority to tell people who come here that they must naturalize if they want to remain-otherwise they are here illegally.
If they come here without intent to naturalize,they may be here illegally.

Please not that all of this directly relates to naturalization and is a part of currently enforced law.

This has nothing to do with a personal agenda of mine.

[constituent]

'Open borders' ideology does not mesh with national sovereignty.

The two are contradictory.

Look, KJ, read this and get back to me...

http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/del...migration.html

Tell me what you disagree with.


A quick quote for those who don't click the link.... This isn't the only point worth focusing on though.

Most all the States had their own “immigration commissioners” in a number of European countries before and after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, seeking to encourage those persons who possessed certain needed skills to immigrate to their State. When immigration of any kind became unwise for the State the State had the full power to act on the subject (unlike today).

For example, the commissioner of the Wisconsin Labor Bureau discovered in 1886 after making inquires throughout the State that there was an overwhelming resentment against immigrants entering the state labor market. A year later, a bill was passed in both houses without a single dissenting vote to abolish the State Board of Immigration.

Under our system of government, immigration by design works something like this: States decide who they desire to immigrate into the State, how many and under what terms and inducements. States could issue letters, travel visas or whatever to the immigrant to lawfully enter and pass through other States on his journey to the State who sought him.

This was the proper method; however, steamship companies and their agents eventually lead to mass unauthorized entry of immigrants into the country for profit. If ports of entries would pass laws to guard against pauperism by imposing head taxes, the companies would sue, claiming the State was interfering with national governments commerce (a crock, but the court can be a crock too). The passenger companies were profitable through clever approaches of finding and inducing immigrants, and recovering the costs of the voyage for 98% of the passengers who could not afford the costs.

State ports of entry can lawfully deny entry to anyone who is not authorized by any State to accept them. States have always protected themselves from the beginning against vagabonds and pauperism (public charge). The Constitution of Vermont of 1793 recognized “[t]hat all people have a natural and inherent right to emigrate from one state to another,” provided a State was willing to “receive them.”

Congress could attempt to pull some implied authority over the migration of people within the jurisdiction of a State through the Necessary and Proper Clause, but this would require finding a delegated power that can breach the sovereignty of the State to do so. The power to make uniform rules of Naturalization will be of little use for a number of reasons. The principle reason is that it is simply a power to make rules for giving or withholding citizenship to an alien already residing within a State under the lawful requirements of the State.

Consider for a moment that the power to make uniform laws over bankruptcy under any liberal interpretation provided no power for Congress to create bankruptcies within Stat

[torchbearer]

i also see tendancies of xenophobia in those who oppose brown people immigration from mexico, but don't seem to care much about the socialist crossing our borders to the north.

that is why Wolf asked the question about the canadian border needing a fence. its a trap question to make you look like an idiot. Paul isn't an idiot. He isn't for a fence. He is for keeping people from burdening the states through the welfare system.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

because?
the welfare state.
he also talks about people like you who use the mexicans as scapegoats.
he states, that if we had a free society(free markets), we'd be welcoming those people here and not using them as scapegoats for the ills of our country.
our country is based on immigration. that is why you are here today.

Whoa pal-I never used the Mexicans as scapegoats.
Your coming awfully close to pulling the race card.

I recognize fully the value of LAWFUL immigration-and obviously,so does Doctor Paul.

You can be here illegally from Poland-your still illegally here.

[torchbearer]

Whoa pal-I never used the Mexicans as scapegoats.
Your coming awfully close to pulling the race card.

I recognize fully the value of LAWFUL immigration-and obviously,so does Doctor Paul.

[constituent]

Yes,the Constitution does make valid Federal immigration law.once again,because patience is a virtue,the authority oiver naturalization and the necessary and proper clause gives congress the authority to tell people who come here that they must naturalize if they want to remain

No it does not. It gives congress the authority to govern the rules of naturalization, not require naturalization or else (which, btw, they don't do). This is a (one) logical leap that you are making. You are taking a very narrow point and defining it in the absolute broadest possible terms to make it fit your agenda.

-otherwise they are here illegally.

No, the courts have ruled time and again that one can be a citizen of one of the states without being a citizen of the United States. I've posted quotes from those cases over and over here, so if you're interested UTSE. They're around.

If they come here without intent to naturalize,they may be here illegally.

What are you even saying here? I don't think you know.

Edit: What you're saying here is that if someone visits the United States from England without the intent of becoming a naturalized citizen that they "may be here illegally." Yea, bull$#@!.

This has nothing to do with a personal agenda of mine.

Agenda? I said "ideology." When all else fails you, your reliance upon slavish chanting of mantras like "national sovereignty, national sovereignty" only proves this out...

[Kalashnikov Josh]

Look, KJ, read this and get back to me...

http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/del...migration.html

Tell me what you disagree with.

Simple.

I disagree with that argument based on the 'Naturalization' clause and the 'Republican government' clause,along with the 'Necessary and Proper' clause and the 'Supremacy' clause.

I've made my case.

You've made yours.

Were not going to see eye to eye,and thats why we have a Constitution and established court system-that by the way,is enforcing immigration and naturalization on a federal level,despite your rants.

[angelatc]

Paul isn't an idiot. He isn't for a fence. He is for keeping people from burdening the states through the welfare system.

Paul said he would vote for the fence.

[constituent]

Were not going to see eye to eye

Agreed, it's a shame you had to be a dick about your military schooling (like that's really something to brag about), and attempt to insinuate that I'm an idiot over it.

Of course, I would expect no less from a guy who calls himself "Kalashnikov Josh," and was probably anally raped for the entirety of his adolescent years at military school.

(See, we can both be mean.)

,and thats why we have a Constitution and established court system-that by the way,is enforcing immigration and naturalization on a federal level,despite your rants.

And then the appeal to authority...

Ahhh....

[constituent]

Paul said he would vote for the fence.

Indeed. He has also voted to increase funding for ICE through the Department of Homeland Security.

Wait, Ron Paul supports the Department of Homeland Security? (hahaha, devil's advocate... just ignore.)

[torchbearer]

Paul said he would vote for the fence.

in the video i posted, he said the fence was the least of his reasons.. and said in a way that showed disdain.
watch for yourself.

as in one of those, take the bad with the good.