Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 91

Thread: Let's do this again: how is immigration law Constitutional?

  1. #61
    LOL, I provide sources, legislation and supreme court rulings backing up my interpretation of what falls under naturalization laws, and I'm the one making stuff up?

    I'm done if you're jsut going to start acting liek a fool trying to call me out. Either find some hard justifcation that you have the right to live and work in this country without going through naturalization laws (and ya know, green cards are actually part of the naturalization process, as it is a requirement to first live here under one in many cases).
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    Either find some hard justifcation that you have the right to live and work in this country without going through naturalization laws (and ya know, green cards are actually part of the naturalization process, as it is a requirement to first live here under one in many cases).
    Since the word "naturalization" in the Constitution has nothing to do with having a right to live and work here, what more evidence do I need? The Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to say who can live and work here, it gives them authority to say how people who live and work here can go on to get the rights of citizenship (which are not the same thing as living and working here).

    I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm not even going to bother reading what you posted from them. They don't have the right to put something in the Constitution that isn't there.

    You have presented absolutely zero actual evidence that the term "naturalization" in the Constitution could have been understood by those who ratified it could have been construed to mean that those who are not naturalized have no right to live and work in the country. It's inconceivable that they could have taken it that way, regardless of what any judge who treats the Constitution like toilet paper has to say about it. Green cards have nothing to do with anything anywhere in the Constitution.

    The rights of citizenship aren't natural rights that all human beings have, such as the right to offer one's labor to another person in exchange for that person's money. They're special rights, like the right to vote or run for office. Look through all the occurrences of the word "citizen" in the Constitution and tell me you can't see this is the case.

    As for calling you out, that's exactly what happened. You brought of the definition of "citizen" as though you already knew it, when it turned out you hadn't bothered looking it up and had no idea that when you did, it wouldn't say what you were claiming it said. You got caught in your own trap. If you were going to get into an argument in this thread, you should have figured out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about before you did.
    Last edited by erowe1; 11-08-2012 at 07:42 PM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Since the word "naturalization" in the Constitution has nothing to do with having a right to live and work here, what more evidence do I need? The Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to say who can live and work here, it gives them authority to say how people who live and work here can go on to get the rights of citizenship (which are not the same thing as living and working here).

    I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm not even going to bother reading what you posted from them. They don't have the right to put something in the Constitution that isn't there.

    You have presented absolutely zero actual evidence that the term "naturalization" in the Constitution could have been understood by those who ratified it could have been construed to mean that those who are not naturalized have no right to live and work in the country. It's inconceivable that they could have taken it that way, regardless of what any judge who treats the Constitution like toilet paper has to say about it.

    The rights of citizenship aren't natural rights that all human beings have, such as the right to offer one's labor to another person in exchange for that person's money. They're special rights, like the right to vote or run for office. Look through all the occurrences of the word "citizen" in the Constitution and tell me you can't see this is the case.

    As for calling you out, that's exactly what happened. You brought of the definition of "citizen" as though you already knew it, when it turned out you hadn't bothered looking it up and had no idea that when you did, it wouldn't say what you were claiming it said. You got caught in your own trap. If you were going to get into an argument in this thread, you should have figured out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about before you did.
    Dude, just stop, that whole tangent didn't go anywhere. I said that every definition of citizen or citizenship implies residency (and thus subsequently to work), you said that it did not mean that you had to be a citizen to live or work, and then we argued from there.

    We can agree to disagree on interpretations of the constitution as well as what normalization does and doesn't cover, such as happens frequently, but the only one being disengenous in this debate is you trying to put words into my mouth in a lame gotcha attempt to discredit all of the sound points I've made, many of which you've ignored answering yourself as you deflect the burden of proof on me for points you're disputing without any documentation whatsoever.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post
    Invasion handbook published by the Mexican government. It's official, we're being invaded by Mexico.

    In addition the Constitution authorizes congress to pass legislation to control immigration. Ike Eisenhower was the last president to uphold his oath of office and enforce immigration law. From JFK to present, they've all been scofflaws.
    Are we being invaded?
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...143325289.html

    Net migration from Mexico dips to zero

    By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – Tue, Apr 24, 2012.

    Mexican migration into the United States has come to a standstill and may soon reverse, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center. This marks a dramatic change in the wave of Mexican migration that brought 12 million people to America over four decades.

    About 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States between 2005 and 2010, which is roughly the same number of Mexicans who left over the same period.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-08-2012 at 07:51 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So the solution to immigration is a crappy economy? Hell, we'll probably do even better if we get the government to go to war against us.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    I said that every definition of citizen or citizenship implies residency (and thus subsequently to work)
    Do you have as little of a grasp of logic as you're letting on here?

    The definition of citizenship, especially as used in the Constitution, involves more than just living here. The fact that it does involve living here is not sufficient to make the case that noncitizens don't have a right to live here.

    We're not agreeing to disagree on interpretations of the Constitution. It's not up to differing interpretations. You're making up a definition that couldn't conceivably have been in the minds of the ratifiers of the Constitution and pretending they meant it.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    So the solution to immigration is a crappy economy?
    Solution to immigration? As if immigration is some kind of a problem?

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Do you have as little of a grasp of logic as you're letting on here?

    The definition of citizenship, especially as used in the Constitution, involves more than just living here. The fact that it does involve living here is not sufficient to make the case that noncitizens don't have a right to live here.

    We're not agreeing to disagree on interpretations of the Constitution. It's not up to differing interpretations. You're making up a definition that couldn't conceivably have been in the minds of the ratifiers of the Constitution and pretending they meant it.
    Or maybe you're making up a definition that makes citizenship and natrualization rather meaningless. I'd think they relegated the power to Congress for a reason. So what was that reason in your point of view?

    You love to poo-poo on my view, but you've not done a good job of even explaining why they'd be given this power. Please elaborate.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Solution to immigration? As if immigration is some kind of a problem?
    Oh my god, you're worse than arguing with a liberal. It's pretty clear now you just want to play gotcha socratic-method BS, but yes, there are plenty of problems associated with illegal immigration and unsecure borders. Probably why they put provisions in the constitution about naturalization (and the part I haven't even gotten into yet, the federal government's role in national security, which I'm sure has more explicit rights to protect the country from just being a haven for whatever criminal or even deadly contagious disease-ridden person wants to enter into)
    Last edited by TheGrinch; 11-08-2012 at 08:00 PM.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    Or maybe you're making up a definition that makes citizenship and natrualization rather meaningless. I'd think they relegated [sic] the power to Congress for a reason. So what was that reason in your point of view?

    You love to poo-poo on my view, but you've not done a good job of even explaining why they'd be given this power. Please elaborate.
    Delegated.

    The reason was for citizenship. Period. Naturalization includes nothing more than that. For example, a person can't run for office if they're not a citizen. Congress has the authority for establishing the code of who goes from merely living here to furthermore having the privileges of citizenship. It doesn't have the authority to say who can merely live and work here even though not being a citizen. The fact that you can't understand this is not an excuse for pretending that a word used in the Constitution had to have a definition it could not have had.
    Last edited by erowe1; 11-08-2012 at 08:01 PM.

  13. #71
    The only thing the Constitution says about immigrants is that they cannot become President and that they may be naturalized (become citizens). Many of the Founding Fathers were immigrants themselves. It says nothing about who can and can't come here and what they can and can't do once they get here (besides becoming President).

    Naturalization means that people can come to this country and earn the right to be called "Citizens".

    Thomas Payne:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1898163.html
    "If there is a country in the world where concord... would be least expected, it is America," he wrote. "Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable." But he argued that if the government protects the equal rights of all, "there is nothing to engender riots and tumults," and "all the parts are brought into cordial unison."
    In Common Sense, Paine upheld "this new world" as "the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty." Jefferson argued for "a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them." Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is "always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult," so "the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change."
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-08-2012 at 08:38 PM.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    By the way, isn't that pretty much Ron Paul's position?

    He doesn't want illegal immigrants to be made into citizens. But he also doesn't want them to be deported.
    He doesn't support illegal immigration. Sorry.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The only thing the Constitution says about immigrants is that they cannot become President and that they may be naturalized (become citizens). Many of the Founding Fathers were immigrants themselves. It says nothing about who can and can't come here and what they can and can't do once they get here (besides becoming President).

    Naturalization means that people can come to this country and earn the right to be called "Citizens".

    Thomas Payne:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1898163.html
    There you go again, confusing legal immigration with illegal immigration.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    He doesn't support illegal immigration. Sorry.
    Right. That's what I said. He doesn't want to give illegal immigrants citizenship.

    But he also doesn't want to deport them.

    He wants them to stay here, just not as citizens.

  18. #75

    The Founding Fathers were immigration skeptics by Thomas Woods

    Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

    In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

    What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

    “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
    Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
    read the rest...

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Right. That's what I said. He doesn't want to give illegal immigrants citizenship.

    But he also doesn't want to deport them.

    He wants them to stay here, just not as citizens.
    He also wants to deter more from coming ILLEGALLY, wants to end birthright citizenship and most assuredly not give illegal aliens free anything.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    He also wants to deter more from coming ILLEGALLY, wants to end birthright citizenship and most assuredly not give illegal aliens free anything.
    Yep.

    For him, it's not about simply having the right to live and work here. It's about getting special privileges beyond that. Kind of like what I've been saying in this thread.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Yep.

    For him, it's not about simply having the right to live and work here. It's about getting special privileges beyond that. Kind of like what I've been saying in this thread.
    Actually, he believes in doing it legally. Cleaning up the bogged down immigration process; using work visas, etc. But, certainly not the continued illegal invasion of our country, no. And he most certainly does not agree with the apparent intent of this thread, which seems to be that we should turn a blind eye to said invasion. He knows this is extremely harmful to our economy with the welfare system currently in place.

    I find it somewhat interesting that some seem to have forgotten that Dr. Paul on more than one occasion as talked about bringing our troops home and using them to defend the border.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 11-08-2012 at 10:48 PM.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    Where is it backed up in the Constitution that anyone can just stay, live, work and enjoy the same rights as American citizens indefinitely?
    Since that was, in fact, the actual situation in his country up until 1875 (when some very minor immigration rules were passed), one should consider why that might be. There no immigration laws whatsoever until 1875, and then no real restrictive rules, numerical limits, etc., until the 1920s. Why?

    Open -- completely, totally, wide-open free-for-all -- immigration was the policy of America for all of its history, up until the Progressive Era. Now most of what happened in the Progressive Era was utterly unconstitutional -- would you agree? Should we therefore consider the possibility that the idea they invented of restricting immigration was unconstitutional also? I think it's worth considering.

    Open immigration -- completely, totally, wide-open free-for-all immigration -- is clearly and indisputably part of the American Tradition. If we're wanting to go back to our roots, to the way things were when the freedom-loving founders were running things, if we think they had the right idea more often than not, then it behooves us to realize that absolutely open immigration -- free and 100% unregulated -- was the way they did it and the way they wanted it. Why did they do it that way? Why did they want it that way? Is there any chance that they were right?

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by ShaneEnochs View Post
    Definition:
    An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
    /thread
    I am the spoon.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    A picture worth a thousand words!

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I find it somewhat interesting that some seem to have forgotten that Dr. Paul on more than one occasion as talked about bringing our troops home and using them to defend the border.
    The people who think that has something to do with immigration are xenophobes looking desperately for a way to count Ron Paul as one of their own.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    are xenophobes
    Race pimpin', you've lost the debate. Thanks for playing.

  29. #85
    Enforce existing laws, reduce incentives for illegal immigration, pursue a more welcoming approach for legal immigration.





    Last edited by georgiaboy; 11-09-2012 at 09:08 AM.
    The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.
    My new motto: More Love, Less Laws

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post
    Race pimpin', you've lost the debate. Thanks for playing.
    What other explanation is there for thinking something as irrational as that defending our borders with the military involves curtailing peaceful immigration?

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiaboy View Post
    Enforce existing laws,
    Really? Like laws that tell us we can only hire people to work for us who have the permission of the government?

    Actually, if we got rid of those existing laws, there would not be any illegal immigration problem at all. Then the people who say that they don't oppose immigration, only illegal immigration, will have a chance to show they meant it by approving of that situation.
    Last edited by erowe1; 11-09-2012 at 09:27 AM.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Really? Like laws that tell us we can only hire people to work for us who have the permission of the government?

    Actually, if we got rid of those existing laws, there would not be any illegal immigration problem at all. Then the people who say that they don't oppose immigration, only illegal immigration, will have a chance to show they meant it by approving of that situation.
    So you're completely opposed to any form of immigration control or enforcement?

    I'd say as long as we have the welfare state and mandates that anyone here can participate, we need to control who legally gets access across the border.

    Get rid of mandates/welfare, and we can be much more relaxed about entrance/participation requirements.
    The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.
    My new motto: More Love, Less Laws



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Playing devils advocate, I was listening to Marsha Blackburn talk to a local conservative talk show host about the election results. She pointed out that while Latinos shared a lot of republican values (anti abortion, pro traditional family etc) they largely voted for Obama. He dismissed that by saying "Well they must not share our values." Obvious guy says "Maybe they care more about immigration than they do abortion." Take away point, stupid or dishonest republican pundits will never admit the real reasons they keep losing. That said, I think we need to work on disengaging the welfare state before opening the floodgates. But that's just me.
    Agree - without the handouts, the people who will come to the US will be those who want to lead lives based on liberty and the opportunity to earn wealth.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiaboy View Post
    Get rid of mandates/welfare, and we can be much more relaxed about entrance/participation requirements.
    Exactly. When you have a problem caused by big government, the solution should always be to undo whatever the government did to cause it, not to come up with some other big government solution that creates its own problems that will then demand more big government solutions ad infinitum.

    And really, if the problem is giving out too many handouts to immigrants, then how could the solution be to prevent them from being able to get jobs?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2014, 07:30 PM
  2. Is a constitutional monarchy better than a constitutional republic?
    By nodeal in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-12-2014, 09:20 PM
  3. Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration
    By gaazn in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: Illegal immigration, is Pauls stance effective?
    By Lord Xar in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

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