Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Executive Order Document to secure the border

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainAmerica View Post
    Amash is ignorant on this issue.
    Based on what I've read from him so far, I agree with you.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Naturalization is separate from immigration. Naturalization is the process of a non- citizen becoming one. The Constitution says nothing about immigration. But if you have a process by which those not born in your country become citizens then it must be allowed for people to enter your country (immigrate) in the first place.
    Not sure what you mean here. In the beginning it read as if you'd be disagreeing with me and then by the end it read as though we are on the same page here. Hopefully we agree, that's rare and always nice.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    No. It only deals with naturalization. The power to establish a uniform code of naturalization does not in any way imply a power to limit immigration, much less other travel in and out of the country, or the ability to work here, or any of the other countless powers the feds have taken on in their mission to control immigration.
    a process to naturalization would include some form of immigration. I don't see how you separate the two. I think this is semantics.

    If you're contending the federal government has no authority on immigration, we disagree, but also, you're argument is misplaced. Why do you condemn the EO when you should condemn all the congressional laws passed relating to immigration. How can you separate the two?

  5. #34

    Default

    White House to agree to honor it (1250 immigrants). No, they don't. Yes, they are back to supporting it. Very conflicting reports coming out.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-au...slim-refugees/

    The president told Turnbull that it was “my intention” to honor the agreement, a phrase designed to leave the president wriggle room to back out of the deal, the newspaper reported.

    There were some mixed-messages from Washington this week on the state of the agreement.

    White House spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed on Wednesday that Mr. Trump had agreed to honor the deal.

    But a White House statement sent to Australian Broadcasting Corp. on Thursday said: “The president is still considering whether or not he will move forward with this deal at this time.”

    The U.S. State Department said in a statement later Thursday that the United States would honor the agreement “out of respect for close ties to our Australian ally and friend.”

    President Trump’s decision to honor the refugee agreement has not changed and Spokesman Spicer’s comments stand,” the State Department said.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    a process to naturalization would include some form of immigration. I don't see how you separate the two. I think this is semantics.
    They are two totally different things. Laws restricting immigration aren't in any conceivable way necessary and proper for the establishment of a uniform code of naturalization. And nobody when the Constitution was ratified thought they were.

    The federal government can define people as non-citizens. But it can't constitutionally keep them from living and working in the USA just because they're not citizens.

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    They are two totally different things. Laws restricting immigration aren't in any conceivable way necessary and proper for the establishment of a uniform code of naturalization. And nobody when the Constitution was ratified thought they were.

    The federal government can define people as non-citizens. But it can't constitutionally keep them from living and working in the USA just because they're not citizens.
    Would you please say this another way. I'm a bit confused so I think I'm missing something.
    Are you suggesting the federal government has no authority to prevent people from crossing the US border with or without permission? Or are you saying something else?
    thanks

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





Similar Threads

  1. Feds find border drones don’t actually make border more secure
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-07-2015, 08:10 AM
  2. Lawmakers told Constitution requires secure border
    By RDM in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 08:25 PM
  3. Not One Mile of Border Secure, Texas Sheriff Says
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 07:17 AM
  4. Why Obama won't secure the border
    By Zulator in forum National Sovereignty
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 03:00 PM
  5. Is Ron Paul our only hope for a secure border?
    By sdnet in forum Member Works Spotlight
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 11:21 AM

Posting Permissions

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