Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
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?
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.
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
Connect With Us