Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Trump and most Americans are genuinely Pro-Immigrant. However, most do have a problem with rampant Illegal Immigration. It's out of control. Most know our Immigration System is broken.
Personally, i welcome all Immigrants. But they need to come to my country the legal organized way. They're invited, but they need to respect my country and its laws. And I as a US Citizen, have the right to make that demand. If they don't wanna abide by our laws, they aren't welcome here. It's time for change. We need to end Illegal Immigration once and for all.
So, you believe a government should be able to pick and choose their citizens.
Why not?
Seriously? I mean can you not see the problem? A government that picks and chooses it's citizens is on the path to tyranny. There was a reason that the founders established this country with free and open borders. Founded in the belief of a social contract and "inalienable rights" that did not depend upon "citizenship", like life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS free and open borders was primarily a protections against a too powerful government. A kind of check and balance, just like our three branches of government or bicameral legislature. but vastly more important.
Cognitive dissonance. Republicans are constantly bitching about the government's inability to do anything. But, when it comes to new citizens that are not born into this country, well they somehow believe that in that area the government is completely competent. Yep, the government can pick and choose it's citizens. The founders would be appalled.
Now the founders had a resolution for this issue.
It is in the Preamble to the Constitution...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble
The "common defense" means protecting Americans from people that don't want to become Americans, follow American Laws, wave their home country's flag, disrespect the values that Americans adhere to.
This is not "cognitive dissonance ... which the correct definition in psychology 101 is .
The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
cognitive dissonance | Definition of cognitive dissonance in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
Now there is NO dissonance at play here. GOP/Conservatives don't believe in the following example of the Obama administration forgetting "Common Defense"... specifically that means helping control the air traffic with Air traffic controllers.
The FAA under Obama decided that there wasn't enough diversity in the ATCs. So they modified the tests and evaluation criteria.
For example on the exam there are several questions that really beg the question..."what were they thinking of"?
The best answer to the question when was the last time you worked full time: Answer You haven't worked in the past 3 years.
Best answer to this question: Name their worst grade in high school: Answer: Science. Yup the FAA wanted ATCs who couldn't understand "Science".
Another question where the person answered got 5 points was if they knew a great deal about Air traffic control...while if you were a trained pilot... 2 points! Kid you not!
The test as it shows was to screen out people with aviation experience because the workforce was "too white".
Tucker Carlson Tonight 6/1/2018 – Breaking Fox News – June 1, 2018 | BuzzyBuzz
Since 2014, any applicants with aviation degrees or military service are now on equal footing
with people without any experience, because the first step to being hired means passing the questionnaire.
In some cases, applicants with no experience are passing the questionnaire while those with academic training degrees are not, according to the Association of Collegiate Training Institutions, a group of 24 CTI schools lobbying against the FAA’s current hiring policy.
“I have a couple of students who actually were air traffic controllers in the military and failed that test,” said Tom Daly, dean of Dowling College’s School of Aviation, which is one of 36 CTI schools but is not in the lobbying coalition. “How could you be an air traffic controller for five years, very successfully, and fail that test?”
FAA bid to expand air traffic hiring derided
NOW do you understand the position of GOP/Conservatives when for example the Obama administration's FAA rather NOT hire people who had Air traffic controller experiences!
Is that the Federal Government that is also in charge of "IMMIGRATION"? Do you see this gross effort to get diversity at the price of air passengers?
This is the reason for Trump's cleaning house in the government with 24,000 less people working...i.e. doing really dumb things like NOT hiring people with ATC experiences!
Talk about the "Common defense"????
Wow, I will give you credit for creativity, using the common defense clause to defend restrictions on immigration. But you are completely ignoring the Declaration of Independence, which came years before that Constitution. You ignore the inalienable right called "pursuit of happiness". Open borders are absolutely critical to that right. The founders didn't say all men had an inalienable right to pursue their happiness but only within the confines of the country in which they were born.
What most people don't realize is that open borders were then, and are now, the very center of America's exceptionalism. The concept of a "social contract", where rulers were only legitimate when they ruled with the CONSENT of the governed, was a new concept spawned during the Age of Enlightenment. Previously, the concept of feudal obligation was the general belief and rule of the day. Individuals as yourself have reverted to that concept, where one's allegiance is determined by the place of their birth, instead of by their own consent. Where one can be perpetually considered an "alien" in the land in which they choose to live simply because they were born somewhere else is completely contradictory to the ideals of the founders.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Now the founders had a resolution for this issue.
It is in the Preamble to the Constitution...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble
The "common defense" means protecting Americans from people that don't want to become Americans, follow American Laws, wave their home country's flag, disrespect the values that Americans adhere to.
This is not "cognitive dissonance ... which the correct definition in psychology 101 is .
The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
cognitive dissonance | Definition of cognitive dissonance in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
Now there is NO dissonance at play here. GOP/Conservatives don't believe in the following example of the Obama administration forgetting "Common Defense"... specifically that means helping control the air traffic with Air traffic controllers.
The FAA under Obama decided that there wasn't enough diversity in the ATCs. So they modified the tests and evaluation criteria.
For example on the exam there are several questions that really beg the question..."what were they thinking of"?
The best answer to the question when was the last time you worked full time: Answer You haven't worked in the past 3 years.
Best answer to this question: Name their worst grade in high school: Answer: Science. Yup the FAA wanted ATCs who couldn't understand "Science".
Another question where the person answered got 5 points was if they knew a great deal about Air traffic control...while if you were a trained pilot... 2 points! Kid you not!
The test as it shows was to screen out people with aviation experience because the workforce was "too white".
Tucker Carlson Tonight 6/1/2018 – Breaking Fox News – June 1, 2018 | BuzzyBuzz
Since 2014, any applicants with aviation degrees or military service are now on equal footing
with people without any experience, because the first step to being hired means passing the questionnaire.
In some cases, applicants with no experience are passing the questionnaire while those with academic training degrees are not, according to the Association of Collegiate Training Institutions, a group of 24 CTI schools lobbying against the FAA’s current hiring policy.
“I have a couple of students who actually were air traffic controllers in the military and failed that test,” said Tom Daly, dean of Dowling College’s School of Aviation, which is one of 36 CTI schools but is not in the lobbying coalition. “How could you be an air traffic controller for five years, very successfully, and fail that test?”
FAA bid to expand air traffic hiring derided
NOW do you understand the position of GOP/Conservatives when for example the Obama administration's FAA rather NOT hire people who had Air traffic controller experiences!
Is that the Federal Government that is also in charge of "IMMIGRATION"? Do you see this gross effort to get diversity at the price of air passengers?
This is the reason for Trump's cleaning house in the government with 24,000 less people working...i.e. doing really dumb things like NOT hiring people with ATC experiences!
Talk about the "Common defense"????
Wow, I will give you credit for creativity, using the common defense clause to defend restrictions on immigration. But you are completely ignoring the Declaration of Independence, which came years before that Constitution. You ignore the inalienable right called "pursuit of happiness". Open borders are absolutely critical to that right. The founders didn't say all men had an inalienable right to pursue their happiness but only within the confines of the country in which they were born.
What most people don't realize is that open borders were then, and are now, the very center of America's exceptionalism. The concept of a "social contract", where rulers were only legitimate when they ruled with the CONSENT of the governed, was a new concept spawned during the Age of Enlightenment. Previously, the concept of feudal obligation was the general belief and rule of the day. Individuals as yourself have reverted to that concept, where one's allegiance is determined by the place of their birth, instead of by their own consent. Where one can be perpetually considered an "alien" in the land in which they choose to live simply because they were born somewhere else is completely contradictory to the ideals of the founders.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
Now the founders had a resolution for this issue.
It is in the Preamble to the Constitution...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble
The "common defense" means protecting Americans from people that don't want to become Americans, follow American Laws, wave their home country's flag, disrespect the values that Americans adhere to.
This is not "cognitive dissonance ... which the correct definition in psychology 101 is .
The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
cognitive dissonance | Definition of cognitive dissonance in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
Now there is NO dissonance at play here. GOP/Conservatives don't believe in the following example of the Obama administration forgetting "Common Defense"... specifically that means helping control the air traffic with Air traffic controllers.
The FAA under Obama decided that there wasn't enough diversity in the ATCs. So they modified the tests and evaluation criteria.
For example on the exam there are several questions that really beg the question..."what were they thinking of"?
The best answer to the question when was the last time you worked full time: Answer You haven't worked in the past 3 years.
Best answer to this question: Name their worst grade in high school: Answer: Science. Yup the FAA wanted ATCs who couldn't understand "Science".
Another question where the person answered got 5 points was if they knew a great deal about Air traffic control...while if you were a trained pilot... 2 points! Kid you not!
The test as it shows was to screen out people with aviation experience because the workforce was "too white".
Tucker Carlson Tonight 6/1/2018 – Breaking Fox News – June 1, 2018 | BuzzyBuzz
Since 2014, any applicants with aviation degrees or military service are now on equal footing
with people without any experience, because the first step to being hired means passing the questionnaire.
In some cases, applicants with no experience are passing the questionnaire while those with academic training degrees are not, according to the Association of Collegiate Training Institutions, a group of 24 CTI schools lobbying against the FAA’s current hiring policy.
“I have a couple of students who actually were air traffic controllers in the military and failed that test,” said Tom Daly, dean of Dowling College’s School of Aviation, which is one of 36 CTI schools but is not in the lobbying coalition. “How could you be an air traffic controller for five years, very successfully, and fail that test?”
FAA bid to expand air traffic hiring derided
NOW do you understand the position of GOP/Conservatives when for example the Obama administration's FAA rather NOT hire people who had Air traffic controller experiences!
Is that the Federal Government that is also in charge of "IMMIGRATION"? Do you see this gross effort to get diversity at the price of air passengers?
This is the reason for Trump's cleaning house in the government with 24,000 less people working...i.e. doing really dumb things like NOT hiring people with ATC experiences!
Talk about the "Common defense"????
Wow, I will give you credit for creativity, using the common defense clause to defend restrictions on immigration. But you are completely ignoring the Declaration of Independence, which came years before that Constitution. You ignore the inalienable right called "pursuit of happiness". Open borders are absolutely critical to that right. The founders didn't say all men had an inalienable right to pursue their happiness but only within the confines of the country in which they were born.
What most people don't realize is that open borders were then, and are now, the very center of America's exceptionalism. The concept of a "social contract", where rulers were only legitimate when they ruled with the CONSENT of the governed, was a new concept spawned during the Age of Enlightenment. Previously, the concept of feudal obligation was the general belief and rule of the day. Individuals as yourself have reverted to that concept, where one's allegiance is determined by the place of their birth, instead of by their own consent. Where one can be perpetually considered an "alien" in the land in which they choose to live simply because they were born somewhere else is completely contradictory to the ideals of the founders.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
Look at their country! Nough saidRepublicans are anti-brown people.
Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk
Republicans are for law and order...they are anti-criminal.
Mexicrats hate law and order and encourage criminality.
Now the founders had a resolution for this issue.
It is in the Preamble to the Constitution...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble
The "common defense" means protecting Americans from people that don't want to become Americans, follow American Laws, wave their home country's flag, disrespect the values that Americans adhere to.
This is not "cognitive dissonance ... which the correct definition in psychology 101 is .
The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
cognitive dissonance | Definition of cognitive dissonance in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
Now there is NO dissonance at play here. GOP/Conservatives don't believe in the following example of the Obama administration forgetting "Common Defense"... specifically that means helping control the air traffic with Air traffic controllers.
The FAA under Obama decided that there wasn't enough diversity in the ATCs. So they modified the tests and evaluation criteria.
For example on the exam there are several questions that really beg the question..."what were they thinking of"?
The best answer to the question when was the last time you worked full time: Answer You haven't worked in the past 3 years.
Best answer to this question: Name their worst grade in high school: Answer: Science. Yup the FAA wanted ATCs who couldn't understand "Science".
Another question where the person answered got 5 points was if they knew a great deal about Air traffic control...while if you were a trained pilot... 2 points! Kid you not!
The test as it shows was to screen out people with aviation experience because the workforce was "too white".
Tucker Carlson Tonight 6/1/2018 – Breaking Fox News – June 1, 2018 | BuzzyBuzz
Since 2014, any applicants with aviation degrees or military service are now on equal footing
with people without any experience, because the first step to being hired means passing the questionnaire.
In some cases, applicants with no experience are passing the questionnaire while those with academic training degrees are not, according to the Association of Collegiate Training Institutions, a group of 24 CTI schools lobbying against the FAA’s current hiring policy.
“I have a couple of students who actually were air traffic controllers in the military and failed that test,” said Tom Daly, dean of Dowling College’s School of Aviation, which is one of 36 CTI schools but is not in the lobbying coalition. “How could you be an air traffic controller for five years, very successfully, and fail that test?”
FAA bid to expand air traffic hiring derided
NOW do you understand the position of GOP/Conservatives when for example the Obama administration's FAA rather NOT hire people who had Air traffic controller experiences!
Is that the Federal Government that is also in charge of "IMMIGRATION"? Do you see this gross effort to get diversity at the price of air passengers?
This is the reason for Trump's cleaning house in the government with 24,000 less people working...i.e. doing really dumb things like NOT hiring people with ATC experiences!
Talk about the "Common defense"????
Wow, I will give you credit for creativity, using the common defense clause to defend restrictions on immigration. But you are completely ignoring the Declaration of Independence, which came years before that Constitution. You ignore the inalienable right called "pursuit of happiness". Open borders are absolutely critical to that right. The founders didn't say all men had an inalienable right to pursue their happiness but only within the confines of the country in which they were born.
What most people don't realize is that open borders were then, and are now, the very center of America's exceptionalism. The concept of a "social contract", where rulers were only legitimate when they ruled with the CONSENT of the governed, was a new concept spawned during the Age of Enlightenment. Previously, the concept of feudal obligation was the general belief and rule of the day. Individuals as yourself have reverted to that concept, where one's allegiance is determined by the place of their birth, instead of by their own consent. Where one can be perpetually considered an "alien" in the land in which they choose to live simply because they were born somewhere else is completely contradictory to the ideals of the founders.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
Wow, I will give you credit for creativity, using the common defense clause to defend restrictions on immigration. But you are completely ignoring the Declaration of Independence, which came years before that Constitution. You ignore the inalienable right called "pursuit of happiness". Open borders are absolutely critical to that right. The founders didn't say all men had an inalienable right to pursue their happiness but only within the confines of the country in which they were born.
What most people don't realize is that open borders were then, and are now, the very center of America's exceptionalism. The concept of a "social contract", where rulers were only legitimate when they ruled with the CONSENT of the governed, was a new concept spawned during the Age of Enlightenment. Previously, the concept of feudal obligation was the general belief and rule of the day. Individuals as yourself have reverted to that concept, where one's allegiance is determined by the place of their birth, instead of by their own consent. Where one can be perpetually considered an "alien" in the land in which they choose to live simply because they were born somewhere else is completely contradictory to the ideals of the founders.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
considering the law covering immigration have been changing since 1790, it's hard to take you seriously.
Immigration Laws Passed in the U.S.: History and Timeline
Wow, I will give you credit for creativity, using the common defense clause to defend restrictions on immigration. But you are completely ignoring the Declaration of Independence, which came years before that Constitution. You ignore the inalienable right called "pursuit of happiness". Open borders are absolutely critical to that right. The founders didn't say all men had an inalienable right to pursue their happiness but only within the confines of the country in which they were born.
What most people don't realize is that open borders were then, and are now, the very center of America's exceptionalism. The concept of a "social contract", where rulers were only legitimate when they ruled with the CONSENT of the governed, was a new concept spawned during the Age of Enlightenment. Previously, the concept of feudal obligation was the general belief and rule of the day. Individuals as yourself have reverted to that concept, where one's allegiance is determined by the place of their birth, instead of by their own consent. Where one can be perpetually considered an "alien" in the land in which they choose to live simply because they were born somewhere else is completely contradictory to the ideals of the founders.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
Utter bullshit for which you have no supporting evidence. America in the 1780s and America today are not the same. That is why the Constitution gave Congress powers over immigration, or did you intentionally ignore that part of the Constitution because it is inconvenient?
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
considering the law covering immigration have been changing since 1790, it's hard to take you seriously.
Immigration Laws Passed in the U.S.: History and Timeline
He is a terminal idiot.
No, the Constitution did not even mention "immigration". It only discusses "naturalization". As to supporting evidence, perhaps after you have spent a couple of years actually study history the right way, by putting on white gloves and digging through historical documents, you would understand. But, if you don't know anything about the Age of Enlightenment, don't know about the old concept of feudal obligation, misunderstand the whole social contract thing, you probably are not going to understand. I don't need to post any evidence you stupid shit. Hell, you have some contradictory translations to the social contract and feudal obligation concepts? Is my explanation of them wrong? Does not claiming foreign born residents of this country have an "obligation" to their former country just an old re-hash of the feudal obligation concept and does not a "social contract" inherently imply that people have a "choice" as to whom they are governed by?
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I have a degree in history and taught it for over 20 years. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Immigration is required before naturalization, dumbass!
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
Bullshit. But if you do have a degree in history I would ask for my money back. I mean John Locke, the Age of Enlightenment, and the conflicting ideals of the social contract and feudal obligation were at the forefront of the founding of this nation.
And anyone with a real degree in history from a real school would know that the constitution provided for Congress to determine the process of naturalization but did not give it the power to determine who could immigrate, because, ANYONE COULD COME HERE. But I remember, you like "evidence".
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
Immigration vs Naturalization
Hell, I be you don't even know who, and under what circumstances, were the original "illegal aliens". Of course, I am not surprised that a former public school teacher doesn't know jacksquat about history, even if they do have a degree. You were probably one of those dumb shits that were telling their students how brave Columbus was because everyone thought the world was flat. Luckily, when my oldest came home spouting that shit there was a lunar eclipse within a few nights. I strolled him outside, let him watch the curve cross the face of the moon and asked him. Does that look like the shadow of a flat earth or a round earth? When he answered round I told him Aristotle figured that out more than a thousand years before Columbus. The last thing anyone during Columbus time was worried about was him falling of the edge of the earth.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
There are very few professions in which you MUST be intelligent to be successful. Some of the sciences. For instance, it isn't possible for a person of less than average math ability to become a renowned nuclear physicist. But a CEO? Shit ... some of those guys/ladies are just good at fast-talking, but don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. You can become very successful with an intimidating title while remaining an ignoramus. Most are actually quite intelligent, but sometimes you come across a c-level or near c-level ranking person and just shake your head like, "How the fuck did you make it so far?"
There are history teachers out there who are brilliant but just love history, and don't want to climb corporate ladders. I don't know why you had to insult his being a teacher. Just call him an idiot like a normal person and move on.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
There are very few professions in which you MUST be intelligent to be successful. Some of the sciences. For instance, it isn't possible for a person of less than average math ability to become a renowned nuclear physicist. But a CEO? Shit ... some of those guys/ladies are just good at fast-talking, but don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. You can become very successful with an intimidating title while remaining an ignoramus. Most are actually quite intelligent, but sometimes you come across a c-level or near c-level ranking person and just shake your head like, "How the fuck did you make it so far?"
There are history teachers out there who are brilliant but just love history, and don't want to climb corporate ladders. I don't know why you had to insult his being a teacher. Just call him an idiot like a normal person and move on.
He asked for it. If you can't take the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
There are very few professions in which you MUST be intelligent to be successful. Some of the sciences. For instance, it isn't possible for a person of less than average math ability to become a renowned nuclear physicist. But a CEO? Shit ... some of those guys/ladies are just good at fast-talking, but don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. You can become very successful with an intimidating title while remaining an ignoramus. Most are actually quite intelligent, but sometimes you come across a c-level or near c-level ranking person and just shake your head like, "How the fuck did you make it so far?"
There are history teachers out there who are brilliant but just love history, and don't want to climb corporate ladders. I don't know why you had to insult his being a teacher. Just call him an idiot like a normal person and move on.
He asked for it. If you can't take the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen.
Attacking someone for their "low level" job (because it doesn't make enough to be considered important, apparently) just makes you come across as an arrogant prick. That's literally all it does. I'm not gonna look at the other guy and go, "Wow, only a teacher, what a loser". I'm gonna look at you and go, "Wow, what a douchebag. Can't stand people like that."
Just for future reference.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
There are very few professions in which you MUST be intelligent to be successful. Some of the sciences. For instance, it isn't possible for a person of less than average math ability to become a renowned nuclear physicist. But a CEO? Shit ... some of those guys/ladies are just good at fast-talking, but don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. You can become very successful with an intimidating title while remaining an ignoramus. Most are actually quite intelligent, but sometimes you come across a c-level or near c-level ranking person and just shake your head like, "How the fuck did you make it so far?"
There are history teachers out there who are brilliant but just love history, and don't want to climb corporate ladders. I don't know why you had to insult his being a teacher. Just call him an idiot like a normal person and move on.
He asked for it. If you can't take the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen.
Attacking someone for their "low level" job (because it doesn't make enough to be considered important, apparently) just makes you come across as an arrogant prick. That's literally all it does. I'm not gonna look at the other guy and go, "Wow, only a teacher, what a loser". I'm gonna look at you and go, "Wow, what a douchebag. Can't stand people like that."
Just for future reference.
Well guess what buckwheat. What you think of me is none of my business and I really don't give a shit. Personally, it is insulting that a high school history teacher doesn't know squat about the founding of this nation. Has no idea about John Locke, the conflicting concepts of feudal obligations and the social contract, or even who the first illegal immigrants were. Hell, he is probably one of the lame brain history teachers telling impressionable young people that the Constitution is based on the bible when it was damn near lifted right out of the Confederacy of the Five Tribes and their existing constitution.
My God, the stupidty is strong with this one.
Goodbye shit for brains! You are not worthy of my time.
Says the former high school history teacher. LMAO High school history teachers are a dime a dozen and on the intelligence scale rank somewhere between a Walmart greeter and a ditch digger.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
There are very few professions in which you MUST be intelligent to be successful. Some of the sciences. For instance, it isn't possible for a person of less than average math ability to become a renowned nuclear physicist. But a CEO? Shit ... some of those guys/ladies are just good at fast-talking, but don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. You can become very successful with an intimidating title while remaining an ignoramus. Most are actually quite intelligent, but sometimes you come across a c-level or near c-level ranking person and just shake your head like, "How the fuck did you make it so far?"
There are history teachers out there who are brilliant but just love history, and don't want to climb corporate ladders. I don't know why you had to insult his being a teacher. Just call him an idiot like a normal person and move on.
He asked for it. If you can't take the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen.
There's nothing wrong with being a teacher, you fucking snob.
I didn't say there was. You just can't hold it out as a sign of your intelligence, especially if you are a history teacher.
There are very few professions in which you MUST be intelligent to be successful. Some of the sciences. For instance, it isn't possible for a person of less than average math ability to become a renowned nuclear physicist. But a CEO? Shit ... some of those guys/ladies are just good at fast-talking, but don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. You can become very successful with an intimidating title while remaining an ignoramus. Most are actually quite intelligent, but sometimes you come across a c-level or near c-level ranking person and just shake your head like, "How the fuck did you make it so far?"
There are history teachers out there who are brilliant but just love history, and don't want to climb corporate ladders. I don't know why you had to insult his being a teacher. Just call him an idiot like a normal person and move on.
He asked for it. If you can't take the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen.
Attacking someone for their "low level" job (because it doesn't make enough to be considered important, apparently) just makes you come across as an arrogant prick. That's literally all it does. I'm not gonna look at the other guy and go, "Wow, only a teacher, what a loser". I'm gonna look at you and go, "Wow, what a douchebag. Can't stand people like that."
Just for future reference.
Well guess what buckwheat. What you think of me is none of my business and I really don't give a shit. Personally, it is insulting that a high school history teacher doesn't know squat about the founding of this nation. Has no idea about John Locke, the conflicting concepts of feudal obligations and the social contract, or even who the first illegal immigrants were. Hell, he is probably one of the lame brain history teachers telling impressionable young people that the Constitution is based on the bible when it was damn near lifted right out of the Confederacy of the Five Tribes and their existing constitution.
