Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[The Rabbi]

I would love to debate Rafael Cruz. I'd more than hold my own. Because I've heard his arguments and they are wanting.

You can't hold your own on this forum, you ignorant prick. You get schooled every day by people with nothing better to do than sit here and post. Cruz would destroy you in the first 5 seconds.

And I've just done exactly that in the last 4 posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to set immigration rules

You're moving the goalpost, dopey. It's about whether the Fed Gov has the Constitutional right to control the border. That was your argument. Not immigration.

So immigration doesn't have to do with people moving over the border? You're exhausting your quota of dumb and ignorant today.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

 

[kaz]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

How does that clearly make it not? For the first half of our country, it wasn't realistic to defend the borders.

You don't see border as a national security issue? Seriously?

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

How does that clearly make it not? For the first half of our country, it wasn't realistic to defend the borders.

You don't see border as a national security issue? Seriously?

ON that count everything is a national security issue, which means the Constitution grants unlimited power, which we know is not the case.

 

[kaz]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

How does that clearly make it not? For the first half of our country, it wasn't realistic to defend the borders.

You don't see border as a national security issue? Seriously?

ON that count everything is a national security issue, which means the Constitution grants unlimited power, which we know is not the case.

WTF are you talking about? That's ridiculous. Checking who is entering the country and why means you could justify making a baker bake a couple of fags a cake? What a dumb argument. I think you're trying to be cute in this thread, but it's a fail. Clearly border security is directly national security. We need to check out who is entering the country and why they are coming, it's directly national security.

Al Qaeda now can fly to Mexico City and walk across the border. Criminals enter the country and murder and rape people. People come in unable to support themselves. It's basic national security to check them out first

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

How does that clearly make it not? For the first half of our country, it wasn't realistic to defend the borders.

You don't see border as a national security issue? Seriously?

ON that count everything is a national security issue, which means the Constitution grants unlimited power, which we know is not the case.

WTF are you talking about? That's ridiculous. Checking who is entering the country and why means you could justify making a backer bake a fag bread? What a dumb argument. I think you're trying to be cute in this thread, but it's a fail. Clearly border security is directly national security. We need to check out who is entering the country and why they are coming, it's directly national security.

Al Qaeda now can fly to Mexico City and walk across the border. Criminals enter the country and murder and rape people. People come in unable to support themselves. It's basic national security to check them out first

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives. And since you pretend to be a Libertarian I would think you'd take it seriously.
Where does the fed gov get the authority in the Constitutioon to regulate the border? It isn't there. Your argument is the EXACT same one used to support universal background checks on gun purchases. We need to check out who is buying guns and why. Now anyone can go to a gun show and buy what they want, including criminals.
It's a fail when applied to gun control and a fail when applied to immigration. In both cases you cannot stop malfeasors from acting badly ahead of the fact.

 

[OKTexas]

No, they are subject to laws established for guest workers, students and temporary visas. These are NOT immigrants. Go look up the definition of immigration and you'll see that it's meaning is not how you are applying it.

Wrong.
Check 8US Code Para 1101 under defintiions. Anyone coming here from a foreign country who is not a citizen is considered an alien and thus an immigrant and subject to immigration laws.

gonna hold you to the same standard... post the text or you're blowing smoke.

Post what text? The definition? Here.
(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens—
(A)
(i)
an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;
(ii)
upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and
(iii)
upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above;

Now tell me which part of the Constitution authorizes this law.

The part that gives the president the authority to negotiate treaties and diplomatic agreements. That would be Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. Damn, you're getting more stupid by the day.

Which power or country was the Immigration and Naturalization Act negotiated with? Why did the House vote on it when only the Senate ratified treaties?
Methinks you are out of your depth here.

The portion you cited deals with diplomats, which was written in accordance with diplomatic treaties, international law and the 14th Amendment. Of course you already knew that, you're just trolling your own thread.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Open border means everyone and anyone can walk in and become an American. The thread topic is a fallacy.

It means no such thing. Congress can and does set rules for who can become a citizen. But not everyone here is a citizen or even wants to be a citizen.
Your posts here are fallacies.

Open border means everyone and anyone can walk in and become an American. The thread topic is a fallacy.

It means no such thing. Congress can and does set rules for who can become a citizen. But not everyone here is a citizen or even wants to be a citizen.
Your posts here are fallacies.

Open border means just what it says. Open as in not closed, filtered, or monitored.

Wrong.
Open borders means borders that people can pass over unmolested by fascist guards. Just the same way you can pass from VA to MD. It doesnt mean there is no border between VA and MD.

Thanks for validating my point. Taliban and ISIS can walk into America anytime and you're happy if it was only so.

What makes you think they can't do that already? And when you get to the point of saying people are going to walk here from Afghanistan and Syria then you've lost this debate.

The OP can't find one conservative who says the Taliban should be able to walk into America unchecked. Or Democrat. Or even a Communist.

 

[kaz]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives. And since you pretend to be a Libertarian I would think you'd take it seriously

I "pretend?" What does that mean? You're being ridiculous

Where does the fed gov get the authority in the Constitutioon to regulate the border?

National Security

It isn't there. Your argument is the EXACT same one used to support universal background checks on gun purchases. We need to check out who is buying guns and why. Now anyone can go to a gun show and buy what they want, including criminals.
It's a fail when applied to gun control and a fail when applied to immigration. In both cases you cannot stop malfeasors from acting badly ahead of the fact.

Gun control isn't a national security issue. I've argued consistently that gun rights should be no more or less than any other Constitutional right. You have to seen that, I argue it all the time.

Another difference is that national security is about protecting us from foreign threats. Domestic gun crimes are a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

When terrorists walk across the Mexican border with nuclear material and and blow a dirty bomb in your neighborhood and kill your family, go ahead then and tell me there wasn't a national security issue. By your logic, we can't stop planes from flying across the border and attacking cities either.

It's ridiculous, defending the border's just directly a national security issue

 

[OKTexas]

If the lower court can't consider a matter

This is an academic question, not tethered to reality. Like the Kobayashi Maru. There is always some way to work a case up the judicial ladder.

Keep thinking that, there's only a few instances where the supremes have original jurisdiction. Try reading the Constitution occasionally.

Synth things the "Bill of Rights" is something you get in the mail every month you'ev got to pay.

That's ok, you think "migration or importation of persons", only applies to black people.

No, actually I KNOW that clause in the Constitution refers to slavery. And I cited sources that agree with me while you have yet to cite one.
Damn you're losing big here.

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

How does that clearly make it not? For the first half of our country, it wasn't realistic to defend the borders.

You don't see border as a national security issue? Seriously?

ON that count everything is a national security issue, which means the Constitution grants unlimited power, which we know is not the case.

Maybe you should inform the Supreme Court of that fact, they don't see it that way.

 

[The Rabbi]

It means no such thing. Congress can and does set rules for who can become a citizen. But not everyone here is a citizen or even wants to be a citizen.
Your posts here are fallacies.

It means no such thing. Congress can and does set rules for who can become a citizen. But not everyone here is a citizen or even wants to be a citizen.
Your posts here are fallacies.

Open border means just what it says. Open as in not closed, filtered, or monitored.

Wrong.
Open borders means borders that people can pass over unmolested by fascist guards. Just the same way you can pass from VA to MD. It doesnt mean there is no border between VA and MD.

Thanks for validating my point. Taliban and ISIS can walk into America anytime and you're happy if it was only so.

What makes you think they can't do that already? And when you get to the point of saying people are going to walk here from Afghanistan and Syria then you've lost this debate.

The OP can't find one conservative who says the Taliban should be able to walk into America unchecked. Or Democrat. Or even a Communist.

Wrong.
Go look up Jeffrey Tucker.
That wasnt even the contention. You move the goalposts because yo've lost.

 

[The Rabbi]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives. And since you pretend to be a Libertarian I would think you'd take it seriously

I "pretend?" What does that mean? You're being ridiculous

Where does the fed gov get the authority in the Constitutioon to regulate the border?

National Security

It isn't there. Your argument is the EXACT same one used to support universal background checks on gun purchases. We need to check out who is buying guns and why. Now anyone can go to a gun show and buy what they want, including criminals.
It's a fail when applied to gun control and a fail when applied to immigration. In both cases you cannot stop malfeasors from acting badly ahead of the fact.

Gun control isn't a national security issue. I've argued consistently that gun rights should be no more or less than any other Constitutional right. You have to seen that, I argue it all the time.

Another difference is that national security is about protecting us from foreign threats. Domestic gun crimes are a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

When terrorists walk across the Mexican border with nuclear material and and blow a dirty bomb in your neighborhood and kill your family, go ahead then and tell me there wasn't a national security issue. By your logic, we can't stop planes from flying across the border and attacking cities either.

It's ridiculous, defending the border's just directly a national security issue

National security? Seriously? We existed as a nation for 100 years without any border control at all.
On your view everything is national security. NSA spying is national security. Drug dealing is national security. TSA is national security. You can make a case for everything being part of national security and thus everything is authorized under the Constitution. But then there's that limited powers thing so it wont wash.
Yours is a self-refuting argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is an academic question, not tethered to reality. Like the Kobayashi Maru. There is always some way to work a case up the judicial ladder.

Keep thinking that, there's only a few instances where the supremes have original jurisdiction. Try reading the Constitution occasionally.

Synth things the "Bill of Rights" is something you get in the mail every month you'ev got to pay.

That's ok, you think "migration or importation of persons", only applies to black people.

No, actually I KNOW that clause in the Constitution refers to slavery. And I cited sources that agree with me while you have yet to cite one.
Damn you're losing big here.

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

How does that clearly make it not? For the first half of our country, it wasn't realistic to defend the borders.

You don't see border as a national security issue? Seriously?

ON that count everything is a national security issue, which means the Constitution grants unlimited power, which we know is not the case.

Maybe you should inform the Supreme Court of that fact, they don't see it that way.

Ipse dixit fallacy.
next.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Open border means just what it says. Open as in not closed, filtered, or monitored.

Wrong.
Open borders means borders that people can pass over unmolested by fascist guards. Just the same way you can pass from VA to MD. It doesnt mean there is no border between VA and MD.

Thanks for validating my point. Taliban and ISIS can walk into America anytime and you're happy if it was only so.

What makes you think they can't do that already? And when you get to the point of saying people are going to walk here from Afghanistan and Syria then you've lost this debate.

The OP can't find one conservative who says the Taliban should be able to walk into America unchecked. Or Democrat. Or even a Communist.

Wrong.
Go look up Jeffrey Tucker.
That wasnt even the contention. You move the goalposts because yo've lost.

It's your topic headline. And you can't name one.
Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong.
Open borders means borders that people can pass over unmolested by fascist guards. Just the same way you can pass from VA to MD. It doesnt mean there is no border between VA and MD.

Thanks for validating my point. Taliban and ISIS can walk into America anytime and you're happy if it was only so.

What makes you think they can't do that already? And when you get to the point of saying people are going to walk here from Afghanistan and Syria then you've lost this debate.

The OP can't find one conservative who says the Taliban should be able to walk into America unchecked. Or Democrat. Or even a Communist.

Wrong.
Go look up Jeffrey Tucker.
That wasnt even the contention. You move the goalposts because yo've lost.

It's your topic headline. And you can't name one.
Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

I already named one, so you're shit outta luck moving those goalposts.

 

[OKTexas]

Keep thinking that, there's only a few instances where the supremes have original jurisdiction. Try reading the Constitution occasionally.

Synth things the "Bill of Rights" is something you get in the mail every month you'ev got to pay.

That's ok, you think "migration or importation of persons", only applies to black people.

No, actually I KNOW that clause in the Constitution refers to slavery. And I cited sources that agree with me while you have yet to cite one.
Damn you're losing big here.

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

Yet we still have modern day slaves imported virtually daily. What's wrong can't find anything that says the Article I cited isn't in full effect? STFU till you do.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives. And since you pretend to be a Libertarian I would think you'd take it seriously

I "pretend?" What does that mean? You're being ridiculous

Where does the fed gov get the authority in the Constitutioon to regulate the border?

National Security

It isn't there. Your argument is the EXACT same one used to support universal background checks on gun purchases. We need to check out who is buying guns and why. Now anyone can go to a gun show and buy what they want, including criminals.
It's a fail when applied to gun control and a fail when applied to immigration. In both cases you cannot stop malfeasors from acting badly ahead of the fact.

Gun control isn't a national security issue. I've argued consistently that gun rights should be no more or less than any other Constitutional right. You have to seen that, I argue it all the time.

Another difference is that national security is about protecting us from foreign threats. Domestic gun crimes are a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

When terrorists walk across the Mexican border with nuclear material and and blow a dirty bomb in your neighborhood and kill your family, go ahead then and tell me there wasn't a national security issue. By your logic, we can't stop planes from flying across the border and attacking cities either.

It's ridiculous, defending the border's just directly a national security issue

National security? Seriously? We existed as a nation for 100 years without any border control at all.
On your view everything is national security. NSA spying is national security. Drug dealing is national security. TSA is national security. You can make a case for everything being part of national security and thus everything is authorized under the Constitution. But then there's that limited powers thing so it wont wash.
Yours is a self-refuting argument.

The world was more civilized until the left began to destroy civilization in the 60's. Kids could take their rifle to school to go hunting afterwards 60 years ago. Now kids have a sandwich chewed into the shape of a gun all the "adults" in the school freak out.