Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[The Rabbi]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives.

I am a constitutional conservative, I listen to constitutional conservatives speak, I read books by them, I have never heard THIS argument made by any of them. The only people I've ever heard advocating open borders are Socialists who hope to flood our country with illegal immigrants in order to collapse the infrastructure and bring down the capitalist beast.

With open borders, we ostensibly cease to have a country. A constitution means nothing with no country. I'm not sure about what kind of point you're trying to make, I've scratched my head through this whole thread wondering about that. Sometimes, people can be absurd to illustrate absurdity... but I don't think that's the case here, I think you're being genuine. This is not the principle of any constitutional conservative I know of and I don't see where you've posted any examples of a prominent conservative uttering such a thing. This gets my vote for most bizarre thread of the week.

OK then if you are a Constitutional Conservative you can cite what authority Congress has to regulate immigration. Don't give me the Naturalization clause because we've already covered that.

But that IS the authority to regulate immigration. We've covered it and you simply denied reality and claimed it doesn't deal with immigration... but it does. That is exactly what naturalization is... the dealing with immigration by government.

Your parsing of the constitution leads to things like claiming the 2nd amendment doesn't allow us to own guns or the 1st amendment doesn't allow religious freedom.

Naturalization =/= Immigration.
Clear enough for you?

 

[Boss]

article IV section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A person getting off a boat is not invading. That' s just nonsense.

They could be... you don't know! We got off boats in Normandy, didn't we?

 

[The Rabbi]

article IV section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A person getting off a boat is not invading. That' s just nonsense.

They could be... you don't know! We got off boats in Normandy, didn't we?

Your admission of defeat on this thread is acknowledged.

 

[Boss]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives.

I am a constitutional conservative, I listen to constitutional conservatives speak, I read books by them, I have never heard THIS argument made by any of them. The only people I've ever heard advocating open borders are Socialists who hope to flood our country with illegal immigrants in order to collapse the infrastructure and bring down the capitalist beast.

With open borders, we ostensibly cease to have a country. A constitution means nothing with no country. I'm not sure about what kind of point you're trying to make, I've scratched my head through this whole thread wondering about that. Sometimes, people can be absurd to illustrate absurdity... but I don't think that's the case here, I think you're being genuine. This is not the principle of any constitutional conservative I know of and I don't see where you've posted any examples of a prominent conservative uttering such a thing. This gets my vote for most bizarre thread of the week.

OK then if you are a Constitutional Conservative you can cite what authority Congress has to regulate immigration. Don't give me the Naturalization clause because we've already covered that.

But that IS the authority to regulate immigration. We've covered it and you simply denied reality and claimed it doesn't deal with immigration... but it does. That is exactly what naturalization is... the dealing with immigration by government.

Your parsing of the constitution leads to things like claiming the 2nd amendment doesn't allow us to own guns or the 1st amendment doesn't allow religious freedom.

Naturalization =/= Immigration.
Clear enough for you?

I didn't say they were equal. You asked for where the Constitution gives the government authority to regulate immigration and naturalization IS the regulation of immigration.

 

[Boss]

article IV section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A person getting off a boat is not invading. That' s just nonsense.

They could be... you don't know! We got off boats in Normandy, didn't we?

Your admission of defeat on this thread is acknowledged.

I didn't admit defeat. Is this the level of trollery you've devolved to now? Did some liberal fuckgoof hack your account?

 

[The Rabbi]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives.

I am a constitutional conservative, I listen to constitutional conservatives speak, I read books by them, I have never heard THIS argument made by any of them. The only people I've ever heard advocating open borders are Socialists who hope to flood our country with illegal immigrants in order to collapse the infrastructure and bring down the capitalist beast.

With open borders, we ostensibly cease to have a country. A constitution means nothing with no country. I'm not sure about what kind of point you're trying to make, I've scratched my head through this whole thread wondering about that. Sometimes, people can be absurd to illustrate absurdity... but I don't think that's the case here, I think you're being genuine. This is not the principle of any constitutional conservative I know of and I don't see where you've posted any examples of a prominent conservative uttering such a thing. This gets my vote for most bizarre thread of the week.

OK then if you are a Constitutional Conservative you can cite what authority Congress has to regulate immigration. Don't give me the Naturalization clause because we've already covered that.

But that IS the authority to regulate immigration. We've covered it and you simply denied reality and claimed it doesn't deal with immigration... but it does. That is exactly what naturalization is... the dealing with immigration by government.

Your parsing of the constitution leads to things like claiming the 2nd amendment doesn't allow us to own guns or the 1st amendment doesn't allow religious freedom.

Naturalization =/= Immigration.
Clear enough for you?

I didn't say they were equal. You asked for where the Constitution gives the government authority to regulate immigration and naturalization IS the regulation of immigration.

Naturalization IS immigration? You're not very bright, are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

article IV section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A person getting off a boat is not invading. That' s just nonsense.

They could be... you don't know! We got off boats in Normandy, didn't we?

Your admission of defeat on this thread is acknowledged.

I didn't admit defeat. Is this the level of trollery you've devolved to now? Did some liberal fuckgoof hack your account?

You did. When you post absurd statements like they're some kind of argument you effectively give up.

 

[Contumacious]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives.

I am a constitutional conservative, I listen to constitutional conservatives speak, I read books by them, I have never heard THIS argument made by any of them. The only people I've ever heard advocating open borders are Socialists who hope to flood our country with illegal immigrants in order to collapse the infrastructure and bring down the capitalist beast.

With open borders, we ostensibly cease to have a country. A constitution means nothing with no country. I'm not sure about what kind of point you're trying to make, I've scratched my head through this whole thread wondering about that. Sometimes, people can be absurd to illustrate absurdity... but I don't think that's the case here, I think you're being genuine. This is not the principle of any constitutional conservative I know of and I don't see where you've posted any examples of a prominent conservative uttering such a thing. This gets my vote for most bizarre thread of the week.

OK then if you are a Constitutional Conservative you can cite what authority Congress has to regulate immigration. Don't give me the Naturalization clause because we've already covered that.

But that IS the authority to regulate immigration. We've covered it and you simply denied reality and claimed it doesn't deal with immigration... but it does. That is exactly what naturalization is... the dealing with immigration by government.

Your parsing of the constitution leads to things like claiming the 2nd amendment doesn't allow us to own guns or the 1st amendment doesn't allow religious freedom.

Naturalization =/= Immigration.
Clear enough for you?

I didn't say they were equal. You asked for where the Constitution gives the government authority to regulate immigration and naturalization IS the regulation of immigration.

No sir, for the umpteenth time, IT ISN'T

The states RETAINED the authority to confer their jurisdiction upon whomever.

If that individual wanted to be a Texas and a US citizen then he would apply for naturalization.

Read the previous posts - they have links.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Suck my rod you stupid son of a bitch - be a man and admit that you are a KKK Grand Wizard.

.

____________________________

Look how this series of posts degenerated once a left-wing loon got involved. I don't care to be any type of message board police...anyone ought to be free to made a fool of himself any way he wants too...and it is good that this Board allows it.

But it is becoming increasingly remarkable....increasingly worth noting...how completely bankrupt, foolish, and uneducated the left-wing responses on this board are.

You can't have political discussion with a left-winger....you get "racist mother-fucker" when race was not even in the discussion....and "suck my rod you stupid son-of-a-bitch" when that fact is pointed out.

The absurdity is palpable...and it is in every thread that a liberal is involved in.

Their entire repertoire of Political Discussion is some variation of:

Nutter

Racist

Homophobe

Rube

Islamophobe

Hater Dupe (I have the Hater Dupe guy on ignore)

Bigot

And they have no idea how foolish they look. What does that tell you?

Suck my rod you stupid racist son-of-a-bitch , Listen cocksucker ,

a link was provided showing that Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd Prez and Founding Father opposed the 1798 Immigration Act - Congress allowed it expired in 1800 and there were NO IMMIGRATION Laws until a RACIST SCOTUS declared that because the Chinese wanted to work in the California gold mines thereby upsetting the Aryan Brotherhood that there was "an emergency" requiring the motherfuckers to act a a mini-legislature and amending the Constitution,

REBUT and/or REFUTE with FACTS


.

Suck my rod you stupid racist son-of-a-bitch , Listen cocksucker ,

a link was provided showing that Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd Prez and Founding Father opposed the 1798 Immigration Act - Congress allowed it expired in 1800 and there were NO IMMIGRATION Laws until a RACIST SCOTUS declared that because the Chinese wanted to work in the California gold mines thereby upsetting the Aryan Brotherhood that there was "an emergency" requiring the motherfuckers to act a a mini-legislature and amending the Constitution,

REBUT and/or REFUTE with FACTS

Mrs. Tough Libtard-Wingnut. I hyphenated your name for ya. I know how you douches like that.

Quit stonewalling you miserable piece of shit

a link was provided showing that Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd Prez and Founding Father opposed the 1798 Immigration Act - Congress allowed it expired in 1800 and there were NO IMMIGRATION Laws until a RACIST SCOTUS declared that because the Chinese wanted to work in the California gold mines thereby upsetting the Aryan Brotherhood that there was "an emergency" requiring the motherfuckers to act a a mini-legislature and amending the Constitution,

REBUT and/or REFUTE with FACTS

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

____________________________

Look how this series of posts degenerated once a left-wing loon got involved. I don't care to be any type of message board police...anyone ought to be free to made a fool of himself any way he wants too...and it is good that this Board allows it.

But it is becoming increasingly remarkable....increasingly worth noting...how completely bankrupt, foolish, and uneducated the left-wing responses on this board are.

You can't have political discussion with a left-winger....you get "racist mother-fucker" when race was not even in the discussion....and "suck my rod you stupid son-of-a-bitch" when that fact is pointed out.

The absurdity is palpable...and it is in every thread that a liberal is involved in.

Their entire repertoire of Political Discussion is some variation of:

Nutter

Racist

Homophobe

Rube

Islamophobe

Hater Dupe (I have the Hater Dupe guy on ignore)

Bigot

And they have no idea how foolish they look. What does that tell you?

Suck my rod you stupid racist son-of-a-bitch , Listen cocksucker ,

a link was provided showing that Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd Prez and Founding Father opposed the 1798 Immigration Act - Congress allowed it expired in 1800 and there were NO IMMIGRATION Laws until a RACIST SCOTUS declared that because the Chinese wanted to work in the California gold mines thereby upsetting the Aryan Brotherhood that there was "an emergency" requiring the motherfuckers to act a a mini-legislature and amending the Constitution,

REBUT and/or REFUTE with FACTS


.

Suck my rod you stupid racist son-of-a-bitch , Listen cocksucker ,

a link was provided showing that Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd Prez and Founding Father opposed the 1798 Immigration Act - Congress allowed it expired in 1800 and there were NO IMMIGRATION Laws until a RACIST SCOTUS declared that because the Chinese wanted to work in the California gold mines thereby upsetting the Aryan Brotherhood that there was "an emergency" requiring the motherfuckers to act a a mini-legislature and amending the Constitution,

REBUT and/or REFUTE with FACTS

Mrs. Tough Libtard-Wingnut. I hyphenated your name for ya. I know how you douches like that.

Quit stonewalling you miserable piece of shit

a link was provided showing that Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd Prez and Founding Father opposed the 1798 Immigration Act - Congress allowed it expired in 1800 and there were NO IMMIGRATION Laws until a RACIST SCOTUS declared that because the Chinese wanted to work in the California gold mines thereby upsetting the Aryan Brotherhood that there was "an emergency" requiring the motherfuckers to act a a mini-legislature and amending the Constitution,

REBUT and/or REFUTE with FACTS

And researching this proves what now? I doubt it'd have any bearing on my views of modern day immigration law enforcement or the lack thereof.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."


Thomas Jefferson

Using the Kentucky Resolution is laughable at best, it holds no legal weight. All you are doing is presenting the opinion of someone and claiming it as fact.

Madison hoped that other states would register their opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts as beyond the powers given to Congress. The Kentucky Resolutions, authored by Jefferson, went further than Madison's Virginia Resolution and asserted that states had the power to nullify unconstitutional federal laws.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Bill of Rights Institute

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I was going to ignore your post because ALL the Founding Fathers agree that fedgov has no authority to interdict , detain and deport. Links to HISTORICAL FACTS have been provided,

There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see.

All the founding fathers? Looks like only Jefferson and Madison had an issue and has more to do with their ideology than with what the majority felt.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No sir, for the umpteenth time, IT ISN'T

The states RETAINED the authority to confer their jurisdiction upon whomever.

So you contend the states still have that authority, which admits immigration was controlled, if even by the states. Immigration is an inherent sovereign power, this the Federal Govt can create law regarding the control of immigrants.

[t]he inherent sovereign powers were transferred from Great Britain to the union of states when the U.S. declared its independence. These powers were thus vested in the national government before the Constitution was written and exist without regard to any constitutional grant. It has been suggested that the apparently limitless scope of federal authority over immigration results from this undefined and indefinable source. The Supreme Court has upheld every exercise of this power and has consistently termed it "plenary and unqualified."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

If that individual wanted to be a Texas and a US citizen then he would apply for naturalization.

Wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

No sir, for the umpteenth time, IT ISN'T

The states RETAINED the authority to confer their jurisdiction upon whomever.

So you contend the states still have that authority, which admits immigration was controlled, if even by the states.

If that individual wanted to be a Texas and a US citizen then he would apply for naturalization.

Wrong.

Wrong quote there, son.
But naturalization is not immigration, for the umpteenth time. The fedgov has no Constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No sir, for the umpteenth time, IT ISN'T

The states RETAINED the authority to confer their jurisdiction upon whomever.

So you contend the states still have that authority, which admits immigration was controlled, if even by the states.

If that individual wanted to be a Texas and a US citizen then he would apply for naturalization.

Wrong.

Wrong quote there, son.
But naturalization is not immigration, for the umpteenth time. The fedgov has no Constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

Immigration control is: the inherent sovereign powers were transferred from Great Britain to the union of states when the U.S. declared its independence. These powers were thus vested in the national government before the Constitution was written and exist without regard to any constitutional grant. It has been suggested that the apparently limitless scope of federal authority over immigration results from this undefined and indefinable source. The Supreme Court has upheld every exercise of this power and has consistently termed it "plenary and unqualified."

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No sir, for the umpteenth time, IT ISN'T

The states RETAINED the authority to confer their jurisdiction upon whomever.

So you contend the states still have that authority, which admits immigration was controlled, if even by the states.

If that individual wanted to be a Texas and a US citizen then he would apply for naturalization.

Wrong.

Wrong quote there, son.
But naturalization is not immigration, for the umpteenth time. The fedgov has no Constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

Yep wrong quote, should have been Contumacious quoted.

 

[jon_berzerk]

article IV section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A person getting off a boat is not invading. That' s just nonsense.

how do you know that

 

[Synthaholic]

How about EOs have zero to do with the Constitution? ANd then just go from there.

To where? Who gives a shit? There are plenty of powers that aren't written in the Constitution. That doesn't make them unlawful or unConstitutional.

BULLSHIT.

Fedgov's powers are specifically enumerated, if they are not they the authority has been USURPED.

I understand that the fascists, socialists, the berners don't have a problem with that.

Freedom loving Americans, on the other hand. must be very very concerned.


.

Yeah, well, if you were going to ask for an example I would point to the Federal Income Tax but you don't believe that's legal, either.

Hard to argue with an anarchist. They don't think the government should regulate a thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

libs love it- immigration- legal or illegal- means less white people.

Stop talking out your ass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

This again.

Rab. What are you doing?