Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

Excuse me shit for brains, how did "modern day immigration law" become modern without a Constitutional (1787) Amendment granting fedgov the authority to interdict, detain and deport?
/

Three of the four Acts of the Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire. We have always had immigration law, since prior to the signing of the USC. The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect today.

How did RACIST "justices" USURPED the power because the Chinese wanted to work in California's gold mines thereby pissing off the Aryan Brotherhood. When the CEA was done through Congress?

Your knowledge of basic US History is lacking at best. Just because we had relatively free and open immigration in the early years, that doesn't mean we didn't have immigration laws, nor does it mean the Feds didn't have authority over immigration.

HUH?

Identify the FEDERAL immigration Law in effect after 1800.

The way it works here in these US of A - I assume you are a FOREIGNER hence the reason for your IGNORANCE -

The Constitution (1787) specifically authorizes fedgov to perform certain acts

Congress then acts as CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized.

You've got to be one of the dumbest fucks here. You are claiming through "strict constructionism" that the US isn't even a sovereign nation. If you were a US Citizen you should at the very least know basic US history. Your interpretation of constitutional theory is that of a judicial activist, specifically Justice Hugo Black. Just because the US had relatively open immigration prior to the CEA, doesn't mean the Federal Govt didn't have Plenary Power over immigration.

Listen you miserable stupid fuck

The states did not form a nation

they merely created a federal government with LIMITED , specifically enumerated powers , mostly dealing with foreign affairs .

The STATES were sovereign and THEY retained the power to confer their citizenship upon whomever..

The states didn't form a nation? You really are the dumbest fuck on here, you're a PR which explains it. Does July 4th, 1776 ring a bell? The US Constitution created a more perfect Union. The US Constitution recognized US Citizens, and states were still allowed for the time being to create their own citizens. The Privileges and Immunities Clause was brought over from the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. The citizen of one state was now a citizen recognized in all the states.

Listen cocksucker, you are a glutton for punishment

Let the second class citizen from PR teach you Constitutional Law

"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

James Madison

The Father of the US Constitution

.

Yea, I can quote random quotes that have nothing to do with immigration also.

 

[Contumacious]

Excuse me shit for brains, how did "modern day immigration law" become modern without a Constitutional (1787) Amendment granting fedgov the authority to interdict, detain and deport?
/

HUH?

Identify the FEDERAL immigration Law in effect after 1800.

The way it works here in these US of A - I assume you are a FOREIGNER hence the reason for your IGNORANCE -

The Constitution (1787) specifically authorizes fedgov to perform certain acts

Congress then acts as CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized.

You've got to be one of the dumbest fucks here. You are claiming through "strict constructionism" that the US isn't even a sovereign nation. If you were a US Citizen you should at the very least know basic US history. Your interpretation of constitutional theory is that of a judicial activist, specifically Justice Hugo Black. Just because the US had relatively open immigration prior to the CEA, doesn't mean the Federal Govt didn't have Plenary Power over immigration.

Listen you miserable stupid fuck

The states did not form a nation

they merely created a federal government with LIMITED , specifically enumerated powers , mostly dealing with foreign affairs .

The STATES were sovereign and THEY retained the power to confer their citizenship upon whomever..

The states didn't form a nation? You really are the dumbest fuck on here, you're a PR which explains it. Does July 4th, 1776 ring a bell? The US Constitution created a more perfect Union. The US Constitution recognized US Citizens, and states were still allowed for the time being to create their own citizens. The Privileges and Immunities Clause was brought over from the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. The citizen of one state was now a citizen recognized in all the states.

Listen cocksucker, you are a glutton for punishment

Let the second class citizen from PR teach you Constitutional Law

"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

James Madison

The Father of the US Constitution

.

Federalist 39 is discussing the implementation of a Republican form of Govt you fucking idiot. Teach me Constitutional Law? You couldn't teach a dog to not piss on your leg. SMFH

The last paragraph of that document -
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

PUBLIUS.

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Apology accepted

Go forth and sin no more


.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You've got to be one of the dumbest fucks here. You are claiming through "strict constructionism" that the US isn't even a sovereign nation. If you were a US Citizen you should at the very least know basic US history. Your interpretation of constitutional theory is that of a judicial activist, specifically Justice Hugo Black. Just because the US had relatively open immigration prior to the CEA, doesn't mean the Federal Govt didn't have Plenary Power over immigration.

Listen you miserable stupid fuck

The states did not form a nation

they merely created a federal government with LIMITED , specifically enumerated powers , mostly dealing with foreign affairs .

The STATES were sovereign and THEY retained the power to confer their citizenship upon whomever..

The states didn't form a nation? You really are the dumbest fuck on here, you're a PR which explains it. Does July 4th, 1776 ring a bell? The US Constitution created a more perfect Union. The US Constitution recognized US Citizens, and states were still allowed for the time being to create their own citizens. The Privileges and Immunities Clause was brought over from the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. The citizen of one state was now a citizen recognized in all the states.

Listen cocksucker, you are a glutton for punishment

Let the second class citizen from PR teach you Constitutional Law

"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

James Madison

The Father of the US Constitution

.

Federalist 39 is discussing the implementation of a Republican form of Govt you fucking idiot. Teach me Constitutional Law? You couldn't teach a dog to not piss on your leg. SMFH

The last paragraph of that document -
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

PUBLIUS.

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Apology accepted

Go forth and sin no more

What was it I stated earlier that is quoted above?
The states didn't form a nation? You really are the dumbest fuck on here, you're a PR which explains it. Does July 4th, 1776 ring a bell? The US Constitution created a more perfect Union. The US Constitution recognized US Citizens, and states were still allowed for the time being to create their own citizens. The Privileges and Immunities Clause was brought over from the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. The citizen of one state was now a citizen recognized in all the states.

Yea, your the dumbest fuck on this site.SMFH

Now, if you had any inclination of basic common case law, Boyd v Nebraska discusses the child of an Irish Immigrant being naturalized due to his fathers declaration of intent to become a US Citizen, and that the child whom was at age 14 at that time became himself a US Citizen. (6) That even if the father did not complete his naturalization before the son attained majority, the son did not lose the inchoate status which he had acquired through his father's declaration of intention to become a citizen, and that he occupied in Nebraska the same position which his father would have occupied had he emigrated to that state. The whole case revolves around Boyd moving to Nebraska while it was still a Territory during the time in which the Territory became a State, where as the citizens of the Territory were now citizens of the US and of the state in which they reside.

I suggest you take a basic law course at your local high school. SMFH

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

 

[Contumacious]

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

Quit stonewalling and pay attention.

YOU , argued that immigration had been NATIONALIZED - I argued that it WASN'T

I used BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

in order to show that in that case The Supreme Court Case discussed HISTORICAL FACTS which shows that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


ALL I need you to discuss are the highlighted texts - I know that those facts tremendously hurt your ego but grin and bear - you have been owned by a second or possibly 3rd class citizen,


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Says the man who once posted there was nothing wrong with choosing illegal immigrants over American workers. Pardon my use of the middle finger....

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Says the man who once posted there was nothing wrong with choosing illegal immigrants over American workers. Pardon my use of the middle finger....

Yes, we forgot that IN THE LAND OF THE "FREE" employers must only hired those who the government mandates and pay them $15.00 an hour.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

Quit stonewalling and pay attention.

YOU , argued that immigration had been NATIONALIZED - I argued that it WASN'T

I used BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

in order to show that in that case The Supreme Court Case discussed HISTORICAL FACTS which shows that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


ALL I need you to discuss are the highlighted texts - I know that those facts tremendously hurt your ego but grin and bear - you have been owned by a second or possibly 3rd class citizen,


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Boyd is not an immigration case, Boyds father was merely an immigrant that naturalized in the US and obtained US Citizenship and that US Citizenship carried over to the son, James Boyd, who is the person in the case. His rival for Governor of the New State of Nebraska was trying to imply he was not a US Citizen to which the courts then went on to explain how he was a citizen, whicih is why I quoted point 6) above. SMFH

The part of Boyd you quoted, the blue sections come from the Dredd Scott case in regards to citizenship of persons of a state, i.e. freemen who were not recognized as citizens of the US, in other words persons who were not white at the time. So allow me to show you how fucking stupid you really are by quoting in length the portion you are trying to lay claim to.
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA THAYER.

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. * * * In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

Yep, Dredd Scott discussing "Freemen" prior to the 1866 CRA, 14th Amendment, and the 1870 CRA.

Justice Fuller then goes on to further cite numerous cases in which a person is born or is naturalized as a US Citizen after the signing of the US Constitution, and how others such as Freemen (Blacks, Yellows, Browns) were denied up until the 14th Amendment and how when a new State is incorporated into the US the persons living within it are then made US Citizens (prior to the 14th Amendment only Whites; after the 14th Amendment all persons).

It follows from these documents that congress regarded as citizens of the territory all who were already citizens of the United States, and all who had declared their intention to become such. Indeed, they are referred to in section 3 of the enabling act as citizens, and by the organic law the right of suffrage and of holding office had been allowed to them. Those whose naturalization was incomplete were treated as in the same category as those who were already citizens of the United States. What the state had power to do after its admission is not the question. Before congress let go its hold upon the territory, it was for congress to say who were members of the political community. So far as the original states were concerned, all those who were citizens of such states became, upon the formation of the Union, citizens of the United States; and upon the admission of Nebraska into the Union 'upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever,' the citizens of what had been the territory became citizens of the United States and of the state.

It then goes on to explain how

Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator's position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of congress in that behalf.

The relator is John Thayer claiming that James Boyd is not a US Citizen.

The Opinion then concludes with the following

Such being the settled law, we can have no doubt that the fact that the respondent's father became a naturalized citizen of the United States before October, 1854, is well pleaded in the allegation in question, and is therefore admitted by the demurrer. The allegation 'that prior to October, 1854, his father did in fact complete his naturalization in strict accordance with the acts of congress known as the 'Naturalization Laws' so as to admit and constitute him a full citizen of the United States thereunder,' necessarily implies that he had been duly naturalized before a court as required by those laws. Specific allegations of the time and place at which, and of the court before which, he was so naturalized, or setting forth a record of his naturalization, would have been superfluous, and, in view of the respondent's imperfect information, as manifest upon the face of the allegation, of a transaction taking place so long ago, hardly possible.

Under this allegation, and the earlier allegations leading up to it, if traversed, a jury would have been warranted in inferring that the respondent's father became a citizen of the United States before October, 1854, and consequently that the respondent himself was likewise a citizen.

For this reason, without regard to any other question argued in the case, the respondent was entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice GRAY, and Mr. Justice BROWN concur in the conclusion of the court upon the latter course of reasoning only.

All the justices, except Mr. Justice FIELD, unite in holding that this court has jurisdiction of the case, and that upon this record James E. Boyd had been for two years next preceding his election to the office of governor, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska.

The judgment of the supreme court of Nebraska is reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law and in conformity with this opinion.

At this point you wouldn't even qualify for pre-law, as you couldn't pass the basic instructions as to putting your name on the line that says NAME:__________ The only thing you are demonstrating is shear ignorance of basic court opinion and a complete ineptness of US History. SMFH

 

[Contumacious]

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

Quit stonewalling and pay attention.

YOU , argued that immigration had been NATIONALIZED - I argued that it WASN'T

I used BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

in order to show that in that case The Supreme Court Case discussed HISTORICAL FACTS which shows that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


ALL I need you to discuss are the highlighted texts - I know that those facts tremendously hurt your ego but grin and bear - you have been owned by a second or possibly 3rd class citizen,


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Boyd is not an immigration case, Boyds father was merely an immigrant that naturalized in the US and obtained US Citizenship and that US Citizenship carried over to the son, James Boyd, who is the person in the case. His rival for Governor of the New State of Nebraska was trying to imply he was not a US Citizen to which the courts then went on to explain how he was a citizen, whicih is why I quoted point 6) above. SMFH

The part of Boyd you quoted, the blue sections come from the Dredd Scott case in regards to citizenship of persons of a state, i.e. freemen who were not recognized as citizens of the US, in other words persons who were not white at the time. So allow me to show you how fucking stupid you really are by quoting in length the portion you are trying to lay claim to.
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA THAYER.

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. * * * In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

Yep, Dredd Scott discussing "Freemen" prior to the 1866 CRA, 14th Amendment, and the 1870 CRA.

Justice Fuller then goes on to further cite numerous cases in which a person is born or is naturalized as a US Citizen after the signing of the US Constitution, and how others such as Freemen (Blacks, Yellows, Browns) were denied up until the 14th Amendment and how when a new State is incorporated into the US the persons living within it are then made US Citizens (prior to the 14th Amendment only Whites; after the 14th Amendment all persons).

It follows from these documents that congress regarded as citizens of the territory all who were already citizens of the United States, and all who had declared their intention to become such. Indeed, they are referred to in section 3 of the enabling act as citizens, and by the organic law the right of suffrage and of holding office had been allowed to them. Those whose naturalization was incomplete were treated as in the same category as those who were already citizens of the United States. What the state had power to do after its admission is not the question. Before congress let go its hold upon the territory, it was for congress to say who were members of the political community. So far as the original states were concerned, all those who were citizens of such states became, upon the formation of the Union, citizens of the United States; and upon the admission of Nebraska into the Union 'upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever,' the citizens of what had been the territory became citizens of the United States and of the state.

It then goes on to explain how

Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator's position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of congress in that behalf.

The relator is John Thayer claiming that James Boyd is not a US Citizen.

The Opinion then concludes with the following

Such being the settled law, we can have no doubt that the fact that the respondent's father became a naturalized citizen of the United States before October, 1854, is well pleaded in the allegation in question, and is therefore admitted by the demurrer. The allegation 'that prior to October, 1854, his father did in fact complete his naturalization in strict accordance with the acts of congress known as the 'Naturalization Laws' so as to admit and constitute him a full citizen of the United States thereunder,' necessarily implies that he had been duly naturalized before a court as required by those laws. Specific allegations of the time and place at which, and of the court before which, he was so naturalized, or setting forth a record of his naturalization, would have been superfluous, and, in view of the respondent's imperfect information, as manifest upon the face of the allegation, of a transaction taking place so long ago, hardly possible.

Under this allegation, and the earlier allegations leading up to it, if traversed, a jury would have been warranted in inferring that the respondent's father became a citizen of the United States before October, 1854, and consequently that the respondent himself was likewise a citizen.

For this reason, without regard to any other question argued in the case, the respondent was entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice GRAY, and Mr. Justice BROWN concur in the conclusion of the court upon the latter course of reasoning only.

All the justices, except Mr. Justice FIELD, unite in holding that this court has jurisdiction of the case, and that upon this record James E. Boyd had been for two years next preceding his election to the office of governor, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska.

The judgment of the supreme court of Nebraska is reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law and in conformity with this opinion.

At this point you wouldn't even qualify for pre-law, as you couldn't pass the basic instructions as to putting your name on the line that says NAME:__________ The only thing you are demonstrating is shear ignorance of basic court opinion and a complete ineptness of US History. SMFH

Now that we have agreed that the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship upon whomever we must also agree that fedgov has NO authority to interdict detained and deport.


.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

Quit stonewalling and pay attention.

YOU , argued that immigration had been NATIONALIZED - I argued that it WASN'T

I used BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

in order to show that in that case The Supreme Court Case discussed HISTORICAL FACTS which shows that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


ALL I need you to discuss are the highlighted texts - I know that those facts tremendously hurt your ego but grin and bear - you have been owned by a second or possibly 3rd class citizen,


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Boyd is not an immigration case, Boyds father was merely an immigrant that naturalized in the US and obtained US Citizenship and that US Citizenship carried over to the son, James Boyd, who is the person in the case. His rival for Governor of the New State of Nebraska was trying to imply he was not a US Citizen to which the courts then went on to explain how he was a citizen, whicih is why I quoted point 6) above. SMFH

The part of Boyd you quoted, the blue sections come from the Dredd Scott case in regards to citizenship of persons of a state, i.e. freemen who were not recognized as citizens of the US, in other words persons who were not white at the time. So allow me to show you how fucking stupid you really are by quoting in length the portion you are trying to lay claim to.
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA THAYER.

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. * * * In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

Yep, Dredd Scott discussing "Freemen" prior to the 1866 CRA, 14th Amendment, and the 1870 CRA.

Justice Fuller then goes on to further cite numerous cases in which a person is born or is naturalized as a US Citizen after the signing of the US Constitution, and how others such as Freemen (Blacks, Yellows, Browns) were denied up until the 14th Amendment and how when a new State is incorporated into the US the persons living within it are then made US Citizens (prior to the 14th Amendment only Whites; after the 14th Amendment all persons).

It follows from these documents that congress regarded as citizens of the territory all who were already citizens of the United States, and all who had declared their intention to become such. Indeed, they are referred to in section 3 of the enabling act as citizens, and by the organic law the right of suffrage and of holding office had been allowed to them. Those whose naturalization was incomplete were treated as in the same category as those who were already citizens of the United States. What the state had power to do after its admission is not the question. Before congress let go its hold upon the territory, it was for congress to say who were members of the political community. So far as the original states were concerned, all those who were citizens of such states became, upon the formation of the Union, citizens of the United States; and upon the admission of Nebraska into the Union 'upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever,' the citizens of what had been the territory became citizens of the United States and of the state.

It then goes on to explain how

Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator's position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of congress in that behalf.

The relator is John Thayer claiming that James Boyd is not a US Citizen.

The Opinion then concludes with the following

Such being the settled law, we can have no doubt that the fact that the respondent's father became a naturalized citizen of the United States before October, 1854, is well pleaded in the allegation in question, and is therefore admitted by the demurrer. The allegation 'that prior to October, 1854, his father did in fact complete his naturalization in strict accordance with the acts of congress known as the 'Naturalization Laws' so as to admit and constitute him a full citizen of the United States thereunder,' necessarily implies that he had been duly naturalized before a court as required by those laws. Specific allegations of the time and place at which, and of the court before which, he was so naturalized, or setting forth a record of his naturalization, would have been superfluous, and, in view of the respondent's imperfect information, as manifest upon the face of the allegation, of a transaction taking place so long ago, hardly possible.

Under this allegation, and the earlier allegations leading up to it, if traversed, a jury would have been warranted in inferring that the respondent's father became a citizen of the United States before October, 1854, and consequently that the respondent himself was likewise a citizen.

For this reason, without regard to any other question argued in the case, the respondent was entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice GRAY, and Mr. Justice BROWN concur in the conclusion of the court upon the latter course of reasoning only.

All the justices, except Mr. Justice FIELD, unite in holding that this court has jurisdiction of the case, and that upon this record James E. Boyd had been for two years next preceding his election to the office of governor, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska.

The judgment of the supreme court of Nebraska is reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law and in conformity with this opinion.

At this point you wouldn't even qualify for pre-law, as you couldn't pass the basic instructions as to putting your name on the line that says NAME:__________ The only thing you are demonstrating is shear ignorance of basic court opinion and a complete ineptness of US History. SMFH

Now that we have agreed that the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship upon whomever we must also agree that fedgov has NO authority to interdict detained and deport.


.

You're a complete fucking moron, the Dred Scott decision (1856) cited in the Boyer case (1892) is nothing more than the opinion explaining that Freemen were allowed to become said citizens of said state provided that state allowed for it up to the ratification of the 14th Amendment; after that the states no longer had that authority nor that ability. You've demonstrated shear ignorance of being able to comprehend even the basics of case Opinion.

If you claim that fedgov has no authority to deport, then you are claiming the US is not a sovereign Nation.

Again, you've got to be the dumbest fuck on this forum.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

 

[Dot Com]

No need to thank me, it is my pleasure to do what the government schools failed to do.

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

The following Supreme Court Case discusses HISTORICAL FACTS which show that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

Quit stonewalling and pay attention.

YOU , argued that immigration had been NATIONALIZED - I argued that it WASN'T

I used BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

in order to show that in that case The Supreme Court Case discussed HISTORICAL FACTS which shows that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


ALL I need you to discuss are the highlighted texts - I know that those facts tremendously hurt your ego but grin and bear - you have been owned by a second or possibly 3rd class citizen,


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Boyd is not an immigration case, Boyds father was merely an immigrant that naturalized in the US and obtained US Citizenship and that US Citizenship carried over to the son, James Boyd, who is the person in the case. His rival for Governor of the New State of Nebraska was trying to imply he was not a US Citizen to which the courts then went on to explain how he was a citizen, whicih is why I quoted point 6) above. SMFH

The part of Boyd you quoted, the blue sections come from the Dredd Scott case in regards to citizenship of persons of a state, i.e. freemen who were not recognized as citizens of the US, in other words persons who were not white at the time. So allow me to show you how fucking stupid you really are by quoting in length the portion you are trying to lay claim to.
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA THAYER.

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. * * * In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

Yep, Dredd Scott discussing "Freemen" prior to the 1866 CRA, 14th Amendment, and the 1870 CRA.

Justice Fuller then goes on to further cite numerous cases in which a person is born or is naturalized as a US Citizen after the signing of the US Constitution, and how others such as Freemen (Blacks, Yellows, Browns) were denied up until the 14th Amendment and how when a new State is incorporated into the US the persons living within it are then made US Citizens (prior to the 14th Amendment only Whites; after the 14th Amendment all persons).

It follows from these documents that congress regarded as citizens of the territory all who were already citizens of the United States, and all who had declared their intention to become such. Indeed, they are referred to in section 3 of the enabling act as citizens, and by the organic law the right of suffrage and of holding office had been allowed to them. Those whose naturalization was incomplete were treated as in the same category as those who were already citizens of the United States. What the state had power to do after its admission is not the question. Before congress let go its hold upon the territory, it was for congress to say who were members of the political community. So far as the original states were concerned, all those who were citizens of such states became, upon the formation of the Union, citizens of the United States; and upon the admission of Nebraska into the Union 'upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever,' the citizens of what had been the territory became citizens of the United States and of the state.

It then goes on to explain how

Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator's position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of congress in that behalf.

The relator is John Thayer claiming that James Boyd is not a US Citizen.

The Opinion then concludes with the following

Such being the settled law, we can have no doubt that the fact that the respondent's father became a naturalized citizen of the United States before October, 1854, is well pleaded in the allegation in question, and is therefore admitted by the demurrer. The allegation 'that prior to October, 1854, his father did in fact complete his naturalization in strict accordance with the acts of congress known as the 'Naturalization Laws' so as to admit and constitute him a full citizen of the United States thereunder,' necessarily implies that he had been duly naturalized before a court as required by those laws. Specific allegations of the time and place at which, and of the court before which, he was so naturalized, or setting forth a record of his naturalization, would have been superfluous, and, in view of the respondent's imperfect information, as manifest upon the face of the allegation, of a transaction taking place so long ago, hardly possible.

Under this allegation, and the earlier allegations leading up to it, if traversed, a jury would have been warranted in inferring that the respondent's father became a citizen of the United States before October, 1854, and consequently that the respondent himself was likewise a citizen.

For this reason, without regard to any other question argued in the case, the respondent was entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice GRAY, and Mr. Justice BROWN concur in the conclusion of the court upon the latter course of reasoning only.

All the justices, except Mr. Justice FIELD, unite in holding that this court has jurisdiction of the case, and that upon this record James E. Boyd had been for two years next preceding his election to the office of governor, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska.

The judgment of the supreme court of Nebraska is reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law and in conformity with this opinion.

At this point you wouldn't even qualify for pre-law, as you couldn't pass the basic instructions as to putting your name on the line that says NAME:__________ The only thing you are demonstrating is shear ignorance of basic court opinion and a complete ineptness of US History. SMFH

Now that we have agreed that the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship upon whomever we must also agree that fedgov has NO authority to interdict detained and deport.


.

You're a complete fucking moron, the Dred Scott decision (1856) cited in the Boyer case (1892) is nothing more than the opinion explaining that Freemen were allowed to become said citizens of said state provided that state allowed for it up to the ratification of the 14th Amendment; after that the states no longer had that authority nor that ability. You've demonstrated shear ignorance of being able to comprehend even the basics of case Opinion.

If you claim that fedgov has no authority to deport, then you are claiming the US is not a sovereign Nation.

Again, you've got to be the dumbest fuck on this forum.

I see you've had the misfortune of conferring w/ our resident basement dwelling spazz Contumacious lol

 

[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.

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Apparently they failed to teach you basic English Comprehension. LMFAO

LMFAO, Do you not understand that your quoted portion is actually from Dred Scott? INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE
You do understand that prior to the 1866 CRA Blacks were not considered US Citizens, they were only citizens of the state in which they resided provided they were allowed by said state. After the 14th Amendment and the 1870 CRA, states no longer had that ability, and only the US created a Citizen. watafuknmoron LMFAO

Quit stonewalling and pay attention.

YOU , argued that immigration had been NATIONALIZED - I argued that it WASN'T

I used BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

in order to show that in that case The Supreme Court Case discussed HISTORICAL FACTS which shows that the states RETAINED their right to control immigration so immigration was NOT nationalized


ALL I need you to discuss are the highlighted texts - I know that those facts tremendously hurt your ego but grin and bear - you have been owned by a second or possibly 3rd class citizen,


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]

. . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character "



BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

Boyd is not an immigration case, Boyds father was merely an immigrant that naturalized in the US and obtained US Citizenship and that US Citizenship carried over to the son, James Boyd, who is the person in the case. His rival for Governor of the New State of Nebraska was trying to imply he was not a US Citizen to which the courts then went on to explain how he was a citizen, whicih is why I quoted point 6) above. SMFH

The part of Boyd you quoted, the blue sections come from the Dredd Scott case in regards to citizenship of persons of a state, i.e. freemen who were not recognized as citizens of the US, in other words persons who were not white at the time. So allow me to show you how fucking stupid you really are by quoting in length the portion you are trying to lay claim to.
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA THAYER.

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. * * * In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

Yep, Dredd Scott discussing "Freemen" prior to the 1866 CRA, 14th Amendment, and the 1870 CRA.

Justice Fuller then goes on to further cite numerous cases in which a person is born or is naturalized as a US Citizen after the signing of the US Constitution, and how others such as Freemen (Blacks, Yellows, Browns) were denied up until the 14th Amendment and how when a new State is incorporated into the US the persons living within it are then made US Citizens (prior to the 14th Amendment only Whites; after the 14th Amendment all persons).

It follows from these documents that congress regarded as citizens of the territory all who were already citizens of the United States, and all who had declared their intention to become such. Indeed, they are referred to in section 3 of the enabling act as citizens, and by the organic law the right of suffrage and of holding office had been allowed to them. Those whose naturalization was incomplete were treated as in the same category as those who were already citizens of the United States. What the state had power to do after its admission is not the question. Before congress let go its hold upon the territory, it was for congress to say who were members of the political community. So far as the original states were concerned, all those who were citizens of such states became, upon the formation of the Union, citizens of the United States; and upon the admission of Nebraska into the Union 'upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever,' the citizens of what had been the territory became citizens of the United States and of the state.

It then goes on to explain how

Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator's position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of congress in that behalf.

The relator is John Thayer claiming that James Boyd is not a US Citizen.

The Opinion then concludes with the following

Such being the settled law, we can have no doubt that the fact that the respondent's father became a naturalized citizen of the United States before October, 1854, is well pleaded in the allegation in question, and is therefore admitted by the demurrer. The allegation 'that prior to October, 1854, his father did in fact complete his naturalization in strict accordance with the acts of congress known as the 'Naturalization Laws' so as to admit and constitute him a full citizen of the United States thereunder,' necessarily implies that he had been duly naturalized before a court as required by those laws. Specific allegations of the time and place at which, and of the court before which, he was so naturalized, or setting forth a record of his naturalization, would have been superfluous, and, in view of the respondent's imperfect information, as manifest upon the face of the allegation, of a transaction taking place so long ago, hardly possible.

Under this allegation, and the earlier allegations leading up to it, if traversed, a jury would have been warranted in inferring that the respondent's father became a citizen of the United States before October, 1854, and consequently that the respondent himself was likewise a citizen.

For this reason, without regard to any other question argued in the case, the respondent was entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice GRAY, and Mr. Justice BROWN concur in the conclusion of the court upon the latter course of reasoning only.

All the justices, except Mr. Justice FIELD, unite in holding that this court has jurisdiction of the case, and that upon this record James E. Boyd had been for two years next preceding his election to the office of governor, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska.

The judgment of the supreme court of Nebraska is reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law and in conformity with this opinion.

At this point you wouldn't even qualify for pre-law, as you couldn't pass the basic instructions as to putting your name on the line that says NAME:__________ The only thing you are demonstrating is shear ignorance of basic court opinion and a complete ineptness of US History. SMFH

Now that we have agreed that the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship upon whomever we must also agree that fedgov has NO authority to interdict detained and deport.


.

You're a complete fucking moron, the Dred Scott decision (1856) cited in the Boyer case (1892) is nothing more than the opinion explaining that Freemen were allowed to become said citizens of said state provided that state allowed for it up to the ratification of the 14th Amendment; after that the states no longer had that authority nor that ability. You've demonstrated shear ignorance of being able to comprehend even the basics of case Opinion.

If you claim that fedgov has no authority to deport, then you are claiming the US is not a sovereign Nation.

Again, you've got to be the dumbest fuck on this forum.

I see you've had the misfortune of conferring w/ our resident basement dwelling spazz Contumacious lol

I've noticed there are a few of them on here, and they always seem to be those that either naturalized here, immigrated here, or don't actually live within the continental US.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

 

[Muhammed]

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.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

 

[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.

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

You haven't done shit other than when people show/explain to you that your OP is incorrect, all you do is claim otherwise.

Regulation of entry has been around since the colonies, it was written into the Articles of Confederation, and was carried over under numerous Plenary Powers of the US.

You're exclaiming "strict constructionist" theory and projecting it onto Constitutional Conservatives without knowing what a Constitutional Conservative actually is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.

You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny. Are you trying to be satirical?

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

You haven't done shit other than when people show/explain to you that your OP is incorrect, all you do is claim otherwise.

Regulation of entry has been around since the colonies, it was written into the Articles of Confederation, and was carried over under numerous Plenary Powers of the US.

You're exclaiming "strict constructionist" theory and projecting it onto Constitutional Conservatives without knowing what a Constitutional Conservative actually is.

Please cite the clause in teh Constitution that delegates power over immigration to Congress.
Yoy make claims without evidence. It has nothing to do with "strict constructionism". It is the very basis of this government: a government of limited enumerated powers.
Oh and btw please cite the language in the Articles of Confederation that authorizes them to regulate immigration.