Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

You're about as fucking dumb as Contumacious. Immigration is an inherent right of every nation. Foreigners enter under a license, expressed or implied, (the Schooner Exchange - 1812) and by such license can be removed/deported. The colonies denied entry to those they deemed not of moral character, the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation had it in Article 4 of said document.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;

How about the State Constitutions that deny entry to those very people? The Constitution of Vermont of 1793 recognized “[t]hat all people have a natural and inherent right to emigrate from one state to another,” provided a State was willing to “receive them.”

It's a power that has been around since before the Constitution and is a Plenary Power that is inherent in the govt of a nation.

I make claims without evidence? I have the last 20 or so pages of cited evidence. watafuknmoron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.

Defense of the country is the enumerated power. Border integrity and control are obvious components of national defense.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're about as fucking dumb as Contumacious. Immigration is an inherent right of every nation. Foreigners enter under a license, expressed or implied, (the Schooner Exchange - 1812) and by such license can be removed/deported. The colonies denied entry to those that deemed not of moral character, the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation had it in Article 4 of said document. It's a power that has been around since before the Constitution and is a Plenary Power that is inherent.

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.

So why did you claim this, about 6 months ago?

"Undocumented workers (i.e. illegal aliens) shouldn't fear deportation? WTF? Of course they should fear deportation. They are here illegally. When you commit a crime you should fear getting caught and being punished. Only in a leftist world can that be considered a bad thing."

Eh????

Conservative identification question

 

[Boss]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

You're about as fucking dumb as Contumacious. Immigration is an inherent right of every nation. Foreigners enter under a license, expressed or implied, (the Schooner Exchange - 1812) and by such license can be removed/deported. The colonies denied entry to those that deemed not of moral character, the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation had it in Article 4 of said document. It's a power that has been around since before the Constitution and is a Plenary Power that is inherent.

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You keep making claims based on "strict constructionist" theory. :yawn:
State Constitutions are nonsense dreamed up?
So Article 4 of the AoC is nonsense dreamed up?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the USC is nonsense and dreamed up?
The Plenary Power is nonsense and dreamed up?
The inherent right of a nation is nonsense and dreamed up?

watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.
/fail.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.
/fail.

Immigration falls under the rules of Naturalization. It has been that way since before the US became the US, it is an inherent right of every nation as recognized by every nation.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're about as fucking dumb as Contumacious. Immigration is an inherent right of every nation. Foreigners enter under a license, expressed or implied, (the Schooner Exchange - 1812) and by such license can be removed/deported. The colonies denied entry to those that deemed not of moral character, the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation had it in Article 4 of said document. It's a power that has been around since before the Constitution and is a Plenary Power that is inherent.

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You keep making claims based on "strict constructionist" theory. :yawn:
State Constitutions are nonsense dreamed up?
So Article 4 of the AoC is nonsense dreamed up?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the USC is nonsense and dreamed up?
The Plenary Power is nonsense and dreamed up?
The inherent right of a nation is nonsense and dreamed up?

watafuknmoron

Article 4 of the Articles state:
IV.
10The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Notice this is talking about moving from one state to another, not entering the United States.
So your point is a fail.
Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constutution states:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration.
Maybe if I write it big you'll get the idea:
Naturalization is not Immigration.

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.
/fail.

Immigration falls under the rules of Naturalization. It has been that way since before the US became the US, it is an inherent right of every nation as recognized by every nation.

Immigration falls under naturalization? In which universe is that? How about healthcare falls under Commerce? Or marijuana falls under coinage?
Anything else you'd like to pull out of your ass?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

You're about as fucking dumb as Contumacious. Immigration is an inherent right of every nation. Foreigners enter under a license, expressed or implied, (the Schooner Exchange - 1812) and by such license can be removed/deported. The colonies denied entry to those that deemed not of moral character, the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation had it in Article 4 of said document. It's a power that has been around since before the Constitution and is a Plenary Power that is inherent.

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You keep making claims based on "strict constructionist" theory. :yawn:
State Constitutions are nonsense dreamed up?
So Article 4 of the AoC is nonsense dreamed up?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the USC is nonsense and dreamed up?
The Plenary Power is nonsense and dreamed up?
The inherent right of a nation is nonsense and dreamed up?

watafuknmoron

Article 4 of the Articles state:
IV.
10The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Notice this is talking about moving from one state to another, not entering the United States.
So your point is a fail.
Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constutution states:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration.
Maybe if I write it big you'll get the idea:
Naturalization is not Immigration.

Wow, your a fucking genius. The Articles of Confederation are discussing the 13 original colonies/states and their ability to deny entry into said state, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted. That's called denying entry. watafuknmoron

And a Uniform Rule of Naturalization includes laws/rules for immigration. What do you think uniform rules consist of? Immigration is part of Naturalization, let me repeat that, Immigration is part of Naturalization, maybe if I write it real big and in red you'll get the gist of it Immigration is part of Naturalization

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.
/fail.

Immigration falls under the rules of Naturalization. It has been that way since before the US became the US, it is an inherent right of every nation as recognized by every nation.

Immigration falls under naturalization? In which universe is that?

Universe - Milky Way Galaxy

How about healthcare falls under Commerce?

According to the administration it wasn't a tax, yet it was

Or marijuana falls under coinage?

Put the bong down.

Anything else you'd like to pull out of your ass?

Being as there is nothing in there to begin with, might I suggest you yell POP! and stand up straight.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're about as fucking dumb as Contumacious. Immigration is an inherent right of every nation. Foreigners enter under a license, expressed or implied, (the Schooner Exchange - 1812) and by such license can be removed/deported. The colonies denied entry to those that deemed not of moral character, the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation had it in Article 4 of said document. It's a power that has been around since before the Constitution and is a Plenary Power that is inherent.

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You keep making claims based on "strict constructionist" theory. :yawn:
State Constitutions are nonsense dreamed up?
So Article 4 of the AoC is nonsense dreamed up?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the USC is nonsense and dreamed up?
The Plenary Power is nonsense and dreamed up?
The inherent right of a nation is nonsense and dreamed up?

watafuknmoron

Article 4 of the Articles state:
IV.
10The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Notice this is talking about moving from one state to another, not entering the United States.
So your point is a fail.
Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constutution states:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration.
Maybe if I write it big you'll get the idea:
Naturalization is not Immigration.

Wow your a fucking genius. The Articles of Confederation are discussing the 13 original colonies/states and their ability to deny entry into said state, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted. watafuknmoron

And a Uniform Rule of Naturalization includes laws/rules for immigration. What do you think uniform rules consist of? Immigration is part of Naturalization, let me repeat that, Immigration is part of Naturalization, maybe if I write it real big and in red you'll get the gist of it Immigration is part of Naturalization

Immigration is not naturalization. Period. No spinning, no whining, no repeating on your part can make it so.
But you have it backwards. Naturalization is part of immigration because not every immigrant comes here to become a citizen. So you have proven that while Congress has authority over naturalization, the small part, it does not have power over immigration, the larger part.
QED.
If you have any new arguments or facts, bring them. Otherwise your position is refuted. Congress has no authority over immigration. Abolish ICE.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Immigration is not naturalization. Period. No spinning, no whining, no repeating on your part can make it so.

And yet it is as has been shown for the past 40 pages that it is.

But you have it backwards. Naturalization is part of immigration because not every immigrant comes here to become a citizen. So you have proven that while Congress has authority over naturalization, the small part, it does not have power over immigration, the larger part.

Naturalization consists of rules, those rules emanate from being allowed to enter all the way up to being allowed to become a citizen.

QED.
If you have any new arguments or facts, bring them. Otherwise your position is refuted. Congress has no authority over immigration. Abolish ICE.

And yet you haven't refuted anything. watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You keep making claims based on "strict constructionist" theory. :yawn:
State Constitutions are nonsense dreamed up?
So Article 4 of the AoC is nonsense dreamed up?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the USC is nonsense and dreamed up?
The Plenary Power is nonsense and dreamed up?
The inherent right of a nation is nonsense and dreamed up?

watafuknmoron

Article 4 of the Articles state:
IV.
10The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Notice this is talking about moving from one state to another, not entering the United States.
So your point is a fail.
Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constutution states:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration. Naturalization is not immigration.
Maybe if I write it big you'll get the idea:
Naturalization is not Immigration.

Wow your a fucking genius. The Articles of Confederation are discussing the 13 original colonies/states and their ability to deny entry into said state, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted. watafuknmoron

And a Uniform Rule of Naturalization includes laws/rules for immigration. What do you think uniform rules consist of? Immigration is part of Naturalization, let me repeat that, Immigration is part of Naturalization, maybe if I write it real big and in red you'll get the gist of it Immigration is part of Naturalization

Immigration is not naturalization. Period. No spinning, no whining, no repeating on your part can make it so.

And yet it is as has been shown for the past 40 pages that it is.

But you have it backwards. Naturalization is part of immigration because not every immigrant comes here to become a citizen. So you have proven that while Congress has authority over naturalization, the small part, it does not have power over immigration, the larger part.

Naturalization consists of rules, those rules emanate from being allowed to enter all the way up to being allowed to become a citizen.

QED.
If you have any new arguments or facts, bring them. Otherwise your position is refuted. Congress has no authority over immigration. Abolish ICE.

And yet you haven't refuted anything. watafuknmoron

LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.
If you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.
"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.

And yet I am not.

If you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.

I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality

"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.

It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.

Yea, you're a fucking moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.

So why did you claim this, about 6 months ago?

"Undocumented workers (i.e. illegal aliens) shouldn't fear deportation? WTF? Of course they should fear deportation. They are here illegally. When you commit a crime you should fear getting caught and being punished. Only in a leftist world can that be considered a bad thing."

Eh????

Conservative identification question

Notice how Rabbi completely ignores this? Or pretends to?

The Rabbi of September 2015 offers the best refutation of the Rabbi of April 2016,

in fact, leaves him speechless.

What did he say above, exactly?

That there is such a thing as an illegal alien, that under the law can be deported.

Not only is he acknowledging the existence of federal law to regulate immigration, he is also defending its legitimacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.

And yet I am not.

If you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.

I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality

"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.

It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.

Yea, you're a fucking moron.

You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.