Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[Liquid Reigns]

You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.

Coming from you this is fucking hilarious. The To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization means exactly what it states, to establish uniform Rules to Naturalization. The first Rule is1) to be allowed to enter or not and 2) if allowed entry, under what condition, and then 3) length of time; temporary or permanently, and last but not least to 4) Naturalize or not.

You're right, this isn't an argument, it's a clarification as to Congress having full authority over Naturalization and its process.

Naturalization means becoming a citizen. What if someone has no intention of becoming a citizen? Your argument fails.
Naturalization is not immigration.

What are the uniform Rules then? Naturalization is a process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

If they choose to not fulfill what may be granted to them, is it not the persons own fault? If they do something that then denies them the process, who's fault is it? Naturalization is a process, your issue is again, applying "strict constructionist" theory to the Constitution by refusing to comprehend exactly what the phrase states: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization I ask again, what is the uniform Rule for Naturalization?

 

[The Rabbi]

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

By definition they are. Anyone who crosses the border into the US without permission is invading the US.

LOL!!!
You dont know what "invade"means. You make shit up as you go along. People came to this country for 100 years before we had any immigration laws. Were they all "invaders"??

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.

Coming from you this is fucking hilarious. The To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization means exactly what it states, to establish uniform Rules to Naturalization. The first Rule is1) to be allowed to enter or not and 2) if allowed entry, under what condition, and then 3) length of time; temporary or permanently, and last but not least to 4) Naturalize or not.

You're right, this isn't an argument, it's a clarification as to Congress having full authority over Naturalization and its process.

Naturalization means becoming a citizen. What if someone has no intention of becoming a citizen? Your argument fails.
Naturalization is not immigration.

What are the uniform Rules then? Naturalization is a process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

If they choose to not fulfill what may be granted to them, is it not the persons own fault? If they do something that then denies them the process, who's fault is it? Naturalization is a process, your issue is again, applying "strict constructionist" theory to the Constitution by refusing to comprehend exactly what the phrase states: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization I ask again, what is the uniform Rule for Naturalization?

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen. Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.
You are lapsing into incoherence,a sure sign you've lost.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

Fallacy? Immigration is part of the Naturalization Process, it is part of the uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The AoC was silent on immigration? Why do you think states denied entry to paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice? Why do so many states in their Constitutions deny this very entry? Why did the colonies deny entry to those they felt weren't of moral turpitude?

The laws regarding immigration have been around since the colonies. You confuse the fact that immigration was mostly open with not having any laws. The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 3 of the 4 were allowed to expire, the 4th is still the law of the land.

Congress has full authority over immigrants, to deny entry or to naturalize.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

By definition they are. Anyone who crosses the border into the US without permission is invading the US.

LOL!!!
You dont know what "invade"means. You make shit up as you go along. People came to this country for 100 years before we had any immigration laws. Were they all "invaders"??

They could have been deemed so had Congress and the President taken action in that regard.

in·vad·er
inˈvādər/
noun

1. a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen.

NO SHIT SMFH

Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure

You are lapsing into incoherence,a sure sign you've lost.

Coming from the person who relies on their own stupidity to infer ignorance. watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

Fallacy? Immigration is part of the Naturalization Process, it is part of the uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The AoC was silent on immigration? Why do you think states denied entry to paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice? Why do so many states in their Constitutions deny this very entry? Why did the colonies deny entry to those they felt weren't of moral turpitude?

The laws regarding immigration have been around since the colonies. You confuse the fact that immigration was mostly open with not having any laws. The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 3 of the 4 were allowed to expire, the 4th is still the law of the land.

Congress has full authority over immigrants, to deny entry or to naturalize.

Keep saying it. Doesnt make it true.
There is no authorization in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. The AofC did not grant power to the federal gov't to regulate immigration. No matter how many times you pretend otherwise it isnt true.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen.

NO SHIT SMFH

Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure
.

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

Fallacy? Immigration is part of the Naturalization Process, it is part of the uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The AoC was silent on immigration? Why do you think states denied entry to paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice? Why do so many states in their Constitutions deny this very entry? Why did the colonies deny entry to those they felt weren't of moral turpitude?

The laws regarding immigration have been around since the colonies. You confuse the fact that immigration was mostly open with not having any laws. The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 3 of the 4 were allowed to expire, the 4th is still the law of the land.

Congress has full authority over immigrants, to deny entry or to naturalize.

Keep saying it. Doesnt make it true.
There is no authorization in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. The AofC did not grant power to the federal gov't to regulate immigration. No matter how many times you pretend otherwise it isnt true.

No matter how many times you exclaim it isn't true doesn't change the fact that it is in fact true. Your constant denial simply shows just how fucking stupid you really are.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen.

NO SHIT SMFH

Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure
.

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

What are the uniform Rules of Naturalization? Please explain what these Rules consist of.

This is dumbed down to the basics of your claim.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

Fallacy? Immigration is part of the Naturalization Process, it is part of the uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The AoC was silent on immigration? Why do you think states denied entry to paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice? Why do so many states in their Constitutions deny this very entry? Why did the colonies deny entry to those they felt weren't of moral turpitude?

The laws regarding immigration have been around since the colonies. You confuse the fact that immigration was mostly open with not having any laws. The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 3 of the 4 were allowed to expire, the 4th is still the law of the land.

Congress has full authority over immigrants, to deny entry or to naturalize.

Keep saying it. Doesnt make it true.
There is no authorization in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. The AofC did not grant power to the federal gov't to regulate immigration. No matter how many times you pretend otherwise it isnt true.

No matter how many times you exclaim it isn't true doesn't change the fact that it is in fact true. Your constant denial simply shows just how fucking stupid you really are.

Unable to show where the Constitution grants this power=FAIL.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen.

NO SHIT SMFH

Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure
.

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

What are the uniform Rules of Naturalization? Please explain what these Rules consist of.

They are whatever Congress declares them to be. That is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 20. Whch is why it is unclear to you.
But what is clear is that they can cover only naturalization, the process of becoming a citizen. They cannot cover immigration, the process of becoming a resident.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

By definition they are. Anyone who crosses the border into the US without permission is invading the US.

LOL!!!
You dont know what "invade"means. You make shit up as you go along. People came to this country for 100 years before we had any immigration laws. Were they all "invaders"??

They could have been deemed so had Congress and the President taken action in that regard.

in·vad·er
inˈvādər/
noun

1. a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.

So Congress can just declare anyone to be an invader? You want to stick with that answer?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen.

NO SHIT SMFH

Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure
.

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

What are the uniform Rules of Naturalization? Please explain what these Rules consist of.

They are whatever Congress declares them to be. That is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 20. Whch is why it is unclear to you.
But what is clear is that they can cover only naturalization, the process of becoming a citizen. They cannot cover immigration, the process of becoming a resident.

So you are now admitting your IQ is less than 20. Immigration is not the process of becoming a resident. SMFH

 

[The Rabbi]

Not every immigrant desires to become a citizen.

NO SHIT SMFH

Ergo Congress has no power over those immigrants. Period.

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure
.

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

What are the uniform Rules of Naturalization? Please explain what these Rules consist of.

They are whatever Congress declares them to be. That is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 20. Whch is why it is unclear to you.
But what is clear is that they can cover only naturalization, the process of becoming a citizen. They cannot cover immigration, the process of becoming a resident.

So you are now admitting your IQ is less than 20. Immigration is not the process of becoming a resident. SMFH

Immigration is not the process to become a resident? Then what is?
You dont know WTF you are blabbering about. Because you are woefully misinformed.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

NO SHIT SMFH

And yet Congress has full authority over them, to deny them entry, to regulate as to what they may do while here, for how long they may be here, etc. gofigure
.

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

What are the uniform Rules of Naturalization? Please explain what these Rules consist of.

They are whatever Congress declares them to be. That is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 20. Whch is why it is unclear to you.
But what is clear is that they can cover only naturalization, the process of becoming a citizen. They cannot cover immigration, the process of becoming a resident.

So you are now admitting your IQ is less than 20. Immigration is not the process of becoming a resident. SMFH

Immigration is not the process to become a resident? Then what is?
You dont know WTF you are blabbering about. Because you are woefully misinformed.

Immigration is simply the process of going from one country to another to work, attend school, visit, etc. Residency is nothing more than part of the process/rules of Naturalization that is stopped by the petitioner prior to naturalizing. Sorry, but the woefully misinformed seems to be you. watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

WHere do you find the authority in Congress to regulate immigrants? Your post fails as a mere assertion fallacy.

What are the uniform Rules of Naturalization? Please explain what these Rules consist of.

They are whatever Congress declares them to be. That is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 20. Whch is why it is unclear to you.
But what is clear is that they can cover only naturalization, the process of becoming a citizen. They cannot cover immigration, the process of becoming a resident.

So you are now admitting your IQ is less than 20. Immigration is not the process of becoming a resident. SMFH

Immigration is not the process to become a resident? Then what is?
You dont know WTF you are blabbering about. Because you are woefully misinformed.

Immigration is simply the process of going from one country to another to work, attend school, visit, etc. Residency is nothing more than part of the process/rules of Naturalization that is stopped by the petitioner prior to naturalizing. Sorry, but the woefully misinformed seems to be you. watafuknmoron

You understand that if you come here just to work, attend school or whatever you are a resident, right?
Your stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are astounding.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You understand that if you come here just to work, attend school or whatever you are a resident, right?
Your stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are astounding.

Well, no, you are still a resident of your own nation. Temporarily residing here in non-immigrant status doesn't change that fact as their domicile still remains from the nation of which they came from and will be returning to.

Still exclaiming things you don't have the first inclination about. watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

You understand that if you come here just to work, attend school or whatever you are a resident, right?
Your stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are astounding.

Well, no, you are still a resident of your own nation. Temporarily residing here in non-immigrant status doesn't change that fact as their domicile still remains from the nation of which they came from and will be returning to.

Still exclaiming things you don't have the first inclination about. watafuknmoron

blahblahblah
You still don't know jackshit.

 

[Unkotare]

You understand that if you come here just to work, attend school or whatever you are a resident, right?
Your stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are astounding.

Well, no, you are still a resident of your own nation....

Invest in a dictionary.