Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Yes. We have decades of case law to prove it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Yes. We have decades of case law to prove it.

Who is this "we" you speak about?
Post your "decades of case law."
You wouldn't know case law from case quantities.

 

[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

blahblahblah
You still don't know jackshit.

If only that were true. SMFH

 

[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.

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

 

[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

blahblahblah
You still don't know jackshit.

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

 

[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.

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

 

[The Rabbi]

blahblahblah
You still don't know jackshit.

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Lemme check: Substance? Nope, no substance.
You've lost this debate, junior. Move along.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Lemme check: Substance? Nope, no substance.
You've lost this debate, junior. Move along.

I've lost nothing moron.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Lemme check: Substance? Nope, no substance.
You've lost this debate, junior. Move along.

I've lost nothing moron.

Yeah, you did. You failed to show wher Congress has any power over immigration. They dont. Naturalization is not immigration no mater how often you claim it is. The articles of confederation were silent on immigration to this country, no matter how often you misread what it says. In any case the Articles are ittelevant to the current Federal government.
Your posts have been page after page of failed attempts to prove the impossible. And when that became apparent you deflected to name calling and assertions of winning. But the stubborn fact is you are wrong.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Lemme check: Substance? Nope, no substance.
You've lost this debate, junior. Move along.

I've lost nothing moron.

Yeah, you did. You failed to show wher Congress has any power over immigration. They dont. Naturalization is not immigration no mater how often you claim it is. The articles of confederation were silent on immigration to this country, no matter how often you misread what it says. In any case the Articles are ittelevant to the current Federal government.
Your posts have been page after page of failed attempts to prove the impossible. And when that became apparent you deflected to name calling and assertions of winning. But the stubborn fact is you are wrong.

Fucking hilarious. You've now you can't get out. watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Lemme check: Substance? Nope, no substance.
You've lost this debate, junior. Move along.

I've lost nothing moron.

Yeah, you did. You failed to show wher Congress has any power over immigration. They dont. Naturalization is not immigration no mater how often you claim it is. The articles of confederation were silent on immigration to this country, no matter how often you misread what it says. In any case the Articles are ittelevant to the current Federal government.
Your posts have been page after page of failed attempts to prove the impossible. And when that became apparent you deflected to name calling and assertions of winning. But the stubborn fact is you are wrong.

Fucking hilarious. You've now you can't get out. watafuknmoron

Yeah you're a time waster.
And you're gone.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Lemme check: Substance? Nope, no substance.
You've lost this debate, junior. Move along.

I've lost nothing moron.

Yeah, you did. You failed to show wher Congress has any power over immigration. They dont. Naturalization is not immigration no mater how often you claim it is. The articles of confederation were silent on immigration to this country, no matter how often you misread what it says. In any case the Articles are ittelevant to the current Federal government.
Your posts have been page after page of failed attempts to prove the impossible. And when that became apparent you deflected to name calling and assertions of winning. But the stubborn fact is you are wrong.

Fucking hilarious. You've now you can't get out. watafuknmoron

Yeah you're a time waster.
And you're gone.

Nope, still here.

 

[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.


.

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 fully understand that as a racist son of a bitch you believe that those provisos that benefit brown skinned folks should be ignored.

You and your ilk support the Constitution when is convenient.

Let's see if you stupid motherfuckers are successful in removing 12 million of our Alien friends.


.Fuck you now,.

.

 

[Clementine]

The Preamble does not lay out what powers the fedgov has.

It states the purpose of forming a federal government.

Right. But does not confer specifric powers, which is the function of Article I Section 8. And immigration is nowhere there.

What about states' rights to secure borders? The southern border states have tried, but Obama overrules them.

Every other country has strict immigration policies and they do not tolerate illegal entry.

 

[Boss]

That is simply untrue. People immigrate for all sorts of reasons. Tourists, temp workers, etc. All of them are covered under immigration law but that is nowhere a power given in the Constutution.

I guess you're just going to continue to ignore me when I reply to your rebuttals. I addressed this earlier. "Immigration" is when someone comes into a country with intention to remain permanently. Tourists and temporary workers are not coming with intention of remaining permanently, therefore, are not immigrants.

Definition of IMMIGRANT
a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

 

[NYcarbineer]

blahblahblah
You still don't know jackshit.

If only that were true. SMFH

It is true. You don't know jack shit. You've proven it already.

LMFAO I don't know who is dumber, you or Contumacious, you both taking the fucking stupidity award on this site.

If you dont know who the dumb one is on any thread it's probably you.

I know who the dumb ones are, just not sure who is dumber, you or contumacious, right now you both are tied for the award. Who wants it more?

Rabbi is one of those 'nuts who thinks you only win the argument if you get him to admit it. It's a funny childish well worn tactic.

Not to mention the fact that he doesn't even believe the 'argument' he's made in the first place.

 

[bripat9643]

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

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.

They are when they are illegal.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Preamble does not lay out what powers the fedgov has.

It states the purpose of forming a federal government.

Right. But does not confer specifric powers, which is the function of Article I Section 8. And immigration is nowhere there.

What about states' rights to secure borders? The southern border states have tried, but Obama overrules them.

Every other country has strict immigration policies and they do not tolerate illegal entry.

You could make the case that states are empowered to do this, based on teh 10A. But in practice it isnt happening.
Every other country has socialized medicine but I dont think that's an argument you want to make.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is simply untrue. People immigrate for all sorts of reasons. Tourists, temp workers, etc. All of them are covered under immigration law but that is nowhere a power given in the Constutution.

I guess you're just going to continue to ignore me when I reply to your rebuttals. I addressed this earlier. "Immigration" is when someone comes into a country with intention to remain permanently. Tourists and temporary workers are not coming with intention of remaining permanently, therefore, are not immigrants.

Definition of IMMIGRANT
a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

So why are they covered by immigration laws? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come here as a temporary worker?