Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[Contumacious]

The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,

then the government can't do it.

That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.

He is correct , 1000%

 

[NYcarbineer]

The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,

then the government can't do it.

That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.

He is correct , 1000%

He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's an implied power.

Can you prove that implied powers don't exist? Let's hear it.

 

[Boss]

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?

Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.

What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

 

[The Rabbi]

The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,

then the government can't do it.

That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.

He is correct , 1000%

He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.

Nope. That is the entire basis of the federal government: Limited powers. Delegated powers. Otherwise the federal gov't could simply do anything and ipso facto it is constututional.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

Check the phrase "foregoing powers", killroy. Necessary and proper does not convey any special new power. Certainly not unlimited power.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.

What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,

then the government can't do it.

That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.

He is correct , 1000%

He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.

Nope. That is the entire basis of the federal government: Limited powers. Delegated powers. Otherwise the federal gov't could simply do anything and ipso facto it is constututional.

You deny the existence of implied powers. I told you, that is your first mistake. The Necessary and Proper Clause proves this, and in fact is IN the Constitution for that purpose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

Check the phrase "foregoing powers", killroy. Necessary and proper does not convey any special new power. Certainly not unlimited power.

Right, and starting with national defense, you have a foregoing power.

 

[Boss]

Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.

What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

What the fuck is wrong with you, can't you read and comprehend plain English?

The regulation of immigration is naturalization!
Not "immigration = naturalization."
Not "regulation = naturalization."

Stop acting like a fucking retard.

 

[The Rabbi]

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

What the fuck is wrong with you, can't you read and comprehend plain English?

The regulation of immigration is naturalization!
Not "immigration = naturalization."
Not "regulation = naturalization."

Stop acting like a fucking retard.

Im not the one making up shit.
Regulation of anything is not naturalization. Naturalization is naturalzation. Immigration is immigration The two are not interchangeable terms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.

What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

While you keep pretending you believe the federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION,

let's look at what you said not very long ago:

"On immigration I favor a system where someone wanting to work here can get a biometric ID with a laissez=passer back to the country where he crossed over that allows him to work anywhere here for a specific period. The card should be issued within a week and cost about $100.
Anyone not doing that should be presumed to be a violent criminal and treated appropriately."

Now see if you can explain the constitutionality of that regulation of immigration -

the kind you approve of.

The SAVE Act

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

What the fuck is wrong with you, can't you read and comprehend plain English?

The regulation of immigration is naturalization!
Not "immigration = naturalization."
Not "regulation = naturalization."

Stop acting like a fucking retard.

Im not the one making up shit.
Regulation of anything is not naturalization. Naturalization is naturalzation. Immigration is immigration The two are not interchangeable terms.

The SAVE Act

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

Check the phrase "foregoing powers", killroy. Necessary and proper does not convey any special new power. Certainly not unlimited power.

National defense is a 'foregoing power'. Let me walk you through it. You wouldn't answer my question about Syrian refugees,
probably because you realized you were stuck for a good answer.

You believe we can't even screen Syrian refugees, can't refuse any of them entry, because you say the federal government doesn't have that power constitutionally.

Well...

1. National defense is clearly a power the federal government holds

2. The argument for strict screening of Syrian refugees is national defense based.

3. The power to screen the Syrian immigrants is therefore a legitimate implied power, sanctioned by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to execute the explicit power of Congress to defend the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

While you keep pretending you believe the federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION,

let's look at what you said not very long ago:

"On immigration I favor a system where someone wanting to work here can get a biometric ID with a laissez=passer back to the country where he crossed over that allows him to work anywhere here for a specific period. The card should be issued within a week and cost about $100.
Anyone not doing that should be presumed to be a violent criminal and treated appropriately."

Now see if you can explain the constitutionality of that regulation of immigration -

the kind you approve of.

The SAVE Act

Its nice that you thnk so much of my posts that you research them for me.
Now go and fuck yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

Check the phrase "foregoing powers", killroy. Necessary and proper does not convey any special new power. Certainly not unlimited power.

National defense is a 'foregoing power'. Let me walk you through it. You wouldn't answer my question about Syrian refugees,
probably because you realized you were stuck for a good answer.

You believe we can't even screen Syrian refugees, can't refuse any of them entry, because you say the federal government doesn't have that power constitutionally.

Well...

1. National defense is clearly a power the federal government holds

2. The argument for strict screening of Syrian refugees is national defense based.

3. The power to screen the Syrian immigrants is therefore a legitimate implied power, sanctioned by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to execute the explicit power of Congress to defend the country.

No one is talking about screening Syrian refugees, fucktard.

 

[Boss]

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

What the fuck is wrong with you, can't you read and comprehend plain English?

The regulation of immigration is naturalization!
Not "immigration = naturalization."
Not "regulation = naturalization."

Stop acting like a fucking retard.

Im not the one making up shit.
Regulation of anything is not naturalization. Naturalization is naturalzation. Immigration is immigration The two are not interchangeable terms.

Why do you continue trying to twist the words around? Regulation of immigration is naturalization... that's the word we use to define the regulating of immigration. I'm not interchanging the words. You continue to claim that I am and I continue to tell you that I'm not.

A mechanic is not an auto repair. A mechanic is someone who does auto repairs. A mechanic and an auto repair are not interchangeable. A football is not a football game. A football is used to play football. A football and a football game are not interchangeable.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

This is you

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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?

Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.

What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.

So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

HUH

WTF

Naturalization is NOT immigration.


Where the fuck do you stupid fucks get your ideas.?

.Naturalization is the process by which an individual becomes a US Citizen


Immigration - an individual from a foreign relocates to one of the states - he/she is free to ask the particular state for citizenship. State citizenship is NOT US Citizenship. For example , an individual may have all the rights NY may confer but that does not mean that he has the same rights in NJ . Nor does he have US Citizenship rights.


.See the numerous links previously posted.


.

And yet the 14th Amendment changed all that. You keep claiming things from prior to 1868 and you keep referring to the Dred Scott case. You seem to be the stupid fuck in this scenario. Go back to elementary school and learn basic US history.