Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sucks to be you.
Article I Section 9
Your capitulation here is noted and accepted.

Damn, it appears what ever Matthew contracted is contagious.

Your admission you have nothing to offer against my proof is accepted.
You can win this argument easily by posting which part of the Constitutioon authorizes Congress to regulate immigration to this country.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Nuff said.

Because it's all you'be got. Of course you wouldnt quote them. So I will.

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Note that "naturalization" is not immigration. Plenty of people immigrate here with no intention of staying, like tourists, students, and temporary workers. So that's a strike.

I already demonstrated via link that I.9 refers to slavery, which was outlawed in the 13th amendment.

So far you've got nothing.

Wrong, I've got a lot more than your opinion.

You have nothing. You cited two clauses, the first does not deal with immigration, only naturalization. The second is a reference to slavery, as I showed in the link.
Do you want to be completely obtuse here or admit that the fed.gov simply does not have power over immigration?

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn, it appears what ever Matthew contracted is contagious.

Your admission you have nothing to offer against my proof is accepted.
You can win this argument easily by posting which part of the Constitutioon authorizes Congress to regulate immigration to this country.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Nuff said.

Because it's all you'be got. Of course you wouldnt quote them. So I will.

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Note that "naturalization" is not immigration. Plenty of people immigrate here with no intention of staying, like tourists, students, and temporary workers. So that's a strike.

I already demonstrated via link that I.9 refers to slavery, which was outlawed in the 13th amendment.

So far you've got nothing.

Wrong, I've got a lot more than your opinion.

You have nothing. You cited two clauses, the first does not deal with immigration, only naturalization. The second is a reference to slavery, as I showed in the link.
Do you want to be completely obtuse here or admit that the fed.gov simply does not have power over immigration?

I got a better idea, how about you just admit you're wrong and STFU. You can't naturalize anyone unless they first immigrate, after 1808 congress had the right to control the migration and importation of any person. If you bother to read the 13th Amendment there is no footnote saying it effects any other portion of the Constitution. It's a stand alone amendment that has no effect on Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Your opinion that this article deals with only slaves is just that, your opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your admission you have nothing to offer against my proof is accepted.
You can win this argument easily by posting which part of the Constitutioon authorizes Congress to regulate immigration to this country.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Nuff said.

Because it's all you'be got. Of course you wouldnt quote them. So I will.

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Note that "naturalization" is not immigration. Plenty of people immigrate here with no intention of staying, like tourists, students, and temporary workers. So that's a strike.

I already demonstrated via link that I.9 refers to slavery, which was outlawed in the 13th amendment.

So far you've got nothing.

Wrong, I've got a lot more than your opinion.

You have nothing. You cited two clauses, the first does not deal with immigration, only naturalization. The second is a reference to slavery, as I showed in the link.
Do you want to be completely obtuse here or admit that the fed.gov simply does not have power over immigration?

I got a better idea, how about you just admit you're wrong and STFU. You can't naturalize anyone unless they first immigrate, after 1808 congress had the right to control the migration and importation of any person. If you bother to read the 13th Amendment there is no footnote saying it effects any other portion of the Constitution. It's a stand alone amendment that has no effect on Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Your opinion that this article deals with only slaves is just that, your opinion.

How about you quit arguing because you look like an idiot. It is not "just my opinion." It is historical fact.
The Slave Trade and the Constitution - U.S. Constitution and Acts - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
U.S. Constitution and Acts - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
Guide to the Constitution

You don't have to come to a country to be naturalized.
In any case plenty of people come here with no intention of becoming citizens. They are tourists, students, and temporary workers.

Now we get to measure your integrity. If you have integrity you will admit that Article I SEction 9 does not authorize the gov't to regulate immigration. If you don't have integrity you will ignore my cites, insist you are right, or deflect to something else.
Go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

Tell us about your understanding of 'implied powers'.

 

[MACAULAY]

I say its in the Preamble---"to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare".

Allowing an invasion of Mexicans is doing neither.

The O.P. says that the Constitution doesn't specifically address it. It doesn't address DUI's either. Let him come with the legal adjudications, from like the Supreme Court, that Congess can't and shouldn't regulate immigration. They have, for many years, without anybody being foolish enough to make the same argument in Court as the O. P. has and if they have they were shot down.

I say the real issue is that its time for the President to execute the immigration laws, as passed by Congress, as he swore to do...instead of intentionally undermining them for his own Socialist agenda.

Strange Thread.

 

[OKTexas]

You don't have to come to a country to be naturalized.

Really, how do they meet the residency requirements? Also they have to have been legally in the country to even apply.

How to Apply for Naturalization

In any case plenty of people come here with no intention of becoming citizens. They are tourists, students, and temporary workers.

They're not considered immigrants, or migrants if you will, they are temp visa holders.

 

[BluesLegend]

I think the huge issue here is a president deciding on his own which laws to obey and uphold and which to ignore.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government has no authority to regulate borders?

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To . . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization​

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

Where did I mention the size of the country? If the authority to defend this country is explicit, then you should be able to quote where the Constitution grants that authority?

 

[The Rabbi]

I say its in the Preamble---"to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare".

Allowing an invasion of Mexicans is doing neither.

The O.P. says that the Constitution doesn't specifically address it. It doesn't address DUI's either. Let him come with the legal adjudications, from like the Supreme Court, that Congess can't and shouldn't regulate immigration. They have, for many years, without anybody being foolish enough to make the same argument in Court as the O. P. has and if they have they were shot down.

I say the real issue is that its time for the President to execute the immigration laws, as passed by Congress, as he swore to do...instead of intentionally undermining them for his own Socialist agenda.

Strange Thread.

The Preamble does not assign defined powers. By your reasoning the federal government could do ANYTHING under the rubric of provide for common defense and promote genreal welfare. That in fact is an argument SCOTUS used in upholding Obamacare.
The fedgov does not pass laws on DUIs. Those are state matters so irrelevant here.
No one has challenged the fed gov's power over immigration which is why it hasnt been shot down. But based on that logic I guess you think Obamacare is OK because the USSC has upheld it three times already.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't have to come to a country to be naturalized.

Really, how do they meet the residency requirements? Also they have to have been legally in the country to even apply.

How to Apply for Naturalization

In any case plenty of people come here with no intention of becoming citizens. They are tourists, students, and temporary workers.

They're not considered immigrants, or migrants if you will, they are temp visa holders.

People who come here as tourists arent considered immigrants? Then what are they? What authority does the fedgov have to pass laws covering them?

You have done what I predicted and deflected to another topic rather than admit your own failure.

 

[The Rabbi]

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

Where did I mention the size of the country? If the authority to defend this country is explicit, then you should be able to quote where the Constitution grants that authority?

You mentioned the population, which is one measure of size.
I already quoted the section where authority for defense is given.
Give up. Youve lost.

 

[SwimExpert]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

You really have lost your cotton pickin' mind. The federal government has no power to regulate borders?

I can't deal with this fuckery...

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

Where did I mention the size of the country? If the authority to defend this country is explicit, then you should be able to quote where the Constitution grants that authority?

You mentioned the population, which is one measure of size.
I already quoted the section where authority for defense is given.
Give up. Youve lost.

So if the population increases that means the physical area of the country increases?

Don't be on idiot.

"Defense" includes preventing unwanted aliens from entering the country. It's absurd to claim otherwise.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

Where did I mention the size of the country? If the authority to defend this country is explicit, then you should be able to quote where the Constitution grants that authority?

You mentioned the population, which is one measure of size.
I already quoted the section where authority for defense is given.
Give up. Youve lost.

So if the population increases that means the physical area of the country increases?

Don't be on idiot.

"Defense" includes preventing unwanted aliens from entering the country. It's absurd to claim otherwise.

Sraw man much?

Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.

 

[SwimExpert]

Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.

Charles Manson got married. In prison. "Someone" wants him. Doesn't mean society wants him.