Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sraw man much?You mentioned the population, which is one measure of size.The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.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 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?
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.
Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.
Wow. So we get to vote people off the island? Which section of the Constitution spells this out, precisely?Sraw man much?You mentioned the population, which is one measure of size.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?
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.
Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.
Unwanted aliens are whomever the voters decide they don't want in the country. That's pretty simple. You don't get to establish your own personal foreign policy and bring in whomever you want regardless of what the voters want.
Talk about "stretching."
Wow. So we get to vote people off the island? Which section of the Constitution spells this out, precisely?Sraw man much?You mentioned the population, which is one measure of size.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?
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.
Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.
Unwanted aliens are whomever the voters decide they don't want in the country. That's pretty simple. You don't get to establish your own personal foreign policy and bring in whomever you want regardless of what the voters want.
Talk about "stretching."
Quite playing stupid.
Constitutional conservative? Open borders?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.
Which part of the Constitution authorizes people to vote on who can come here?Wow. So we get to vote people off the island? Which section of the Constitution spells this out, precisely?Sraw man much?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.
Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.
Unwanted aliens are whomever the voters decide they don't want in the country. That's pretty simple. You don't get to establish your own personal foreign policy and bring in whomever you want regardless of what the voters want.
Talk about "stretching."
Quite playing stupid.
It i a libertarian idea, no question. But even narco-libertarians come up with good ideas. Here the question is where the fed gov derives it's authority to regulate immigration to this country.Constitutional conservative? Open borders?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.
I think the word you are looking for is "Libertarian".
Since one of the first Acts of our Founding Fathers was to regulate immigration (Naturalization Act of 1790), it is pretty obvious it was their original intent for the federal government to have this authority.It i a libertarian idea, no question. But even narco-libertarians come up with good ideas. Here the question is where the fed gov derives it's authority to regulate immigration to this country.Constitutional conservative? Open borders?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.
I think the word you are looking for is "Libertarian".
Negatory on that, good buddy. Natutalization is not immigration, as I've written many times already here. Catch you on the downhill, ten-four.Since one of the first Acts of our Founding Fathers was to regulate immigration (Naturalization Act of 1790), it is pretty obvious it was their original intent for the federal government to have this authority.It i a libertarian idea, no question. But even narco-libertarians come up with good ideas. Here the question is where the fed gov derives it's authority to regulate immigration to this country.Constitutional conservative? Open borders?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.
I think the word you are looking for is "Libertarian".
See also: Naturalization Act of 1798.
Which part of the Constitution authorizes people to vote on who can come here?Wow. So we get to vote people off the island? Which section of the Constitution spells this out, precisely?Sraw man much?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.
Who are "unwanted aliens"? Obviously if they get jobs here someone must want them. You are stretching worse than Obama's Solicitor General.
Unwanted aliens are whomever the voters decide they don't want in the country. That's pretty simple. You don't get to establish your own personal foreign policy and bring in whomever you want regardless of what the voters want.
Talk about "stretching."
Quite playing stupid.
If you'd quit posting stupid assertions with no basis we wouldn't have the argument.
Translation: I am losing this argument because TheRabbi is better informed than me.Which part of the Constitution authorizes people to vote on who can come here?Wow. So we get to vote people off the island? Which section of the Constitution spells this out, precisely?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.
Unwanted aliens are whomever the voters decide they don't want in the country. That's pretty simple. You don't get to establish your own personal foreign policy and bring in whomever you want regardless of what the voters want.
Talk about "stretching."
Quite playing stupid.
If you'd quit posting stupid assertions with no basis we wouldn't have the argument.
You're sliding further down the stupid hole.
Translation: I am losing this argument because TheRabbi is better informed than me.Which part of the Constitution authorizes people to vote on who can come here?Wow. So we get to vote people off the island? Which section of the Constitution spells this out, precisely?Unwanted aliens are whomever the voters decide they don't want in the country. That's pretty simple. You don't get to establish your own personal foreign policy and bring in whomever you want regardless of what the voters want.
Talk about "stretching."
Quite playing stupid.
If you'd quit posting stupid assertions with no basis we wouldn't have the argument.
You're sliding further down the stupid hole.
Where in the COnstitution does it say you are allowed to breath? Quit it now.where in the constitution says we shouldn't have borders? We simply don't have a country without control over our own borders and I seriously doubt one could make a serious case that otherwise is somehow constitutional.
Naturalization is the regulation of immigration. How you cannot see that is beyond me. It is federal legislation which determines when an immigrant can apply for citizenship, so our Founders clearly felt the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration.Negatory on that, good buddy. Natutalization is not immigration, as I've written many times already here. Catch you on the downhill, ten-four.Since one of the first Acts of our Founding Fathers was to regulate immigration (Naturalization Act of 1790), it is pretty obvious it was their original intent for the federal government to have this authority.It i a libertarian idea, no question. But even narco-libertarians come up with good ideas. Here the question is where the fed gov derives it's authority to regulate immigration to this country.Constitutional conservative? Open borders?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.
I think the word you are looking for is "Libertarian".
See also: Naturalization Act of 1798.
Naturalization is not immigration. People immigrate here all the time and are never naturalized. I've had many green card aliens as customers, some of whom have lived here 20 years.Naturalization is the regulation of immigration. How you cannot see that is beyond me. It is federal legislation which determines when an immigrant can apply for citizenship, so our Founders clearly felt the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration.Negatory on that, good buddy. Natutalization is not immigration, as I've written many times already here. Catch you on the downhill, ten-four.Since one of the first Acts of our Founding Fathers was to regulate immigration (Naturalization Act of 1790), it is pretty obvious it was their original intent for the federal government to have this authority.It i a libertarian idea, no question. But even narco-libertarians come up with good ideas. Here the question is where the fed gov derives it's authority to regulate immigration to this country.Constitutional conservative? Open borders?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.
I think the word you are looking for is "Libertarian".
See also: Naturalization Act of 1798.
The Manifest of Immigrants Act was the first piece of U.S. legislation regulating the transportation of migrants to and from America and the first measure requiring that immigration statistics be kept. The United States maintained uninterrupted data on individuals coming into the country from the time this act was passed.
Sigh. CFR boy on a ride.You are just trolling because no one can be that utterly stupid. USA.INC has the most generous LEGAL immigration program in the world and it has been to the detriment of those already here....now you think that anyone that fogs a mirror should be allowed over here without signing the guest book and flop? You sound like you are a fan of the Council On Foreign Relation's plan to water down our nationalism to the point that we have no sovereignty thus making us ripe to be merged into globalism....is that what you want? I bet it is being that you strike me as a card carrying communist.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.
