Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[Contumacious]

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've been saying that you're nothing but a Democrat. Thanks for showing it once again.

HUH?

WTF

Are you saying that only democrats support the Constitution (1787)?

.

Cheap come on. If you make a real case for something, I shall consider a response.

Well thank you for admitting that you are a racist motherfucker .

.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry, can someone catch me up really quickly? I have ignored the thread because I thought the topic was stupid. How are Constitutional Conservatives somehow for Open Borders when our Founding Fathers placed defending this nation and our sovereignty in the Constitution?

What...special person...believes our Founding Fathers fought a war to create this nation only to allow anyone who wanted to march in and start seizing it for their own against our nation's laws and established sovereignty?

I'm sure there is a reasonable, logical explanation.

I was going to ignore your post because ALL the Founding Fathers agree that fedgov has no authority to interdict , detain and deport. Links to HISTORICAL FACTS have been provided,

There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, can someone catch me up really quickly? I have ignored the thread because I thought the topic was stupid. How are Constitutional Conservatives somehow for Open Borders when our Founding Fathers placed defending this nation and our sovereignty in the Constitution?

What...special person...believes our Founding Fathers fought a war to create this nation only to allow anyone who wanted to march in and start seizing it for their own against our nation's laws and established sovereignty?

I'm sure there is a reasonable, logical explanation.

Sure.
Please cite the exact section of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. Not naturalization, as those are two separate things.
Up until the 1870s anyone who wanted could in fact just march right in and take up residence. There were no immigration laws, although if you wanted to be a citizen there were rules for that.
There's your explanation.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

There's nothing in The Constitution that prohibits the government from passing laws limiting, or even prohibiting immigration.

You are not referring to the US Constitution (1787) you are referring to KKK bylaws.


.

I'm referring to Article 1, where there is nothing prohibiting Congress from passing laws regulating immigration.

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are not referring to the US Constitution (1787) you are referring to KKK bylaws.


.

I'm referring to Article 1, where there is nothing prohibiting Congress from passing laws regulating immigration.

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

 

[imawhosure]

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

Stupid retard

Search and find out if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that "naturalization" and "immigration" were the same thing.

have some pride, use your fucking brain for a change


.

Where do you people come up with this shit?...lol!

"im·mi·gra·tion
ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country."

"nat·u·ral·ize
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: naturalized; past participle: naturalized

1. 1.
   admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country."

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

It remained in States hands only till 1808. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Congress enacted an immigration Law which expired in 1800 after Madison and Jefferson objected.

There was NO immigration Law until the 1890's when the SCOTUS concluded that the Chinese presence in our midst constituted an emergency.


.

Actually the early laws only delta with naturalization, not immigration. Some States passed some immigration laws after the civil war, but SCOTUS said immigration was the authority of the feds.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are not referring to the US Constitution (1787) you are referring to KKK bylaws.


.

I'm referring to Article 1, where there is nothing prohibiting Congress from passing laws regulating immigration.

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

I'm referring to Article 1, where there is nothing prohibiting Congress from passing laws regulating immigration.

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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've been saying that you're nothing but a Democrat. Thanks for showing it once again.

HUH?

WTF

Are you saying that only democrats support the Constitution (1787)?

.

Cheap come on. If you make a real case for something, I shall consider a response.

Well thank you for admitting that you are a racist motherfucker .

.

We weren't even talking about race, you fucking moron.

 

[The Rabbi]

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

Stupid retard

Search and find out if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that "naturalization" and "immigration" were the same thing.

have some pride, use your fucking brain for a change


.

Where do you people come up with this shit?...lol!

"im·mi·gra·tion
ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country."

"nat·u·ral·ize
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: naturalized; past participle: naturalized

1. 1.
   admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country."

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

It remained in States hands only till 1808. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Congress enacted an immigration Law which expired in 1800 after Madison and Jefferson objected.

There was NO immigration Law until the 1890's when the SCOTUS concluded that the Chinese presence in our midst constituted an emergency.


.

Actually the early laws only delta with naturalization, not immigration. Some States passed some immigration laws after the civil war, but SCOTUS said immigration was the authority of the feds.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm referring to Article 1, where there is nothing prohibiting Congress from passing laws regulating immigration.

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

 

[imawhosure]

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

Stupid retard

Search and find out if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that "naturalization" and "immigration" were the same thing.

have some pride, use your fucking brain for a change


.

Where do you people come up with this shit?...lol!

"im·mi·gra·tion
ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country."

"nat·u·ral·ize
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: naturalized; past participle: naturalized

1. 1.
   admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

It remained in States hands only till 1808. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Congress enacted an immigration Law which expired in 1800 after Madison and Jefferson objected.

There was NO immigration Law until the 1890's when the SCOTUS concluded that the Chinese presence in our midst constituted an emergency.


.

Actually the early laws only delta with naturalization, not immigration. Some States passed some immigration laws after the civil war, but SCOTUS said immigration was the authority of the feds.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

 

[Contumacious]

You are not referring to the US Constitution (1787) you are referring to KKK bylaws.


.

I'm referring to Article 1, where there is nothing prohibiting Congress from passing laws regulating immigration.

No you dont get it. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, period. If the power isnt granted, they dont have it. And there is nowhere that immigration is a power of the government.

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

That is stupid question which shows that you are not familiar withe US Constitution.

I already posted what our 3rd President and Foundeing Father stated about the 1798 Immigration Act.


.

 

[Contumacious]

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've been saying that you're nothing but a Democrat. Thanks for showing it once again.

HUH?

WTF

Are you saying that only democrats support the Constitution (1787)?

.

Cheap come on. If you make a real case for something, I shall consider a response.

Well thank you for admitting that you are a racist motherfucker .

.

We weren't even talking about race, you fucking moron.

Suck my rod you stupid son of a bitch - be a man and admit that you are a KKK Grand Wizard.

.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I've been saying that you're nothing but a Democrat. Thanks for showing it once again.

HUH?

WTF

Are you saying that only democrats support the Constitution (1787)?

.

Cheap come on. If you make a real case for something, I shall consider a response.

Well thank you for admitting that you are a racist motherfucker .

.

We weren't even talking about race, you fucking moron.

Suck my rod you stupid son of a bitch - be a man and admit that you are a KKK Grand Wizard.

.

You're a mental patient, bro.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

Stupid retard

Search and find out if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that "naturalization" and "immigration" were the same thing.

have some pride, use your fucking brain for a change


.

Where do you people come up with this shit?...lol!

"im·mi·gra·tion
ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country."

"nat·u·ral·ize
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: naturalized; past participle: naturalized

1. 1.
   admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country."

It remained in States hands only till 1808. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

Congress enacted an immigration Law which expired in 1800 after Madison and Jefferson objected.

There was NO immigration Law until the 1890's when the SCOTUS concluded that the Chinese presence in our midst constituted an emergency.


.

Actually the early laws only delta with naturalization, not immigration. Some States passed some immigration laws after the civil war, but SCOTUS said immigration was the authority of the feds.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because some freak of nature like you believes it to be true, doesn't make it true.

We are a sovereign state and congress proved that way back in 1812 when the British showed up to wage war with us.

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

No they dont. That never stopped them before, of course. But for Constitutional Conservatives these things matter so as a matter of law the fedgov does not have authority to enforce immigration.
I'll add Jefferson didnt have the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase either. The point was made at the time and his response was, "The deal is too good to turn down."

 

[imawhosure]

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

Stupid retard

Search and find out if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that "naturalization" and "immigration" were the same thing.

have some pride, use your fucking brain for a change


.

Where do you people come up with this shit?...lol!

"im·mi·gra·tion
ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country."

"nat·u·ral·ize
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: naturalized; past participle: naturalized

1. 1.
   admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country."

Congress enacted an immigration Law which expired in 1800 after Madison and Jefferson objected.

There was NO immigration Law until the 1890's when the SCOTUS concluded that the Chinese presence in our midst constituted an emergency.


.

Actually the early laws only delta with naturalization, not immigration. Some States passed some immigration laws after the civil war, but SCOTUS said immigration was the authority of the feds.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see we have another PhD candidate with us.
OK, please point to the exact language in the Constitution that authorizes immigration law. It isnt about naturalization, which is conferring citizenship. Plenty of people immigrate but never become citizens. So wher does Congress' authority to regulate here come from?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

No they dont. That never stopped them before, of course. But for Constitutional Conservatives these things matter so as a matter of law the fedgov does not have authority to enforce immigration.
I'll add Jefferson didnt have the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase either. The point was made at the time and his response was, "The deal is too good to turn down."

You can scream all you want, doesn't make a difference. SCOTUS basically says that it is constitutional, as long as the fed imposes it, an so..........so let it it be written, so let it be done!

Now you can stand on your head and make your case all you want. All that means, is some silly guy is standing on his head screaming, but it means nothing! SCOTUS says it is so, so it is so. Or are you against the constitution, and SCOTUS part in said constitution? You don't mean to tell me, you want to BREAK the constitution, and said powers of each branch of government, now do you!

Well, maybe you want to change the law, yes! OK, get a libertarian? A Communist? A Socialist? A Facist elected to the White House who will change the decision by putting in judges that see it your way. I personally have no idea which kind of judges would. But needless to say------------> just like Obysmalcare, SCOTUS has spoken. Doesn't mean I agree with either, or neither decision, but the law is the law, and SCOTUS has decided it is covered under our constitution; and after all, they are the final word, no matter how hard you try and convince any of us, it is not so.

So, you go ahead with your thread, because our supposed most prolific minds when coming to juris prudence, has decided that you haven't a leg to stand on, and that is all that matters in this current discussion!

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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've been saying that you're nothing but a Democrat. Thanks for showing it once again.

HUH?

WTF

Are you saying that only democrats support the Constitution (1787)?

.

Cheap come on. If you make a real case for something, I shall consider a response.

Well thank you for admitting that you are a racist motherfucker .

.

We weren't even talking about race, you fucking moron.

They lost the argument, so now, we're all racists.

 

[Synthaholic]

The federal government has full power to regulate the border if only from its power to defend the nation.

Let it be noted that the Liberal in this thread posted the correct answer, which none of the conservatives have dared to address.

I love it.

 

[Contumacious]

Where do you people come up with this shit?...lol!

"im·mi·gra·tion
ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country."

"nat·u·ral·ize
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: naturalized; past participle: naturalized

1. 1.
   admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country."

Actually the early laws only delta with naturalization, not immigration. Some States passed some immigration laws after the civil war, but SCOTUS said immigration was the authority of the feds.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show us where The Constitution says immigration is off limits?

No, idiot. That's not how it works. It is a system of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated, they dont have it.

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

No they dont. That never stopped them before, of course. But for Constitutional Conservatives these things matter so as a matter of law the fedgov does not have authority to enforce immigration.
I'll add Jefferson didnt have the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase either. The point was made at the time and his response was, "The deal is too good to turn down."

You can scream all you want, doesn't make a difference. SCOTUS basically says that it is constitutional, as long as the fed imposes it, an so..........so let it it be written, so let it be done!

Now you can stand on your head and make your case all you want. All that means, is some silly guy is standing on his head screaming, but it means nothing! SCOTUS says it is so, so it is so. Or are you against the constitution, and SCOTUS part in said constitution? You don't mean to tell me, you want to BREAK the constitution, and said powers of each branch of government, now do you!

Well, maybe you want to change the law, yes! OK, get a libertarian? A Communist? A Socialist? A Facist elected to the White House who will change the decision by putting in judges that see it your way. I personally have no idea which kind of judges would. But needless to say------------> just like Obysmalcare, SCOTUS has spoken. Doesn't mean I agree with either, or neither decision, but the law is the law, and SCOTUS has decided it is covered under our constitution; and after all, they are the final word, no matter how hard you try and convince any of us, it is not so.

So, you go ahead with your thread, because our supposed most prolific minds when coming to juris prudence, has decided that you haven't a leg to stand on, and that is all that matters in this current discussion!

Before 1935 SCOTUS invalidated every law enacted by Fuhrer FDR

The motherfucker threatened to abolish SCOTUS

Suddenly SCOTUS REVERSES itself and approved eveyr fascist measure adopted by FDR and every president thereafter

And WE THE PEOPLE must obediently grin and bear it

BULLSHIT


.

 

[imawhosure]

I will answer the question, and don't even have to cite the constitution.

ANSWER---------> SCOTUS says it is there! How do we know this? Because when Arizona in the past few years, tried to do the feds job, SCOTUS said that they couldn't! They said----------------> It is within only the federal governments jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, not the states.

Now notice, they NEVER said the laws were illegal, did not exist, or were unconstitutional. They insisted that ONLY the federal government COULD enforce them! You can't enforce a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore; the law exists, it is constitutional, but only the federal government can enforce it.

Now then...........who you going to believe.............the law of the land spelled out by SCOTUS and their explanation on who/whom can enforce said law, or rabbi?

I am not a fan of many of SCOTUS decisions, but since they become the law of the land no matter who holds the White House, we must assume logically that IF the resident of the White House decides to enforce that law, it is CONSTITUTIONAL!

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

No they dont. That never stopped them before, of course. But for Constitutional Conservatives these things matter so as a matter of law the fedgov does not have authority to enforce immigration.
I'll add Jefferson didnt have the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase either. The point was made at the time and his response was, "The deal is too good to turn down."

You can scream all you want, doesn't make a difference. SCOTUS basically says that it is constitutional, as long as the fed imposes it, an so..........so let it it be written, so let it be done!

Now you can stand on your head and make your case all you want. All that means, is some silly guy is standing on his head screaming, but it means nothing! SCOTUS says it is so, so it is so. Or are you against the constitution, and SCOTUS part in said constitution? You don't mean to tell me, you want to BREAK the constitution, and said powers of each branch of government, now do you!

Well, maybe you want to change the law, yes! OK, get a libertarian? A Communist? A Socialist? A Facist elected to the White House who will change the decision by putting in judges that see it your way. I personally have no idea which kind of judges would. But needless to say------------> just like Obysmalcare, SCOTUS has spoken. Doesn't mean I agree with either, or neither decision, but the law is the law, and SCOTUS has decided it is covered under our constitution; and after all, they are the final word, no matter how hard you try and convince any of us, it is not so.

So, you go ahead with your thread, because our supposed most prolific minds when coming to juris prudence, has decided that you haven't a leg to stand on, and that is all that matters in this current discussion!

Before 1935 SCOTUS invalidated every law enacted by Fuhrer FDR

The motherfucker threatened to abolish SCOTUS

Suddenly SCOTUS REVERSES itself and approved eveyr fascist measure adopted by FDR and every president thereafter

And WE THE PEOPLE must obediently grin and bear it

BULLSHIT


.

I respond------->see post 134! That is all that matters as off this post, and you can scream, cry, whine, moan, and groan, but it is fact, and that is all that matters.

 

[Contumacious]

They have no authority under the Constitution to make immigration laws. A USSC decision does not change that.

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

No they dont. That never stopped them before, of course. But for Constitutional Conservatives these things matter so as a matter of law the fedgov does not have authority to enforce immigration.
I'll add Jefferson didnt have the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase either. The point was made at the time and his response was, "The deal is too good to turn down."

You can scream all you want, doesn't make a difference. SCOTUS basically says that it is constitutional, as long as the fed imposes it, an so..........so let it it be written, so let it be done!

Now you can stand on your head and make your case all you want. All that means, is some silly guy is standing on his head screaming, but it means nothing! SCOTUS says it is so, so it is so. Or are you against the constitution, and SCOTUS part in said constitution? You don't mean to tell me, you want to BREAK the constitution, and said powers of each branch of government, now do you!

Well, maybe you want to change the law, yes! OK, get a libertarian? A Communist? A Socialist? A Facist elected to the White House who will change the decision by putting in judges that see it your way. I personally have no idea which kind of judges would. But needless to say------------> just like Obysmalcare, SCOTUS has spoken. Doesn't mean I agree with either, or neither decision, but the law is the law, and SCOTUS has decided it is covered under our constitution; and after all, they are the final word, no matter how hard you try and convince any of us, it is not so.

So, you go ahead with your thread, because our supposed most prolific minds when coming to juris prudence, has decided that you haven't a leg to stand on, and that is all that matters in this current discussion!

Before 1935 SCOTUS invalidated every law enacted by Fuhrer FDR

The motherfucker threatened to abolish SCOTUS

Suddenly SCOTUS REVERSES itself and approved eveyr fascist measure adopted by FDR and every president thereafter

And WE THE PEOPLE must obediently grin and bear it

BULLSHIT


.

I respond------->see post 134! That is all that matters as off this post, and you can scream, cry, whine, moan, and groan, but it is fact, and that is all that matters.

You left out one option

A massive bloody civil war

.

 

[imawhosure]

Regardless of if they came to the conclusion under "original intent" or "living document," the feds have the right under the Arizona decision, to enforce immigration law. Their interpretation of the constitution is all that matters on this issue since they are the final word on what the constitution means in modern times.

Also...............according to the constitution, the federal governments number 1 job is to protect its citizens. Therefore, anything that is considered a "threat" to its citizens, would fall under that jurisdiction.

Now then, if the numbers put forth here are accurate that 3000 murders are committed by illegal aliens, then it surely could be construed a threat to the citizenry. By my way of thinking, that falls directly into the federal governments number 1 objective. But even if you want to propagandize the issue, SCOTUS has had this fall under the constitution by their Arizona decision, so to change the thinking, you need to change SCOTUS or it is in force.

No they dont. That never stopped them before, of course. But for Constitutional Conservatives these things matter so as a matter of law the fedgov does not have authority to enforce immigration.
I'll add Jefferson didnt have the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase either. The point was made at the time and his response was, "The deal is too good to turn down."

You can scream all you want, doesn't make a difference. SCOTUS basically says that it is constitutional, as long as the fed imposes it, an so..........so let it it be written, so let it be done!

Now you can stand on your head and make your case all you want. All that means, is some silly guy is standing on his head screaming, but it means nothing! SCOTUS says it is so, so it is so. Or are you against the constitution, and SCOTUS part in said constitution? You don't mean to tell me, you want to BREAK the constitution, and said powers of each branch of government, now do you!

Well, maybe you want to change the law, yes! OK, get a libertarian? A Communist? A Socialist? A Facist elected to the White House who will change the decision by putting in judges that see it your way. I personally have no idea which kind of judges would. But needless to say------------> just like Obysmalcare, SCOTUS has spoken. Doesn't mean I agree with either, or neither decision, but the law is the law, and SCOTUS has decided it is covered under our constitution; and after all, they are the final word, no matter how hard you try and convince any of us, it is not so.

So, you go ahead with your thread, because our supposed most prolific minds when coming to juris prudence, has decided that you haven't a leg to stand on, and that is all that matters in this current discussion!

Before 1935 SCOTUS invalidated every law enacted by Fuhrer FDR

The motherfucker threatened to abolish SCOTUS

Suddenly SCOTUS REVERSES itself and approved eveyr fascist measure adopted by FDR and every president thereafter

And WE THE PEOPLE must obediently grin and bear it

BULLSHIT


.

I respond------->see post 134! That is all that matters as off this post, and you can scream, cry, whine, moan, and groan, but it is fact, and that is all that matters.

You left out one option

A massive bloody civil war

.

Well you go right on ahead. I will use the ballot box. A very wise person once said------->the pen (AKA computer) is mightier than the sword. I concur.