Does the federal government have the power to control immigration?

[ihopehefails]

Here is an interesting compromise that I think will make open-borders people and anti-illegal immigration people equally happy. The solution lies in the correct interpretation of the constitution that says the federal government has the power to establlish naturalization rules. Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders. This is a clear distinction that says that the power to control immigration lies with each state so a state like Arizona can declare no more immigrants while California can allow as many people as they want simply because the power to control immigration belongs to each state and not to the federal government. Each state can then have its own immigration policy (not naturalization policy since that belongs in the federal government). This should make everyone happy.

 

[Modbert]

What a troll.

 

[ihopehefails]

What a troll.

Do you want to add something intelligent to the conversation? Actually..can you add something intelligent to any conversation?

 

[Modbert]

Do you want to add something intelligent to the conversation? Actually..can you add something intelligent to any conversation?

To consider this an conversation would be saying that what you're saying isn't complete bullshit in the first place.

Just consider this cold hard fact next time before making a similar thread: The Federal Government gives how much aid to states? Think about that.

 

[ihopehefails]

Do you want to add something intelligent to the conversation? Actually..can you add something intelligent to any conversation?

To consider this an conversation would be saying that what you're saying isn't complete bullshit in the first place.

Just consider this cold hard fact next time before making a similar thread: The Federal Government gives how much aid to states? Think about that.

How does that change the constitutional powers of any state because if getting money from the federal government means you lose your rights then federal welfare recipients lose theirs as well. Think about that.

 

[Modbert]

How does that change the constitutional powers of any state?

You said:

Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders.

Except the fact that the federal government will end up paying for any benefits of those who are not citizens if any partake in any sort of government program. Hence, the federal government has a say in what goes on.

The states cannot simply take federal money and have the final say on immigration.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I have a novel, never before attempted approach to the illegal alien problem. All of the illegal aliens could either go back to Mexico under their own steam or be carried out. Then, they could seek to come into this country legally. If your intentions are honorable, why do you "sneak" into the country?

 

[Modbert]

I have a novel, never before attempted approach to the illegal alien problem. All of the illegal aliens could either go back to Mexico under their own steam or be carried out. Then, they could seek to come into this country legally. If your intentions are honorable, why do you "sneak" into the country?

Why do unemployed people steal bread from the store?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here is an interesting compromise that I think will make open-borders people and anti-illegal immigration people equally happy. The solution lies in the correct interpretation of the constitution that says the federal government has the power to establlish naturalization rules. Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders. This is a clear distinction that says that the power to control immigration lies with each state so a state like Arizona can declare no more immigrants while California can allow as many people as they want simply because the power to control immigration belongs to each state and not to the federal government. Each state can then have its own immigration policy (not naturalization policy since that belongs in the federal government). This should make everyone happy.

im·mi·grate (ĭm'ĭ-grāt')
v. im·mi·grat·ed, im·mi·grat·ing, im·mi·grates
v. intr.To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. See Usage Note at migrate.
v. tr.To send or introduce as immigrants: Britain immigrated many colonists to the New World.

[Latin immigrāre, immigrāt-, to go into : in-, in; see in-2 + migrāre, to depart.]
im'mi·gra'tion n., im'mi·gra'tion·al adj.

nat·u·ral·ize
   /ˈnætʃərəˌlaɪz, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-] Show IPA verb,-ized, -iz·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.
2.to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native.
3.to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use: to naturalize a french phrase.
4.to bring into conformity with nature.
5.to regard or explain as natural rather than supernatural: to naturalize miracles.
6.to adapt or accustom to a place or to new surroundings.
–verb (used without object)
7.to become naturalized.
8.to adapt as if native to a new environment, set of circumstances, etc.
9.to study or carry on research in natural history.

Also, especially British, nat·u·ral·ise.

Do you wish to rephrase your OP or do you prefer to continue to display your ignorance and stupidity?

I'll wait.........

 

[ihopehefails]

How does that change the constitutional powers of any state?

You said:

Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders.

Except the fact that the federal government will end up paying for any benefits of those who are not citizens if any partake in any sort of government program. Hence, the federal government has a say in what goes on.

The states cannot simply take federal money and have the final say on immigration.

Where in the constitution does it says states have this power unless they are getting money from the federal government? And if the federal government doesn't want to pay for a states open border policy then declare that no money will be spent on non-naturalized immigrants. That state can pay for its own open-border policy.

 

[Modbert]

Where in the constitution does it says states have this power unless they are getting money from the federal government? And if the federal government doesn't want to pay for a states open border policy then declare that no money will be spent on non-naturalized immigrants. That state can pay for its own open-border policy.

Right, with what money? Space bucks?

This would just mean higher taxes all around.

Don't try to advise someone on economic policy by the way if you're coming up with ideas like these.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I have a novel, never before attempted approach to the illegal alien problem. All of the illegal aliens could either go back to Mexico under their own steam or be carried out. Then, they could seek to come into this country legally. If your intentions are honorable, why do you "sneak" into the country?

Why do unemployed people steal bread from the store?

Is it ok to steal bread, or anything else, just because you're unemployed?

 

[Againsheila]

I have a novel, never before attempted approach to the illegal alien problem. All of the illegal aliens could either go back to Mexico under their own steam or be carried out. Then, they could seek to come into this country legally. If your intentions are honorable, why do you "sneak" into the country?

Why do unemployed people steal bread from the store?

Excellent question, especially since they can get it from the foodbank for free. Bread is one thing they seldom run out of regardless of the number of immigrants trying to take it all.

 

[ihopehefails]

Here is an interesting compromise that I think will make open-borders people and anti-illegal immigration people equally happy. The solution lies in the correct interpretation of the constitution that says the federal government has the power to establlish naturalization rules. Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders. This is a clear distinction that says that the power to control immigration lies with each state so a state like Arizona can declare no more immigrants while California can allow as many people as they want simply because the power to control immigration belongs to each state and not to the federal government. Each state can then have its own immigration policy (not naturalization policy since that belongs in the federal government). This should make everyone happy.

im·mi·grate (ĭm'ĭ-grāt')
v. im·mi·grat·ed, im·mi·grat·ing, im·mi·grates
v. intr.To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. See Usage Note at migrate.
v. tr.To send or introduce as immigrants: Britain immigrated many colonists to the New World.

[Latin immigrāre, immigrāt-, to go into : in-, in; see in-2 + migrāre, to depart.]
im'mi·gra'tion n., im'mi·gra'tion·al adj.

nat·u·ral·ize
   /ˈnætʃərəˌlaɪz, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-] Show IPA verb,-ized, -iz·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.
2.to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native.
3.to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use: to naturalize a french phrase.
4.to bring into conformity with nature.
5.to regard or explain as natural rather than supernatural: to naturalize miracles.
6.to adapt or accustom to a place or to new surroundings.
–verb (used without object)
7.to become naturalized.
8.to adapt as if native to a new environment, set of circumstances, etc.
9.to study or carry on research in natural history.

Also, especially British, nat·u·ral·ise.

Do you wish to rephrase your OP or do you prefer to continue to display your ignorance and stupidity?

I'll wait.........

"To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native" from your defination of immigrate

The keyword is to enter which is not the same as being naturalized.

"to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen" from your defination of natualize

 

[WillowTree]

Here is an interesting compromise that I think will make open-borders people and anti-illegal immigration people equally happy. The solution lies in the correct interpretation of the constitution that says the federal government has the power to establlish naturalization rules. Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders. This is a clear distinction that says that the power to control immigration lies with each state so a state like Arizona can declare no more immigrants while California can allow as many people as they want simply because the power to control immigration belongs to each state and not to the federal government. Each state can then have its own immigration policy (not naturalization policy since that belongs in the federal government). This should make everyone happy.

It would appear they do not, as they have not.

 

[Modbert]

Is it ok to steal bread, or anything else, just because you're unemployed?

Is it against the law to steal bread if your family is starving and you're homeless? Yes.

Is it morally wrong? That's debatable.

You're not taking the motivations of illegal immigrants into mind. Also, the process of becoming a legal citizen of this country or even getting a green card is backlogged horribly if I remember reading correctly.

 

[ihopehefails]

Where in the constitution does it says states have this power unless they are getting money from the federal government? And if the federal government doesn't want to pay for a states open border policy then declare that no money will be spent on non-naturalized immigrants. That state can pay for its own open-border policy.

Right, with what money? Space bucks?

This would just mean higher taxes all around.

Don't try to advise someone on economic policy by the way if you're coming up with ideas like these.

Which is why I recomend that that state not pay for non-naturalized residents but since it will be paying for its own open border policy then it suffers the consequences of that bad policy.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here is an interesting compromise that I think will make open-borders people and anti-illegal immigration people equally happy. The solution lies in the correct interpretation of the constitution that says the federal government has the power to establlish naturalization rules. Naturalization rules are not the same as immigration because naturalization is the process at which someone becomes a citizen of the United States while immigration is the movement of people across national borders. This is a clear distinction that says that the power to control immigration lies with each state so a state like Arizona can declare no more immigrants while California can allow as many people as they want simply because the power to control immigration belongs to each state and not to the federal government. Each state can then have its own immigration policy (not naturalization policy since that belongs in the federal government). This should make everyone happy.

nat·u·ral·ize
   /ˈnætʃərəˌlaɪz, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-] Show IPA verb,-ized, -iz·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.
2.to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native.
3.to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use: to naturalize a french phrase.
4.to bring into conformity with nature.
5.to regard or explain as natural rather than supernatural: to naturalize miracles.
6.to adapt or accustom to a place or to new surroundings.
–verb (used without object)
7.to become naturalized.
8.to adapt as if native to a new environment, set of circumstances, etc.
9.to study or carry on research in natural history.

Also, especially British, nat·u·ral·ise.

Do you wish to rephrase your OP or do you prefer to continue to display your ignorance and stupidity?

I'll wait.........

"To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native"

The keyword is to enter which is not the same as being naturalized.

"to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen"

Both are functions of the federal government. Entering and settling is covered under visas and paths to citizenship.

How fucking stupid are you anyway? Were you repeatedly dropped on your pointed little skull as a child?

 

[Modbert]

Which is why I recomend that that state not pay for non-naturalized residents but since it will be paying for its own open border policy then it suffers the consequences of that bad policy.

So why have such a policy in the first place? This entire thread makes no sense then.

Also, if the state's not paying for non-naturalized residents in the form of any sort of benefits, then why should those people be paying those types of taxes?

You were better off not making this thread.

 

[ihopehefails]

Do you wish to rephrase your OP or do you prefer to continue to display your ignorance and stupidity?

I'll wait.........

"To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native"

The keyword is to enter which is not the same as being naturalized.

"to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen"

Both are functions of the federal government. Entering and settling is covered under visas and paths to citizenship.

How fucking stupid are you anyway? Were you repeatedly dropped on your pointed little skull as a child?

Nope. It is clearly written that congress has the right to establish uniform rules of naturalization not immigration.