How can one take a stand against illegal immigration or force local politicians to?

[JoeB131]

Isn’t Nicaragua, Mexico, Central and South America the incestual rape mecca of the world?

Um, no, but tell yourself it is.. because you live in mortal fear of your Mexican neighbors.

 

[Humorme]

I'm just not into that Orwellian crap. I don't like the fact that I'm required to have such an ID where the government can track everything we do from the womb to the tomb, 24 / 7 / 365.

Heaven forbid the government do a complete takeover and try to tyrannize all of us. Due to the inability to mount any opposition because Uncle Scam knows everything about us we'd never be able to mount a resistance.

Unless you want something from Uncle Scam (i.e. money, an education, healthcare at taxpayer expense, etc.) then ID serves little purpose.

are you a foreign national in the US? if not, don't whine about it, be Patriotic.

"No man can put a chain about the ankleof his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglas, former slave

"...in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

—Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Doesn't seem relevant. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Considering the damage Illegal immigration can do, with particular emphasis on the dangerously aggressive type of illegals presently pouring in from the Middle East, any elected official who will not act to eliminate this invasive threat may be regarded as treasonous to the fundamental interests of the Nation and must be promptly removed from office -- regardless of any other consideration. It is important that those of us who understand the nature of the threat these illegal Muslims pose to our Country make every possible effort to educate those who do not understand it and to convince them to vote the treacherous pro-immigrant politicians out.

Ooooh, there's a scary Muslim hiding under your bed, right now.

Every nation has a right to defend its own borders. Just exactly where in the Constitution does it state that we HAVE to accept immigrants (or even refugees for that matter) from all parts of the world, particularly from those known areas where terrorists have built a strongholds and actively look for means to infiltrate our country.

Do we need another 9-11 because some are too thickheaded, or just lacking in intelligence to know we need protective measures in place to protect our own citizens?

The Constitution is very limited in the role it can play toward foreigners. For example, Article 1, Section 8 states:

"To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

What the Constitution does not say is that people have to become citizens in order to conduct business in the United States. What the Constitution does not say is that we have to extend the privileges and benefits of citizenship to non-citizens. Yet the right demands that all foreigners become citizens and the left gives the foreigners the same benefits and privileges of citizenship.

It's dishonest to claim that foreigners are "invading" because over half of America is willingly doing business with those who are undocumented. That makes them, for all intents and purposes, invitees.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and we have done so through our own narion’s History.

States also have the right to decide who can come and go, doing business as non-citizens. You aren't the only swinging Richard who gets to make the decision for a state - and especially states you are not a citizen of.

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

Why do so many people fret over so - called "illegal immigration" when it is actually a symptom of a much deeper disease?

The American people have, of their own free will and volition, created the symptoms whereby they demand the government help save them from themselves. The more you demand the government do something, the more they will reduce your Rights and attack your Liberties until you have nothing left.

And, as they do that, you come closer to having the United States Supreme Court make the final decision as to how to best handle the situation. If you let them decide, you are not going to like what they have to say.

The best place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm. You don't need the government to resolve this issue.

The problem with your argument is the United States has always had laws concerning Citizenship, it’s what defines a nation. Every country has some form of laws with interests in defending their own borders. Without a clear defined enforced border there is no national sovereignty.

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

 

[JoeB131]

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

That's all good and everything, buddy... but the big problem is, ICE has already decided that it needs local and state support to enforce the laws.

The thing is, that requires their assent.

So the States can't force the government to be stricter on immigration, and the Feds can't get the states to do their job for them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

That's all good and everything, buddy... but the big problem is, ICE has already decided that it needs local and state support to enforce the laws.

The thing is, that requires their assent.

So the States can't force the government to be stricter on immigration, and the Feds can't get the states to do their job for them.

You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so. However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states. States can not oppose such an increase in Federal resources imposed on them, because then we are back on the “supremacy” issue. Nice try though.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[
All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

I'm just not into that Orwellian crap. I don't like the fact that I'm required to have such an ID where the government can track everything we do from the womb to the tomb, 24 / 7 / 365.

Heaven forbid the government do a complete takeover and try to tyrannize all of us. Due to the inability to mount any opposition because Uncle Scam knows everything about us we'd never be able to mount a resistance.

Unless you want something from Uncle Scam (i.e. money, an education, healthcare at taxpayer expense, etc.) then ID serves little purpose.

If you keep the government ID to a photo ID, without a chip or some form of scan feature, they can’t track you unless they physically write your information down with a photo copy of your card. I do support a clear government ID from your home state (if you don’t already own a drivers license), a clear unique Federal card for foreign nationalists, with a separate paper card for work visas or temporary entry. Make it a part of your identification, just like we already do in order to enter every government building, library, obtain alcohol, flights, hotel reservations, traffic violation, gun purchases, rentals, museums, picking up your child at school, and YES especially even before you vote. If the government REALLY needs to track you, they already have that ability ... unless you can find a way to eliminate your social security number.

Oddly, my own efforts to get rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" were the driving force that initially got me involved in immigration. BEFORE the anti - immigrant lobby came along, constitutionalists had begun to fight back at the illegally ratified 16th Amendment.

Politicians were telling us via the IRS that the income tax was "voluntary." So, how did you "volunteer?" You filled out an application for a Socialist Security Card. Lots of people then rescinded that contract and dumped the SSN. My own Congressman saw the writing on the wall and introduced legislation that would have abolished the IRS and repealed the income tax. But, it would be people like you that wanted to keep that plank from the Communist Manifesto and so anti-immigrant legislators used the SSN as their "unique identifier" and saving the illegal / communist income tax on the pretext for the need of that number.

The government has no business tracking me. I was born free with a natural Right to privacy and the government needs probable cause to think I committed a crime before they start babysitting me and tracking me.

This Orwellian 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance and womb to the tomb monitoring are for those who want to be ruled by petty despots and dictators. Thank you, but I vote no.

Federal Income Tax was first imposed under President Lincoln to help fund the war efforts, when he then tried to reestablish it in the years that followed the Supreme Court deemed it unConstitutional. As far as SS, I don’t support it either, as it was initially an effort enacted around the depression to allow the younger generation to find employment by giving a retirement strategy to older Americans. Mathematically, social security is no longer self sustaining without additional government funding provided. A fact I can prove on another thread for those who are interested in American History.

 

[JoeB131]

You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.

Okay, but making them do it, that's the trick, isn't it?

Fact is, these communities exist in these states, and if you want the people in these communities to assist law enforcement in other matters, you can't have them terrified that they will be deported for doing the right thing.

However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.

sure they could do that... but then you have the problem of local authorities tipping off communities and otherwise frustrating them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.

Okay, but making them do it, that's the trick, isn't it?

Fact is, these communities exist in these states, and if you want the people in these communities to assist law enforcement in other matters, you can't have them terrified that they will be deported for doing the right thing.

However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.

sure they could do that... but then you have the problem of local authorities tipping off communities and otherwise frustrating them.

Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law. States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states. We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.

 

[Humorme]

Ooooh, there's a scary Muslim hiding under your bed, right now.

Every nation has a right to defend its own borders. Just exactly where in the Constitution does it state that we HAVE to accept immigrants (or even refugees for that matter) from all parts of the world, particularly from those known areas where terrorists have built a strongholds and actively look for means to infiltrate our country.

Do we need another 9-11 because some are too thickheaded, or just lacking in intelligence to know we need protective measures in place to protect our own citizens?

The Constitution is very limited in the role it can play toward foreigners. For example, Article 1, Section 8 states:

"To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

What the Constitution does not say is that people have to become citizens in order to conduct business in the United States. What the Constitution does not say is that we have to extend the privileges and benefits of citizenship to non-citizens. Yet the right demands that all foreigners become citizens and the left gives the foreigners the same benefits and privileges of citizenship.

It's dishonest to claim that foreigners are "invading" because over half of America is willingly doing business with those who are undocumented. That makes them, for all intents and purposes, invitees.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and we have done so through our own narion’s History.

States also have the right to decide who can come and go, doing business as non-citizens. You aren't the only swinging Richard who gets to make the decision for a state - and especially states you are not a citizen of.

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

Under the law as envisioned and put into place by the founding fathers, you are wrong. So, we live under a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral Federal - legislative Democracy and you're happy with it until it's one of your Rights at stake.

 

[Humorme]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

Why do so many people fret over so - called "illegal immigration" when it is actually a symptom of a much deeper disease?

The American people have, of their own free will and volition, created the symptoms whereby they demand the government help save them from themselves. The more you demand the government do something, the more they will reduce your Rights and attack your Liberties until you have nothing left.

And, as they do that, you come closer to having the United States Supreme Court make the final decision as to how to best handle the situation. If you let them decide, you are not going to like what they have to say.

The best place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm. You don't need the government to resolve this issue.

The problem with your argument is the United States has always had laws concerning Citizenship, it’s what defines a nation. Every country has some form of laws with interests in defending their own borders. Without a clear defined enforced border there is no national sovereignty.

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Every nation has a right to defend its own borders. Just exactly where in the Constitution does it state that we HAVE to accept immigrants (or even refugees for that matter) from all parts of the world, particularly from those known areas where terrorists have built a strongholds and actively look for means to infiltrate our country.

Do we need another 9-11 because some are too thickheaded, or just lacking in intelligence to know we need protective measures in place to protect our own citizens?

The Constitution is very limited in the role it can play toward foreigners. For example, Article 1, Section 8 states:

"To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

What the Constitution does not say is that people have to become citizens in order to conduct business in the United States. What the Constitution does not say is that we have to extend the privileges and benefits of citizenship to non-citizens. Yet the right demands that all foreigners become citizens and the left gives the foreigners the same benefits and privileges of citizenship.

It's dishonest to claim that foreigners are "invading" because over half of America is willingly doing business with those who are undocumented. That makes them, for all intents and purposes, invitees.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and we have done so through our own narion’s History.

States also have the right to decide who can come and go, doing business as non-citizens. You aren't the only swinging Richard who gets to make the decision for a state - and especially states you are not a citizen of.

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

Under the law as envisioned and put into place by the founding fathers, you are wrong. So, we live under a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral Federal - legislative Democracy and you're happy with it until it's one of your Rights at stake.

State’s rights ended in 1808, as well as the Constitution very clearly lists the roles of the Federal Government with the roles of the state (as outlined under the Constitution). So you are incorrect

 

[Humorme]

[
All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

I'm just not into that Orwellian crap. I don't like the fact that I'm required to have such an ID where the government can track everything we do from the womb to the tomb, 24 / 7 / 365.

Heaven forbid the government do a complete takeover and try to tyrannize all of us. Due to the inability to mount any opposition because Uncle Scam knows everything about us we'd never be able to mount a resistance.

Unless you want something from Uncle Scam (i.e. money, an education, healthcare at taxpayer expense, etc.) then ID serves little purpose.

If you keep the government ID to a photo ID, without a chip or some form of scan feature, they can’t track you unless they physically write your information down with a photo copy of your card. I do support a clear government ID from your home state (if you don’t already own a drivers license), a clear unique Federal card for foreign nationalists, with a separate paper card for work visas or temporary entry. Make it a part of your identification, just like we already do in order to enter every government building, library, obtain alcohol, flights, hotel reservations, traffic violation, gun purchases, rentals, museums, picking up your child at school, and YES especially even before you vote. If the government REALLY needs to track you, they already have that ability ... unless you can find a way to eliminate your social security number.

Oddly, my own efforts to get rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" were the driving force that initially got me involved in immigration. BEFORE the anti - immigrant lobby came along, constitutionalists had begun to fight back at the illegally ratified 16th Amendment.

Politicians were telling us via the IRS that the income tax was "voluntary." So, how did you "volunteer?" You filled out an application for a Socialist Security Card. Lots of people then rescinded that contract and dumped the SSN. My own Congressman saw the writing on the wall and introduced legislation that would have abolished the IRS and repealed the income tax. But, it would be people like you that wanted to keep that plank from the Communist Manifesto and so anti-immigrant legislators used the SSN as their "unique identifier" and saving the illegal / communist income tax on the pretext for the need of that number.

The government has no business tracking me. I was born free with a natural Right to privacy and the government needs probable cause to think I committed a crime before they start babysitting me and tracking me.

This Orwellian 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance and womb to the tomb monitoring are for those who want to be ruled by petty despots and dictators. Thank you, but I vote no.

Federal Income Tax was first imposed under President Lincoln to help fund the war efforts, when he then tried to reestablish it in the years that followed the Supreme Court deemed it unConstitutional. As far as SS, I don’t support it either, as it was initially an effort enacted around the depression to allow the younger generation to find employment by giving a retirement strategy to older Americans. Mathematically, social security is no longer self sustaining without additional government funding provided. A fact I can prove on another thread for those who are interested in American History.

Your point is off topic; I said I would debate such diversions in a separate thread, but bottom line:

The anti-immigrant lobby is responsible for the perpetuation of Socialist Security AND the continued use of the Socialist Surveillance Number .... my bad, "Social Security Number."

We have an issue with foreigners coming into the United States; however the strategies the anti-immigrant lobby relies on are worse than the perceived problem they are trying to address. It's tantamount to them advocating brushing your teeth with drano. It will make your teeth white, but the poison will probably kill you.

 

[Humorme]

The Constitution is very limited in the role it can play toward foreigners. For example, Article 1, Section 8 states:

"To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

What the Constitution does not say is that people have to become citizens in order to conduct business in the United States. What the Constitution does not say is that we have to extend the privileges and benefits of citizenship to non-citizens. Yet the right demands that all foreigners become citizens and the left gives the foreigners the same benefits and privileges of citizenship.

It's dishonest to claim that foreigners are "invading" because over half of America is willingly doing business with those who are undocumented. That makes them, for all intents and purposes, invitees.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and we have done so through our own narion’s History.

States also have the right to decide who can come and go, doing business as non-citizens. You aren't the only swinging Richard who gets to make the decision for a state - and especially states you are not a citizen of.

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

Under the law as envisioned and put into place by the founding fathers, you are wrong. So, we live under a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral Federal - legislative Democracy and you're happy with it until it's one of your Rights at stake.

State’s rights ended in 1808, as well as the Constitution very clearly lists the roles of the Federal Government with the roles of the state (as outlined under the Constitution). So you are incorrect

All one has to do is read a couple of the briefs filed in the legal wranglings by the state of California when they refused to enforce federal statutory law there to understand you are 100 percent wrong.

On the immigration issue, California won.

And, to show you how backward the anti-immigrant lobby really is for having fed you that manure, California won by using a precedent set in a gun rights case that I helped both research as well as having pulled money out my own pocket.

At issue is whether or not the federal government could force states to enforce federal statutory laws. Hate to burst your bubble there, but states DO have rights.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

Why do so many people fret over so - called "illegal immigration" when it is actually a symptom of a much deeper disease?

The American people have, of their own free will and volition, created the symptoms whereby they demand the government help save them from themselves. The more you demand the government do something, the more they will reduce your Rights and attack your Liberties until you have nothing left.

And, as they do that, you come closer to having the United States Supreme Court make the final decision as to how to best handle the situation. If you let them decide, you are not going to like what they have to say.

The best place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm. You don't need the government to resolve this issue.

The problem with your argument is the United States has always had laws concerning Citizenship, it’s what defines a nation. Every country has some form of laws with interests in defending their own borders. Without a clear defined enforced border there is no national sovereignty.

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

 

[Humorme]

You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.

Okay, but making them do it, that's the trick, isn't it?

Fact is, these communities exist in these states, and if you want the people in these communities to assist law enforcement in other matters, you can't have them terrified that they will be deported for doing the right thing.

However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.

sure they could do that... but then you have the problem of local authorities tipping off communities and otherwise frustrating them.

Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law. States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states. We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.

So you're advocating that the federal government rule by dictatorial intimidation? THAT is why you will ultimately lose.

Your side has been employing the same strategy for twenty years. In each instance, the "solutions" have had more adverse effects on the citizens than on the people you hate and despise so much. And, to add insult to injury, you're no closer to resolving your issue than you were twenty years ago.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the United States is “obligates” to accept refugees or immigrants. Our nation is free to restrict its borders to the further flow of immigrants if it so chooses, and we have done so through our own narion’s History.

States also have the right to decide who can come and go, doing business as non-citizens. You aren't the only swinging Richard who gets to make the decision for a state - and especially states you are not a citizen of.

States do NOT have more power to decide on immigration. the courts already determined that when Arizona took in Washington DC. It’s the “supremacy” argument upheld in our courts.

Under the law as envisioned and put into place by the founding fathers, you are wrong. So, we live under a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral Federal - legislative Democracy and you're happy with it until it's one of your Rights at stake.

State’s rights ended in 1808, as well as the Constitution very clearly lists the roles of the Federal Government with the roles of the state (as outlined under the Constitution). So you are incorrect

All one has to do is read a couple of the briefs filed in the legal wranglings by the state of California when they refused to enforce federal statutory law there to understand you are 100 percent wrong.

On the immigration issue, California won.

And, to show you how backward the anti-immigrant lobby really is for having fed you that manure, California won by using a precedent set in a gun rights case that I helped both research as well as having pulled money out my own pocket.

At issue is whether or not the federal government could force states to enforce federal statutory laws. Hate to burst your bubble there, but states DO have rights.

Show me verbatim where it states California has authority under the Constitution over the Federal Government regarding immigration policy. Liberal judges in California may THINK they are right, but we both know liberal judges (like the 4th district court) is the most overturned when it comes to correctly interpreting the Constitution.

Repost with a verbatim response to where the Constitution shows California has legal Constitutional footing over the Federal Government regarding illegal immigration or nationalization. The Constitution, not state liberal judges, is the law of the land in this country.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.

Okay, but making them do it, that's the trick, isn't it?

Fact is, these communities exist in these states, and if you want the people in these communities to assist law enforcement in other matters, you can't have them terrified that they will be deported for doing the right thing.

However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.

sure they could do that... but then you have the problem of local authorities tipping off communities and otherwise frustrating them.

Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law. States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states. We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.

So you're advocating that the federal government rule by dictatorial intimidation? THAT is why you will ultimately lose.

Your side has been employing the same strategy for twenty years. In each instance, the "solutions" have had more adverse effects on the citizens than on the people you hate and despise so much. And, to add insult to injury, you're no closer to resolving your issue than you were twenty years ago.

It’s the same supremacy clause of Federal Government over state that Arizona lost, oh my god get a clue. Immigration is a federally passed and enforceable Law not relinquished to the state - period!

 

[Humorme]

Why do so many people fret over so - called "illegal immigration" when it is actually a symptom of a much deeper disease?

The American people have, of their own free will and volition, created the symptoms whereby they demand the government help save them from themselves. The more you demand the government do something, the more they will reduce your Rights and attack your Liberties until you have nothing left.

And, as they do that, you come closer to having the United States Supreme Court make the final decision as to how to best handle the situation. If you let them decide, you are not going to like what they have to say.

The best place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm. You don't need the government to resolve this issue.

The problem with your argument is the United States has always had laws concerning Citizenship, it’s what defines a nation. Every country has some form of laws with interests in defending their own borders. Without a clear defined enforced border there is no national sovereignty.

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

 

[Humorme]

You also left out that the individual states don’t have the authority to oppose Federal immigration laws by not informing ICE where the law requires them to do so.

Okay, but making them do it, that's the trick, isn't it?

Fact is, these communities exist in these states, and if you want the people in these communities to assist law enforcement in other matters, you can't have them terrified that they will be deported for doing the right thing.

However the Federal Government can always concentrate more ICE agents where it’s believed illegal immigration is suspected to be a bigger problem in certain particular states.

sure they could do that... but then you have the problem of local authorities tipping off communities and otherwise frustrating them.

Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law. States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states. We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.

So you're advocating that the federal government rule by dictatorial intimidation? THAT is why you will ultimately lose.

Your side has been employing the same strategy for twenty years. In each instance, the "solutions" have had more adverse effects on the citizens than on the people you hate and despise so much. And, to add insult to injury, you're no closer to resolving your issue than you were twenty years ago.

It’s the same supremacy clause of Federal Government over state that Arizona lost, oh my god get a clue. Immigration is a federally passed and enforceable Law not relinquished to the state - period!

How about the next time you quote me, the response is in reference to something I said