- Banned
- #161
Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.
States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.
Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.
The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.
You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.
Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.
Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.
I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.
Bottom line here:
It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.
States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.
The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.
Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.
If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that
(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.
(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.
(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.
(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.
Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.
If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.
Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.
“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.
I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.
Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.
I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.
If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.
I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.
If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?
That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.
Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.
First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!
Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.
Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.
Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.
So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.
Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.
Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:
"Held:
1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,
So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process
see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.
Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:
,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.
Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”
Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional
NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.
Last edited: