Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one can tell what he's babbling about. He claims to be a conservative, believe it or not.If you read post # 450 on this thread, access that link and read it, you will find out who started the whole nutty wall idea in the first place. We go from thread to thread, rehashing the same points. Why?
If you read that post, accessed the links and read them, you would realize how absolutely silly it is to infer that the wall is actually a left wing, liberal idea. Let's quit having the same conversation and move forward.
When did I ever claim that the wall was a liberal idea? I don't even know what you're babbling about, Porter! The left has been resisting a secure border from way back in Reagan's day! Reagan cut a deal with Tip O'Neal to get border security and then O'Neal reneged on that deal!
I've read his post #450. His stance is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution and I would argue that doing so is their primary reason for being! It's well established law that the Federal Government calls the shots on immigration...not the States. He for some unknown reason feels this is unconstitutional without explaining why that's so.
You are a liar and an idiot. My post says absolutely no such thing. The United States Supreme Court is limited to interpreting the Constitution. What the Hell is wrong with you? Besides, do you think that people are so stupid that they cannot read the link for themselves?
If they read it, they will find out you are a lying mother fucker. You're an egotist to boot. So you read for those suffering from TDS because you think they're too stupid to do their own reading? If they do, they figure that you are among the lowest of the low around here.
Well now...someone's got their panties in a twist! You're one of those pompous asses that thinks if you link something that everyone should instantly agree with you...aren't you? I don't. I think your view is incorrect. You call me a lying mother fucker because I don't agree with your world view? Go screw yourself!
No one can tell what he's babbling about. He claims to be a conservative, believe it or not.When did I ever claim that the wall was a liberal idea? I don't even know what you're babbling about, Porter! The left has been resisting a secure border from way back in Reagan's day! Reagan cut a deal with Tip O'Neal to get border security and then O'Neal reneged on that deal!
I've read his post #450. His stance is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution and I would argue that doing so is their primary reason for being! It's well established law that the Federal Government calls the shots on immigration...not the States. He for some unknown reason feels this is unconstitutional without explaining why that's so.
You are a liar and an idiot. My post says absolutely no such thing. The United States Supreme Court is limited to interpreting the Constitution. What the Hell is wrong with you? Besides, do you think that people are so stupid that they cannot read the link for themselves?
If they read it, they will find out you are a lying mother fucker. You're an egotist to boot. So you read for those suffering from TDS because you think they're too stupid to do their own reading? If they do, they figure that you are among the lowest of the low around here.
Well now...someone's got their panties in a twist! You're one of those pompous asses that thinks if you link something that everyone should instantly agree with you...aren't you? I don't. I think your view is incorrect. You call me a lying mother fucker because I don't agree with your world view? Go screw yourself!
I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not. It's just that you have NO CALL to misrepresent what I say. Insofar as me being a pompous ass, you're the arrogant piece of shit that thinks that those who agree with you are too stupid to follow a link and read the material for themselves. Then you lie about it.
You should go screw yourself FOR LYING ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE!
You are a liar and an idiot.
No one can tell what he's babbling about. He claims to be a conservative, believe it or not.
I've read his post #450. His stance is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution and I would argue that doing so is their primary reason for being! It's well established law that the Federal Government calls the shots on immigration...not the States. He for some unknown reason feels this is unconstitutional without explaining why that's so.
You are a liar and an idiot. My post says absolutely no such thing. The United States Supreme Court is limited to interpreting the Constitution. What the Hell is wrong with you? Besides, do you think that people are so stupid that they cannot read the link for themselves?
If they read it, they will find out you are a lying mother fucker. You're an egotist to boot. So you read for those suffering from TDS because you think they're too stupid to do their own reading? If they do, they figure that you are among the lowest of the low around here.
Well now...someone's got their panties in a twist! You're one of those pompous asses that thinks if you link something that everyone should instantly agree with you...aren't you? I don't. I think your view is incorrect. You call me a lying mother fucker because I don't agree with your world view? Go screw yourself!
I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not. It's just that you have NO CALL to misrepresent what I say. Insofar as me being a pompous ass, you're the arrogant piece of shit that thinks that those who agree with you are too stupid to follow a link and read the material for themselves. Then you lie about it.
You should go screw yourself FOR LYING ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE!
You are a liar and an idiot.
You haven't figured out yet that nobody here knows what it is that you're saying, Porter! I'm still trying to figure out what is yours and what is something you've appropriated from someone else without quotes.
I've read his post #450. His stance is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution and I would argue that doing so is their primary reason for being! It's well established law that the Federal Government calls the shots on immigration...not the States. He for some unknown reason feels this is unconstitutional without explaining why that's so.
You are a liar and an idiot. My post says absolutely no such thing. The United States Supreme Court is limited to interpreting the Constitution. What the Hell is wrong with you? Besides, do you think that people are so stupid that they cannot read the link for themselves?
If they read it, they will find out you are a lying mother fucker. You're an egotist to boot. So you read for those suffering from TDS because you think they're too stupid to do their own reading? If they do, they figure that you are among the lowest of the low around here.
Well now...someone's got their panties in a twist! You're one of those pompous asses that thinks if you link something that everyone should instantly agree with you...aren't you? I don't. I think your view is incorrect. You call me a lying mother fucker because I don't agree with your world view? Go screw yourself!
I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not. It's just that you have NO CALL to misrepresent what I say. Insofar as me being a pompous ass, you're the arrogant piece of shit that thinks that those who agree with you are too stupid to follow a link and read the material for themselves. Then you lie about it.
You should go screw yourself FOR LYING ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE!
You are a liar and an idiot.
You haven't figured out yet that nobody here knows what it is that you're saying, Porter! I'm still trying to figure out what is yours and what is something you've appropriated from someone else without quotes.
The link takes you to severa other posts. We'll presuppose that you can read the other posts within the quoted thread. Look for quotation marks they look like this "........." In the quoted posts there are maybe 50 or so.
Other than quoting what I already knew, I've appropriated a damn thing from anyone. You just got busted for projecting and don't know how you will handle it when someone accesses all those posts.
I see no reason for having this conversation over and over and over. We should do it once and move forward. If you don't agree with a fact, counter with a fact. And the fact is, had you followed all the links contained within those posts, you would find out that I believe that the Supreme Court has but one job: INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.
You lied about what I said and you read one post out of less than a half dozen that I referred you to. Talking about quotes, I'd bet you a thousand dollars right here and right now that you cannot quote any sentence where I have EVER said that the United States Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution. You should produce such a quote or get off my ass. Those with TDS might get curious and find out you are a blowhard that tells more lies than all the political propaganda prostitutes in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption combined.
If you believe that the Supreme Court does have the role of interpreting the Constitution I'm baffled by your contention that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to secure our borders and determine who may or may not come into the country!
If you believe that the Supreme Court does have the role of interpreting the Constitution I'm baffled by your contention that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to secure our borders and determine who may or may not come into the country!
As danielpalos says, there is no express authority to build a wall... especially when governors are telling you that NO national emergency exists. You are so dishonest that we have to rehash this shit over and over every day. Can you not read the posts that already exist?
Show me the sentence where I said the federal government has no authority to secure our borders. Insofar as the balance of your post, ALL of it is already answered in the previous thread alluded to. Why rehash it again? Will having the same fucking argument every day end any differently or maybe you suffer from Asperger Syndrome?
The Constitution gives the federal government only ONE job relative to foreigners:
"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
ALL of this has been asked and answered.
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See if you can locate post #4570
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Now, see if you can find post #4572
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Look for post #4581
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Can you see post # 4585?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about post #4597? Can you see that?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See 4603?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about # 4609?
I trust you can scroll through those and find posts 4612, 4616, 4631 and 4633. Check those posts and access the links. Even if you disagree with every word I posted, you will have every side you ever imagined existed on the issue.
If you believe that the Supreme Court does have the role of interpreting the Constitution I'm baffled by your contention that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to secure our borders and determine who may or may not come into the country!
As danielpalos says, there is no express authority to build a wall... especially when governors are telling you that NO national emergency exists. You are so dishonest that we have to rehash this shit over and over every day. Can you not read the posts that already exist?
Show me the sentence where I said the federal government has no authority to secure our borders. Insofar as the balance of your post, ALL of it is already answered in the previous thread alluded to. Why rehash it again? Will having the same fucking argument every day end any differently or maybe you suffer from Asperger Syndrome?
The Constitution gives the federal government only ONE job relative to foreigners:
"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
ALL of this has been asked and answered.
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See if you can locate post #4570
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Now, see if you can find post #4572
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Look for post #4581
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Can you see post # 4585?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about post #4597? Can you see that?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See 4603?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about # 4609?
I trust you can scroll through those and find posts 4612, 4616, 4631 and 4633. Check those posts and access the links. Even if you disagree with every word I posted, you will have every side you ever imagined existed on the issue.
When you start quoting Danielpalos...arguably the dumbest poster on the board...it's time to hang it up, Porter!
LOLOLNo one can tell what he's babbling about. He claims to be a conservative, believe it or not.If you read post # 450 on this thread, access that link and read it, you will find out who started the whole nutty wall idea in the first place. We go from thread to thread, rehashing the same points. Why?
If you read that post, accessed the links and read them, you would realize how absolutely silly it is to infer that the wall is actually a left wing, liberal idea. Let's quit having the same conversation and move forward.
When did I ever claim that the wall was a liberal idea? I don't even know what you're babbling about, Porter! The left has been resisting a secure border from way back in Reagan's day! Reagan cut a deal with Tip O'Neal to get border security and then O'Neal reneged on that deal!
I've read his post #450. His stance is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution and I would argue that doing so is their primary reason for being! It's well established law that the Federal Government calls the shots on immigration...not the States. He for some unknown reason feels this is unconstitutional without explaining why that's so.
You are a liar and an idiot. My post says absolutely no such thing. The United States Supreme Court is limited to interpreting the Constitution. What the Hell is wrong with you? Besides, do you think that people are so stupid that they cannot read the link for themselves?
If they read it, they will find out you are a lying mother fucker. You're an egotist to boot. So you read for those suffering from TDS because you think they're too stupid to do their own reading? If they do, they figure that you are among the lowest of the low around here.
Well now...someone's got their panties in a twist! You're one of those pompous asses that thinks if you link something that everyone should instantly agree with you...aren't you? I don't. I think your view is incorrect. You call me a lying mother fucker because I don't agree with your world view? Go screw yourself!
If you believe that the Supreme Court does have the role of interpreting the Constitution I'm baffled by your contention that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to secure our borders and determine who may or may not come into the country!
As danielpalos says, there is no express authority to build a wall... especially when governors are telling you that NO national emergency exists. You are so dishonest that we have to rehash this shit over and over every day. Can you not read the posts that already exist?
Show me the sentence where I said the federal government has no authority to secure our borders. Insofar as the balance of your post, ALL of it is already answered in the previous thread alluded to. Why rehash it again? Will having the same fucking argument every day end any differently or maybe you suffer from Asperger Syndrome?
The Constitution gives the federal government only ONE job relative to foreigners:
"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
ALL of this has been asked and answered.
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See if you can locate post #4570
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Now, see if you can find post #4572
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Look for post #4581
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Can you see post # 4585?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about post #4597? Can you see that?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See 4603?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about # 4609?
I trust you can scroll through those and find posts 4612, 4616, 4631 and 4633. Check those posts and access the links. Even if you disagree with every word I posted, you will have every side you ever imagined existed on the issue.
When you start quoting Danielpalos...arguably the dumbest poster on the board...it's time to hang it up, Porter!
I agree with you for once. The right has gotten so bad that the left's worst makes people like you look bad.
Both sides are either uninformed on the facts OR they are lying. Most of the time when I am arguing, debating or whatever it is some of you think we're doing on a discussion board, when one side or the other feels trapped or threatened, they resort to lying, misrepresentations, or continual bait posts to put as many posts between their weaknesses and the facts.
The nice guy approach did not work for me. A couple of people who live on this board would post 100 times every time they were proven to be lacking in facts. I tried the Tweet sized comebacks; did the long winded thing, carefully documenting my sources; then getting down and dirty with the personalities that come here for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of others.
If the discussion boards are a representative example of who we are as a people, we are screwed. The politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are playing all of you and, if anything, you should be dropping the partisan politics and trying to learn and understand from one another. Both sides are lying to you. The Democrats and Republicans; left and right; conservative and liberal are all going to the same destination by different routes. For that reason those on the right should pull their heads out of their ass if they don't want a socialist country. The whole immigration debacle is about control. The Democrats want control; the Republicans want control.
What I want is the least amount of government as possible. I'm not as insecure as many of you are. I believe that you should be able to post what you believe and if someone disagrees, they should post the reasons for the disagreement thereof. Pretending to be in a Hillary v Trump political campaign speech does not help anyone understand the issues. Calling each other names doesn't do the trick. If I present my view and you don't like it, facts should be presented. There is no need to misrepresent people. I've never voted for a liberal in my life so when the people suffering TDS start with their rhetorical B.S. accusing me of being against a "secure border," then I despise them worse than a real liberal. What they are doing is tantamount to looking at a veteran and telling them they don't love America. What you don't KNOW, you should be willing to learn.
In my previous post are the actual words in that referenced thread from the people that made them. You have one guy on there claiming all my material came from Wikipedia. It shouldn't take you long (IF you have the courage to follow the links) to figure out that the loud mouths on the right are generally full of shit. What the conservatives believed just over a quarter of a century ago is being mocked and ridiculed by those who THINK they know something they obviously do not... worse, they THINK they are conservative. I know better because I was a part of the broad conversation. And if you have the intestinal fortitude, you'll figure out that the power brokers with a globalist agenda are playing both sides. Me? I'm not one of their useful idiots and I'm not going to back down. If you care about this country, then try to have a productive conversation without the usual banter. None of you are going to win public office on this board. So, where is the profit in the dishonesty from EITHER side?
Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!
See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:
The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.
1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens
2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment
3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.
ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.
The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581
The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.
So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.
Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.
What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.
If you believe that the Supreme Court does have the role of interpreting the Constitution I'm baffled by your contention that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to secure our borders and determine who may or may not come into the country!
As danielpalos says, there is no express authority to build a wall... especially when governors are telling you that NO national emergency exists. You are so dishonest that we have to rehash this shit over and over every day. Can you not read the posts that already exist?
Show me the sentence where I said the federal government has no authority to secure our borders. Insofar as the balance of your post, ALL of it is already answered in the previous thread alluded to. Why rehash it again? Will having the same fucking argument every day end any differently or maybe you suffer from Asperger Syndrome?
The Constitution gives the federal government only ONE job relative to foreigners:
"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
ALL of this has been asked and answered.
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See if you can locate post #4570
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Now, see if you can find post #4572
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Look for post #4581
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Can you see post # 4585?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about post #4597? Can you see that?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
See 4603?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
How about # 4609?
I trust you can scroll through those and find posts 4612, 4616, 4631 and 4633. Check those posts and access the links. Even if you disagree with every word I posted, you will have every side you ever imagined existed on the issue.
When you start quoting Danielpalos...arguably the dumbest poster on the board...it's time to hang it up, Porter!
I agree with you for once. The right has gotten so bad that the left's worst makes people like you look bad.
Both sides are either uninformed on the facts OR they are lying. Most of the time when I am arguing, debating or whatever it is some of you think we're doing on a discussion board, when one side or the other feels trapped or threatened, they resort to lying, misrepresentations, or continual bait posts to put as many posts between their weaknesses and the facts.
The nice guy approach did not work for me. A couple of people who live on this board would post 100 times every time they were proven to be lacking in facts. I tried the Tweet sized comebacks; did the long winded thing, carefully documenting my sources; then getting down and dirty with the personalities that come here for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of others.
If the discussion boards are a representative example of who we are as a people, we are screwed. The politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are playing all of you and, if anything, you should be dropping the partisan politics and trying to learn and understand from one another. Both sides are lying to you. The Democrats and Republicans; left and right; conservative and liberal are all going to the same destination by different routes. For that reason those on the right should pull their heads out of their ass if they don't want a socialist country. The whole immigration debacle is about control. The Democrats want control; the Republicans want control.
What I want is the least amount of government as possible. I'm not as insecure as many of you are. I believe that you should be able to post what you believe and if someone disagrees, they should post the reasons for the disagreement thereof. Pretending to be in a Hillary v Trump political campaign speech does not help anyone understand the issues. Calling each other names doesn't do the trick. If I present my view and you don't like it, facts should be presented. There is no need to misrepresent people. I've never voted for a liberal in my life so when the people suffering TDS start with their rhetorical B.S. accusing me of being against a "secure border," then I despise them worse than a real liberal. What they are doing is tantamount to looking at a veteran and telling them they don't love America. What you don't KNOW, you should be willing to learn.
In my previous post are the actual words in that referenced thread from the people that made them. You have one guy on there claiming all my material came from Wikipedia. It shouldn't take you long (IF you have the courage to follow the links) to figure out that the loud mouths on the right are generally full of shit. What the conservatives believed just over a quarter of a century ago is being mocked and ridiculed by those who THINK they know something they obviously do not... worse, they THINK they are conservative. I know better because I was a part of the broad conversation. And if you have the intestinal fortitude, you'll figure out that the power brokers with a globalist agenda are playing both sides. Me? I'm not one of their useful idiots and I'm not going to back down. If you care about this country, then try to have a productive conversation without the usual banter. None of you are going to win public office on this board. So, where is the profit in the dishonesty from EITHER side?
So when I disagreed with you...and you responded by calling me a lying mother fucker...was that your "nice guy" approach? Hate to tell you this, Porter but you're as bad if not worse than everyone that you're calling out! For some reason you think your opinion is the gold standard for this board and it's just another opinion backed up by a lot of long winded nonsense. Get over yourself...
Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!
See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:
The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.
1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens
2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment
3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.
ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.
The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581
The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.
So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.
Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.
What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.
Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!
See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:
The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.
1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens
2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment
3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.
ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.
The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581
The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.
So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.
Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.
What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.
You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.
The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.
Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!
See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:
The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.
1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens
2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment
3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.
ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.
The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581
The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.
So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.
Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.
What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.
You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.
The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.
Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!
So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.
Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?
Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!
See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:
The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.
1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens
2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment
3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.
ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.
The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?
Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581
The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.
So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.
Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.
What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.
You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.
The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.
Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!
So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.
Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?
1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens
2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship
3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.
4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause
5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.
Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.
really you think the Liberals would vote for it?If we can't stop the anchor babies and the illegal migrants we need to stop the Federal handouts.
It would be easier to get a constitutional amendment to do that and it could be done faster.
