Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[Skull Pilot]

This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!

We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.

This is just another Big Government Boondoggle! Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!

You mean a boondoggle like all those infrastructure projects like the big dig in Boston?

Funny how all you dems are in favor of those boondoggles

I have seen Dems cut spending & create surplus. I never saw Repubtards do that, they only Spend & Borrow!

You do realize that as long as we have debt there can be no surplus don't you?

Again I will explain it really slow for you! Debt is not the same as Deficit! First you have to cut spending in good times to stop running a Deficit. Then keep tax revenue to create a surplus to pay down some Debt & prevent recessions. Repubtards have never taken the first step to cut spending, they only drag US backwards!!!

EVERY JOB KILLING RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!!! Every Republican President Caused a Job Killing Recession equal to the number of terms they served!

DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS DO NOT CAUSE JOB KILLING RECESSIONS!!!

Why Don't Trumptards make those 21,000 Border Agents we are Paying for get their asses out on the Border & Do Their JOB!!!??? Satellite view shows gaps larger than 5 miles between border patrols.

I realize the difference between debt and deficit you don't if you think a one year budget surplus is something to coo about

 

[KissMy]

Look at satellite map images between Laredo, Texas & Eagle Pass, Texas. There are 30 mile patrol gaps in there. What are we paying 21,000 of them for?

 

[Humorme]

The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.

The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally

Wrong. The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship. And now they are proving it.

Notice in the 14th Amendment that a person born in the United States is a citizen entitled to certain privileges and immunities. The phrase any person is inclusive of all human beings. Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.

But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings. In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any "rights" and those "rights" are only given to citizens. They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.

Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.

People that come here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered are not criminals. The free market allows anybody to participate. So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?

You think that Liberty should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government? And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal? Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children? If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.

Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd? You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie? You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn? You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job? You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?

You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights. That means you agree that if the government decides that YOU don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that. The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then YOU don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion. You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't. As a matter of fact, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.

Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR they are given by a God / government. We don't get to have it both ways. When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it. Today, WITHOUT a wall, America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.) My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their Liberties without infringing upon mine (as well as your own.) Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to our fundamental Liberties, what is the upside?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.

The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally

Wrong. The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship. And now they are proving it.

Notice in the 14th Amendment that a person born in the United States is a citizen entitled to certain privileges and immunities. The phrase any person is inclusive of all human beings. Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.

But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings. In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any "rights" and those "rights" are only given to citizens. They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.

Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.

People that come here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered are not criminals. The free market allows anybody to participate. So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?

You think that Liberty should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government? And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal? Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children? If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.

Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd? You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie? You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn? You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job? You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?

You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights. That means you agree that if the government decides that YOU don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that. The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then YOU don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion. You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't. As a matter of fact, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.

Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR they are given by a God / government. We don't get to have it both ways. When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it. Today, WITHOUT a wall, America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.) My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their Liberties without infringing upon mine (as well as your own.) Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to our fundamental Liberties, what is the upside?

Anyone not entering the country legally or who overstays their legal right to be here is breaking the law and therefore is a piece of shit criminal

This is where I part ways with the no borders libertarian types.

If you do not have borders you do not have a country.

Maybe someday in some yet to exist utopia you can get away with that but today in the real world you can't.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.

The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally

Wrong. The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship. And now they are proving it.

Notice in the 14th Amendment that a person born in the United States is a citizen entitled to certain privileges and immunities. The phrase any person is inclusive of all human beings. Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.

But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings. In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any "rights" and those "rights" are only given to citizens. They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.

You do understand that the part of the 14th you bolded is directed at the state and not the federal government, right? Illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, namely the 5th and 6th due process clauses and 14th Equal Protection clause of state laws.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dems need votes and they can't get them from upwardly mobile self starters...they need desperate sickly lazy uneducated duped unskilled people to vote for them and to instruct their offspring to continue to vote democrat...
It's sick and frankly treasonous...

 

[Liquid Reigns]

People that come here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered are not criminals. The free market allows anybody to participate. So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?

The US is not a Free Market system, never has been. They are not coming here for jobs willingly offered, they are coming for their own economic gain. None are dying from starvation in their home countries, nor from diseases, yet they are bringing diseases here that we have eradicated years ago.

You think that Liberty should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government? And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal? Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children? If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.

Liberty doesn't allow one to enter into a sovereign nation without asking permission, do you really think you have the liberty to enter my house unannounced? They are not starving in their home countries. :SHRUG:

Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd? You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie? You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn? You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job? You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?

:YAWN:

You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights. That means you agree that if the government decides that YOU don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that. The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then YOU don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion. You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't. As a matter of fact, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.

All rights can be limited or taken, its the price of living in society. :SHRUG:

Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR they are given by a God / government. We don't get to have it both ways. When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it. Today, WITHOUT a wall, America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.) My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their Liberties without infringing upon mine (as well as your own.) Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to our fundamental Liberties, what is the upside?

You haven't shown where immigration law infringes on any of your civil rights. You thinking they might doesn't constitute that they do or have. You seem to be making claims based on hyperbole. ymiknotsuprised

 

[Humorme]

The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.

The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally

Wrong. The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship. And now they are proving it.

Notice in the 14th Amendment that a person born in the United States is a citizen entitled to certain privileges and immunities. The phrase any person is inclusive of all human beings. Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.

But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings. In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any "rights" and those "rights" are only given to citizens. They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.

Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.

People that come here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered are not criminals. The free market allows anybody to participate. So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?

You think that Liberty should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government? And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal? Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children? If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.

Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd? You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie? You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn? You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job? You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?

You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights. That means you agree that if the government decides that YOU don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that. The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then YOU don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion. You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't. As a matter of fact, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.

Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR they are given by a God / government. We don't get to have it both ways. When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it. Today, WITHOUT a wall, America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.) My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their Liberties without infringing upon mine (as well as your own.) Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to our fundamental Liberties, what is the upside?

Anyone not entering the country legally or who overstays their legal right to be here is breaking the law and therefore is a piece of shit criminal

This is where I part ways with the no borders libertarian types.

If you do not have borders you do not have a country.

Maybe someday in some yet to exist utopia you can get away with that but today in the real world you can't.

I noticed that you never responded to my questions.

You have borders and you have a country. An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country. Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.

 

[Humorme]

Dems need votes and they can't get them from upwardly mobile self starters...they need desperate sickly lazy uneducated duped unskilled people to vote for them and to instruct their offspring to continue to vote democrat...
It's sick and frankly treasonous...

You just made a good argument for not forcing every person who washes up on our shores to become a citizen.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I noticed that you never responded to my questions.

You have borders and you have a country. An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country. Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.

No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG

 

[Wry Catcher]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

Q. How should illegal immigration be controlled

A. By these steps:

• Judicially
• Fairly
• With compassion
• Win-Win

A. And not by:

• Hate and fear mongering
• Demagoguery
• Zero Sum Game

 

[Wry Catcher]

I noticed that you never responded to my questions.

You have borders and you have a country. An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country. Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.

No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG

Did Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons know this when they invaded and occupied Iraq?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I noticed that you never responded to my questions.

You have borders and you have a country. An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country. Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.

No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG

Did Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons know this when they invaded and occupied Iraq?

You'll have to ask Congress about their ability to grant military action, since they allowed it.

Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally

Wrong. The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship. And now they are proving it.

Notice in the 14th Amendment that a person born in the United States is a citizen entitled to certain privileges and immunities. The phrase any person is inclusive of all human beings. Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.

But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings. In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any "rights" and those "rights" are only given to citizens. They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.

Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.

People that come here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered are not criminals. The free market allows anybody to participate. So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?

You think that Liberty should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government? And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal? Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children? If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.

Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd? You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie? You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn? You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job? You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?

You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights. That means you agree that if the government decides that YOU don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that. The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then YOU don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion. You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't. As a matter of fact, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.

Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR they are given by a God / government. We don't get to have it both ways. When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it. Today, WITHOUT a wall, America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.) My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their Liberties without infringing upon mine (as well as your own.) Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to our fundamental Liberties, what is the upside?

Anyone not entering the country legally or who overstays their legal right to be here is breaking the law and therefore is a piece of shit criminal

This is where I part ways with the no borders libertarian types.

If you do not have borders you do not have a country.

Maybe someday in some yet to exist utopia you can get away with that but today in the real world you can't.

I noticed that you never responded to my questions.

You have borders and you have a country. An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country. Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.

I am not on any side.

And yes an area delineated by coordinates and the body of laws that exist within the boundaries of those coordinates define a country.

Thinking otherwise is Utopian fantasy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

Q. How should illegal immigration be controlled

A. By these steps:

• Judicially
• Fairly
• With compassion
• Win-Win

A. And not by:

• Hate and fear mongering
• Demagoguery
• Zero Sum Game

Win win

That phrase makes me

 

[Wry Catcher]

How should illegal immigration be controlled? It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote. In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants. How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society? Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!

Q. How should illegal immigration be controlled

A. By these steps:

• Judicially
• Fairly
• With compassion
• Win-Win

A. And not by:

• Hate and fear mongering
• Demagoguery
• Zero Sum Game

Win win

That phrase makes me

Probably because you are such a loser.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I noticed that you never responded to my questions.

You have borders and you have a country. An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country. Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.

No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG

Did Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons know this when they invaded and occupied Iraq?

You'll have to ask Congress about their ability to grant military action, since they allowed it.

Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border?

Really? That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
"No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."

In response to: "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"

If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.

[The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress]

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Really? That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
"No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."

Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?

In response to: "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"

Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?

If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.

Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.

[The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress]

Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Really? That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
"No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."

Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?

In response to: "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"

Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?

If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.

Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.

[The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress]

Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?

True, but for different reasons. The neocons wanted Iraq's oil, liberal Democrats wants peace and less Americans coming home in body bags.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Really? That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
"No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."

Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?

In response to: "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"

Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?

If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.

Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.

[The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress]

Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?

True, but for different reasons. The neocons wanted Iraq's oil, liberal Democrats wants peace and less Americans coming home in body bags.

I don't think either party wants Americans coming home in body bags.

What oil did the neo-cons get? our oil prices went up after the invasion and through Obamas first term.