Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[Liquid Reigns]

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

No, it limited naturalization to whites. SMFH

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

No they didn't. Asians and just about every other country outside Western Europe didn't get here until the middle to the end of the 1800's.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

The states didn't control immigration issues, the feds regulated them. In the 1800's the feds then removed any state participation.

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

SMFH the case simply stated the feds control foreign relations, not the state. No where in that very case does the court use the word "plenary power".

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

The only time the states ever controlled immigration was prior to the Articles of Confederation when they were all still colonies.

 

[danielpalos]

If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.

The Statue of Liberty says:

"Give me your tired, your poor.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

It doesn't say:
"Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"

Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.

We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?

Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.

You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.

You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.

You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.

In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.

The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause. Allow me to quote it for you:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread. You're wrong. In the context that I used the term, it is correct.

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.

The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause. Allow me to quote it for you:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread. You're wrong. In the context that I used the term, it is correct.

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

It hasn't been a state power since 1781 when the Articles of Confederation took it over via section 4.

 

[Humorme]

In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.

The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause. Allow me to quote it for you:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread. You're wrong. In the context that I used the term, it is correct.

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

You're being redundant. My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.

The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause. Allow me to quote it for you:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread. You're wrong. In the context that I used the term, it is correct.

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

You're being redundant. My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.

And, Your office to claim such a Thing?

 

[Humorme]

The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause. Allow me to quote it for you:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread. You're wrong. In the context that I used the term, it is correct.

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

You're being redundant. My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.

And, Your office to claim such a Thing?

What does that mean?

Government may have the power to declare certain things; it surely lacks the authority.

 

[yiostheoy]

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!

I do not support violations of Federal laws.

 

[Humorme]

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!

I do not support violations of Federal laws.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Whatcha gonna do when an unconstitutional law targets you?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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!

I do not support violations of Federal laws.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Whatcha gonna do when an unconstitutional law targets you?

Just because you think a law is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Now if you would try to comprehend basic law and your quotes you might realize just how ignorant you really are. imjusayn

 

[Esmeralda]

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!

Matthew 25:35-40New International Version (NIV)
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,A)"> 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,B)"> I was sick and you looked after me,C)"> I was in prison and you came to visit me.’D)">

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[Moonglow]

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!

I do not support violations of Federal laws.

So you have reported every nickle you have ever made and every barter you ever carried out to make sure you were levied the correct amount?

 

[Humorme]

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!

I do not support violations of Federal laws.

So you have reported every nickle you have ever made and every barter you ever carried out to make sure you were levied the correct amount?

Never owned or pirated a vhs tape, cd or dvd in his life? Never watched one? Some of these guys are saints.

 

[Humorme]

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!

Matthew 25:35-40New International Version (NIV)
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,A)"> 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,B)"> I was sick and you looked after me,C)"> I was in prison and you came to visit me.’D)">

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5 : 29

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3 : 17

You should note that those promoting the build the wall, deport 'em all agenda don't understand what you just said. For that matter, even if they consider themselves Christian, they do not believe that the people from south of the border are human beings. They are not men.

In addition, those people do not believe that the concept of liberty applies unless and until a person becomes a United States citizen. Unable to understand that, they falsely accuse those who dare interject liberty into the conversation of wanting to flood America with so - called "illegals" (they really want to call them something else, but lack the ethical standards and / or the courage to do so.)

There is a way to encourage employers to hire Americans and pay them higher wages. It does not require force or unconstitutional distraint. There is a way to allow employers to run their own businesses and not to be forced into hiring (or not hiring) any specific class of people. There is a way to respect the private property Rights of American employers, the Liberty of foreign workers, and the Rights of working Americans.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Galatians 5 : 1

 

[danielpalos]

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

You're being redundant. My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.

And, Your office to claim such a Thing?

What does that mean?

Government may have the power to declare certain things; it surely lacks the authority.

For example?

It is usually just, lousy management not a lack of power to provide for the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

I do not support violations of Federal laws.

end the drug war! don't be illegal to our Commerce Clause!

 

[Humorme]

When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end. They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can NEVER "uncitizen" them the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

That's it. The Constitution does not give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790. Here is the law laid out for you:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen..."

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers. Here is why:

During the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states controlled the issue of who comes and goes. It was not until after EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED that the law changed. What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to ANYONE? The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case. The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling. According to Wikipedia:

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the STATES controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.) How come you suppose NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?

It is no longer a State power since 1808.

You're being redundant. My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.

And, Your office to claim such a Thing?

What does that mean?

Government may have the power to declare certain things; it surely lacks the authority.

For example?

It is usually just, lousy management not a lack of power to provide for the general welfare.

I gave an example earlier how the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law.

They underlying problem in this country is that it is controlled by at least two different and opposing governments:

The de jure / lawful / constitutional government in this country consists of a constitutional Republic with the Constitution being the law of the land through the people who have unalienable Rights.

The other government operating in the United States is a de facto / illegal / Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. Rights are then decided by henchmen through the American Bar Association (the most liberal body in the United States of America.) So, at the end of the day those henchmen, aka judges, have unilaterally determined that they (not, we the people) are the final arbiters of what the law is. See the United States Supreme Court decision Marbury v Madison for more details.

Since the tyrants in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption decide your fate, they will not allow you to protest unconstitutional actions without their permission. It's tyrannical to the core. I highly doubt that our forefathers would have founded a nation that would not allow us to exercise the same non-violent avenues of redress they used against King George with the expectation that we can maintain the Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

 

[Humorme]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

 

[Humorme]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.