- Thread starter
- #121
Why do you hate American citizens who are people of color and are suffering the devastating consequences of illegal immigration?Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat who turned Republican. They both renounced their racist past.
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.
Why do you hate American citizens who are people of color and are suffering the devastating consequences of illegal immigration?Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat who turned Republican. They both renounced their racist past.
Should or "shall"?The federal government should secure the border and enforce immigration laws.
Democracy? You know-nothing nitwit.It is Republicans like you that are attacking our democracy.
The bottom line is that our current federal government is failing to fulfill their obligation to secure the border and control entry into the country. They are placing our national security at risk.Should or "shall"?
Our federal government, by the terms of our Constitution, is commanded to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion” ___ Article 4, Section 4. Constitution of the United States
One can still trespass on that land.The federal government owns land that is not private property.
The right wing fascists in the Republican Party are anti-America.
What “Republican leader?”Michigan Republicans have imploded. Half of their field is gone and the leader is someone who has been arrested for participating in the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.Whitmert is not rotten or evil. You are the one who is a fascist and represents evil.
And that is why the State of Texas needs to post "no trespassing" signs where federal lands end and Texas land begins. And then the Texas government can legally deal with the swarm of ticks and fleas invading Texas and devouring American citizens' resources.One can still trespass on that land.
Because why? I just posted a number of policy points. Something there seems to have greatly offended you.
You talk shit, but you don't say why. Because you know my points are valid. Better you just talk shit then try to explain yourself and let people know what you really mean.
Yo! Isn't that Joe Biden alongside Robert Byrd a former member of the KKK?
View attachment 670872
.
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves and put the KKK out of business. ___ Author unknown
What's taking so long on their secession?.
SEE: Why Texas cannot declare an ‘invasion’ at the border
Well, isn’t this special? The Hill confidently asserts “There are legal and practical reasons why states cannot take immigration matters into their own hands. It is well-settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government.”
The truth is, our federal constitution delegates to Congress a limited power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear.
The allowance to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is nothing more than providing the steps by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the United States. It is not a delegation of a power by which a State, and people therein, have surrendered their inalienable and preexisting right to self-defense, and that would include the preexisting power to protect against an invasion of its borders by foreign nationals.
In fact it is expressly stated in our federal Constitution that:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
So, there is a specific exception clearly indicating a state may act on its own if invaded, or imminent danger exists as will not admit of delay.
Surely this wording preserves the preexisting power of a state and people therein, to defend against an invasion and/or other such “imminent danger”, and especially so if the federal government neglects and actually refused to be obedient to the terms of the Constitution and its guarantee that the federal government “shall” protect each of the States against “Invasion”.
The fact is, Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, The Hill’s assertion that Texas cannot declare an “invasion” at its border and protect itself from said invasion, is an assertion not substantiated by the text of the Constitution nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
And with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized this limited power as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849)
Finally, a review of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 confirms the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization is very limited indeed and most certainly does not include an all-encompassing power over “immigration” nor a power to prohibit the various states from protecting against invasions.
.
JWK
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
According to you
according to its definition…
- The act of naturalizing, or the state of being naturalized; specifically, in law, the act of receiving an alien into the condition, and investing him with the rights and privileges, of a natural subject or citizen.
- The act or process of naturalizing, esp. of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or citizen; also, the state of being naturalized.
Understood, the definition remains the same, sad how our government finds a way out of everything…With regard to the language of the constitution see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
And, with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized its limited power as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849)
Additionally, a review of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 confirms the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization is very limited indeed and most certainly does not include an all-encompassing power over “immigration” nor a power to prohibit the various states from protecting against invasions.
PAGE 1148
It is also interesting to note what the power of
REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152
And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157
Naturalization involves the process and steps by which a foreign national, who is in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States.
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
I dont define words, bro
Naturalization : the admittance of a foreigner to the citizenship of a country
June 25, 2012Obama sued Arizona for trying to enforce federal immigration laws the federal government refused to enforce, so Obama sued them and won
States should now sue the Federal government for not enforcing their own laws in their state.
Then take it all the way to SCOTUS and see how things go.
Not the same as immigration.
They just love to make crap up. Don't they?
And I'm still waiting for one in our open border crowd to step up and explain why they are so intent on defending the flooding of the United States with millions upon millions of other countries poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminals, and especially so when we are having trouble helping to feed, house and care for our own needy citizens?
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries.