Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect. It is actually post # 2806

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.

Semantics. All semantics. What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law. Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.

If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.

I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.

.

Someone else challenged the amount of money in question. I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.

"In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the immigration commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a cost of 75 cents per inspection (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.

IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808. I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response. So, let us see how much authority the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the power to ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Now let us get to the facts:

1) Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship

2) Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed. The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax

3) In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:

"22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer Japan that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of Japan, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]

The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]

Supreme Court decision[edit]
Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]

On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]

The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]

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.[2]

The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

My commentary in red.

The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants. And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.

The problem is, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind. They are to interpret the law, not legislate. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.

"In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.

In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "

Plenary power - Wikipedia

I thank wikipedia for using that word POWER instead of AUTHORITY.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

Again, Taz, Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?

 

[OKTexas]

Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.

Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.

.

More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom! The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States. The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose. That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.

The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.

.

You are so funny you should take that act on the road. When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass. In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States. Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.

How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.

They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.

.

If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.

An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.

We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..

Again, no wall necessary.

We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one

What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.

Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.

Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.

Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.

.

You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.

Texas should pay for it. States rights.

Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.

.

1. We don't need a wall. This is a manufactured crisis
2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing. $5 bill is just the down payment. Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall? Really?
3. So you want your taxes to go up?
4. Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them. So we should build a wall first?
5. This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind. Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
7. This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
9. We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.

Still can't address what I said, but your deflection is noted. Have a great day.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.

Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.

.

More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom! The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States. The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose. That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.

The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.

.

You are so funny you should take that act on the road. When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass. In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States. Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.

How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.

They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.

.

What is it you think we did in the 1920s? Dude, for real, I'm going to have start ignoring you if your posts don't add up to what you're quoting. That post you just did don't have squat to do with what you quoted me on.

 

[OKTexas]

He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.

Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.

That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.

Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.

Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not. That is up to government. Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not. If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Multi trillion, wow your imagination has really ran away with you.

.

 

[Slyhunter]

Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not. That is up to government. Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not. If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?

 

[Taz]

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

Again, Taz, Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?

If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm Agnostic.
I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.

.

.

AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run? Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour. The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.

I have answered your question at least six times on this thread. I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either. You got me mixed up. I'm not your push button monkey. So, you should quit lying and read the thread. Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional 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)

Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.

.

Are you lying again? You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about. You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.

The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship. Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business. Period sir.

Sorry you lack the ability to review a string, all you need do is click the portion where it says expand. But the supremes say you're full of it on immigration law, so does the Constitution. Also I get here when I can, this is not all I do.

.

 

[dblack]

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.

I'm all for a secure border. I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally. We need to figure out a way to stop this. A wall isn't the answer. A 5 TRILLION dollar wall. Don't let Trump lie to you again. $5 billion is nothing. He knows a wall will cost way more than that. But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you. We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals. Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's. Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened. It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.

I’m a Libertarian, not GOP.

Yeah. Just like bripat9643 is a Libertarian.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

Again, Taz, Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?

If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.

Taz, what I quoted came from the Declaration of Independence. What you are saying, and I'm not judging you - just paraphrasing you:

Unalienable Rights are a byproduct of the Constitution, given by government and subject to their terms and conditions.

I suppose that if you start talking about the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you would be correct that it (the Constitution) applies only to citizens.Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in reality, the Constitution only guarantees not to infringe upon the whites, who were the posterity the Constitution applied to.

OTOH, although only whites could become citizens, millions of foreigners came here at the discretion of the states to take part in our free enterprise system without becoming citizens.

The problem I have with your theory is that I could be voted into oblivion - as could ALL the people you are siding with on how to best resolve the dilemma.

 

[OKTexas]

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.

Semantics. All semantics. What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law. Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.

If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.

I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.

.

Someone else challenged the amount of money in question. I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.

"In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the immigration commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a cost of 75 cents per inspection (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.

IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808. I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response. So, let us see how much authority the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the power to ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Now let us get to the facts:

1) Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship

2) Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed. The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax

3) In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:

"22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer Japan that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of Japan, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]

The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]

Supreme Court decision[edit]
Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]

On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]

The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]

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.[2]

The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

My commentary in red.

The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants. And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.

The problem is, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind. They are to interpret the law, not legislate. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.

"In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.

In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "

Plenary power - Wikipedia

I thank wikipedia for using that word POWER instead of AUTHORITY.

You really can't read can you?

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight

The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.

.

.

AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run? Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour. The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.

I have answered your question at least six times on this thread. I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either. You got me mixed up. I'm not your push button monkey. So, you should quit lying and read the thread. Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional 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)

Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.

.

Are you lying again? You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about. You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.

The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship. Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business. Period sir.

Sorry you lack the ability to review a string, all you need do is click the portion where it says expand. But the supremes say you're full of it on immigration law, so does the Constitution. Also I get here when I can, this is not all I do.

.

You've not provided but one link to the Immigration Act of 1924 when that is just another law that was passed outside the scope of what is in the Constitution. You pretending to be able to evaluate laws and then you cannot accept points you don't like say that you are the one who is full of it.

 

[Taz]

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

Again, Taz, Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?

If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.

Taz, what I quoted came from the Declaration of Independence. What you are saying, and I'm not judging you - just paraphrasing you:

Unalienable Rights are a byproduct of the Constitution, given by government and subject to their terms and conditions.

I suppose that if you start talking about the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you would be correct that it (the Constitution) applies only to citizens.Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in reality, the Constitution only guarantees not to infringe upon the whites, who were the posterity the Constitution applied to.

OTOH, although only whites could become citizens, millions of foreigners came here at the discretion of the states to take part in our free enterprise system without becoming citizens.

The problem I have with your theory is that I could be voted into oblivion - as could ALL the people you are siding with on how to best resolve the dilemma.

Whether it's the Declaration or Constitution, they only apply to citizens. As a country, we can't give rights to the rest of the world and let anyone in, we'll be a third world shithole in 5 minutes, and some places here already are because of illegals.

 

[OKTexas]

From being an actual US citizen.

We got to talk about this one. I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship? So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion. If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply? if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

Again, Taz, Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?

Are you suggesting we impose our values on the rest of the world.

.

 

[dblack]

Whether it's the Declaration or Constitution, they only apply to citizens.

Nope. They don't apply to citizens at all. They only apply to government.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.

Semantics. All semantics. What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law. Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.

If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.

I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.

.

Someone else challenged the amount of money in question. I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.

"In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the immigration commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a cost of 75 cents per inspection (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.

IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808. I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response. So, let us see how much authority the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the power to ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Now let us get to the facts:

1) Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship

2) Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed. The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax

3) In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:

"22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer Japan that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of Japan, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]

The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]

Supreme Court decision[edit]
Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]

On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]

The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]

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.[2]

The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

My commentary in red.

The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants. And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.

The problem is, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind. They are to interpret the law, not legislate. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.

"In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.

In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "

Plenary power - Wikipedia

I thank wikipedia for using that word POWER instead of AUTHORITY.

You really can't read can you?

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight

The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.

.

No, it did not. Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right. If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by. They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.

.

More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom! The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States. The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose. That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.

The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.

.

You are so funny you should take that act on the road. When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass. In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States. Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.

How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.

They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.

.

What is it you think we did in the 1920s? Dude, for real, I'm going to have start ignoring you if your posts don't add up to what you're quoting. That post you just did don't have squat to do with what you quoted me on.

Actually it had everything to do with the last sentence in your post.

.

 

[Taz]

That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.

Semantics. All semantics. What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law. Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.

If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.

I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.

.

Someone else challenged the amount of money in question. I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.

"In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the immigration commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a cost of 75 cents per inspection (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.

IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808. I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response. So, let us see how much authority the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the power to ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Now let us get to the facts:

1) Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship

2) Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed. The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax

3) In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:

"22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer Japan that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of Japan, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]

The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]

Supreme Court decision[edit]
Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]

On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]

The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]

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.[2]

The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

My commentary in red.

The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants. And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.

The problem is, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind. They are to interpret the law, not legislate. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.

"In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.

In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "

Plenary power - Wikipedia

I thank wikipedia for using that word POWER instead of AUTHORITY.

You really can't read can you?

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight

The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.

.

No, it did not. Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right. If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by. They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.

Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent. Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus. The government forced them to comply with "public policy" (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it. You like to deflect. Let's try again. Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.

Again, Taz, Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?

If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.

Taz, what I quoted came from the Declaration of Independence. What you are saying, and I'm not judging you - just paraphrasing you:

Unalienable Rights are a byproduct of the Constitution, given by government and subject to their terms and conditions.

I suppose that if you start talking about the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you would be correct that it (the Constitution) applies only to citizens.Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in reality, the Constitution only guarantees not to infringe upon the whites, who were the posterity the Constitution applied to.

OTOH, although only whites could become citizens, millions of foreigners came here at the discretion of the states to take part in our free enterprise system without becoming citizens.

The problem I have with your theory is that I could be voted into oblivion - as could ALL the people you are siding with on how to best resolve the dilemma.

Whether it's the Declaration or Constitution, they only apply to citizens. As a country, we can't give rights to the rest of the world and let anyone in, we'll be a third world shithole in 5 minutes, and some places here already are because of illegals.

Taz,

America was built on this principle that each of has Rights that are bestowed upon us by our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be.) In saying that a Right is unalienable, it means that our forefathers believed there are some things that are above the government like Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution did not even exist when our forefathers adopted those founding principles. So, if foreigners have no Right to Liberty, they have no Right to Life. How come you suppose that people aren't shooting these so - called illegal aliens if they do not have a Right to Life? If you're saying they are not men, then they must be rodents. I mean, under those principles you cannot say they have a Right to Life, but no Right to Liberty. You have to be consistent. If you believe what you're preaching, what's keeping you from thinning the herd out a bit?