Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[toobfreak]

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.

Right! Right! Right! Why didn't I think of that, OKTexas?! So in other words, Portly, you either comment of only the posts immediately as they are typed while online and reading THAT thread or say nothing at all! What extensive research having to flip up to the posts printed right above or to look back a couple pages and see the context. Takes maybe, what . . . 30 seconds? I know it must be a conspiracy just to SCREW YOU, Portly and make you look STUPID. Yeah. That's it.

Damn, now you're going to have to go back and extensively research a post again.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

.

The Immigration Act of 1924 has NO constitutional standing. The states controlled immigration even between 1808 and 1875. Their jurisdiction was NOT challenged so there was NO legitimate and constitutional reason for the SCOTUS to grant plenary powers that were not part of any case that has been interpreted.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

.

DANG! Tex! There you go making Mr. Portly have to go off doing "extensive research" again! You must really have it in for the guy.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I gave you the citation, is your google broke?

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Right! Right! Right! Why didn't I think of that, OKTexas?! So in other words, Portly, you either comment of only the posts immediately as they are typed while online and reading THAT thread or say nothing at all! What extensive research having to flip up to the posts printed right above or to look back a couple pages and see the context. Takes maybe, what . . . 30 seconds? I know it must be a conspiracy just to SCREW YOU, Portly and make you look STUPID. Yeah. That's it.

Damn, now you're going to have to go back and extensively research a post again.

You and your insecure buddies try to work the Hell out of me and expect me to be you freaking push button monkey. It takes at least four of you to even keep up with me in this B.S,. circus show. None of you ever took my one on one challenge - and for damn good reason.

When you are having to respond to as many as eight posters at a time, even thirty seconds matters. Hell as fast as I was typing ONE response last night, you guys were throwing TWO FULL pages of skeet at me. You're scared, insecure, and you cannot send one guy at a time at me. Today, you're trying to save Taz's ass because he's not articulating your position the way you want him to.

Dude, if you sent an army of nitwits like you, they could only post B.S and try to claim a victory. Eight on one... and you have the audacity to claim you're winning against me? IN YOUR DREAMS.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

I gave you the citation, is your google broke?

.

You have a reply. What in the Hell is you want? The Immigration Act of 1924 has no constitutional standing. How many explanations do you need?

If I give you a detailed explanation, your buddy who claims it's taking two of you to kick my ass will be bitching because the answer is more than four sentences long.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.

.

 

[Taz]

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.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.

.

WTF??? You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do? HYPOCRITE. It is in the above quoted exchange. You don't have to go back several pages to find the link. It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.

.

WTF??? You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do? HYPOCRITE. It is in the above quoted exchange. You don't have to go back several pages to find the link. It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

The Immigration Act of 1924 has NO constitutional standing. The states controlled immigration even between 1808 and 1875. Their jurisdiction was NOT challenged so there was NO legitimate and constitutional reason for the SCOTUS to grant plenary powers that were not part of any case that has been interpreted.

Actually the Act was challenged with some very interesting results. It was summarize by wiki as this.

Court decision[edit]
From United States ex. rel. Turner v. Williams:[22]

if an alien is not permitted to enter this country, or, having entered contrary to law, is expelled, he is in fact cut off from worshipping or speaking or publishing or petitioning in the country; but that is merely because of his exclusion therefrom. He does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land to which they do not belong as citizens or otherwise.

Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia

Go figure.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.

.

WTF??? You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do? HYPOCRITE. It is in the above quoted exchange. You don't have to go back several pages to find the link. It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.

I read it, you later mentioned the plenary powers article, I simply asked what you meant by that. No need to get excited, it was a simple question.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Counselor, what do you suppose if a creative attorney were to NOT appeal to the Court for relief, but rather, challenge jurisdiction?

Do you even know WHY (or more accurately, the history) of that 1924 law?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim. Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue. The ongoing issue is the wall.

Kavanaugh is a liar, drunk and attempted rapist. The fact that you think he's honest, shows your own lack of a moral compass. Which explains why you're so willing to sell out the country for this bullshit wall that ain't ever getting built.

I’m sure you’re used to the media playing judge and jury, but In this country it’s inncocent until PROVEN guilty not the other way around.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim. Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue. The ongoing issue is the wall.

Kavanaugh is a liar, drunk and attempted rapist. The fact that you think he's honest, shows your own lack of a moral compass. Which explains why you're so willing to sell out the country for this bullshit wall that ain't ever getting built.

I’m sure you’re used to the media playing judge and jury, but In this country it’s inncocent until PROVEN guilty not the other way around.

I wish you could remember that concept works both ways.

BTW, my answer may not show up for a while. This site has slowed to a crawl and isn't posting my responses for more than five minutes. I have some work to do and will return later.

 

[Slyhunter]

You really can't read can you?
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.

He is totally biased. He's left of left. But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue. Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them. Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!

Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans? Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?

You claimed you weren't taking sides you were just asking questions. You lied.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

our northern border is even less secure.