Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Taz]

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?

Nothing against Messikins per say, but we’re full up on uneducated losers.

 

[Taz]

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.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

 

[Taz]

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.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

I'm assuming this was for me. If you're referring to the Immigration act of 1924, I think the court would kick his ass.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1

Also I only know what I've read about the act itself, is there something in particular you want to discuss?

.

 

[Taz]

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.

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

How did I take sides with what I quoted? I suppose that if you look at it realistically, I did take sides in that I'm after Taz most of the time so that he can review his talking points and not look like a country bumpkin when the far left challenges him.

I'm going to level with you about something:

There is the left; there is the right and then there is me. I have not politically worked for either side, at any time, on this issue. What the general public thinks about the build the wall guys is that they are not mainstream Establishment Republicans. I always voted Republican as the lesser of two evils. And I'm telling you that what used to be conservatism is NOT what is being articulated on this thread. Furthermore, my personal concern is with the protection, preservation, and protection of the posterity of the founding fathers and the foundational principles that America was built on.

Specifically, America was founded by white Christians with a world view unlike any other culture. So, being white and being Christian, I'm on a side not represented on this board. I had to ask questions in order to be able to understand what is going on. Honestly, I still do not understand the fight. Those who want the wall have no real credible argument that would prevent the people they hate from taking over "legally" as they term it and making this entire conversation moot. The strategies of those who want a wall, when followed to their final destination, end in irreversible defeat for this country.

I kept asking people where they got their Rights from. The only three responses I've gotten in all the thousands of posts were from non-Christians who think their unalienable Rights come from man. So, ultimately, with a world view like that, they end up being democrats without realizing it. The left knows what they are and they admit to it.

I disagree with the left, but I respect their honesty. My observation is that the build the wall guys know they are trying to beat the left at their own game - which is dishonesty in strategy and tactics. The left will tell you what they believe, but use subterfuge or anything else in order to get what they want. The build the wall guys won't be honest in what it is, exactly, they believe in (or maybe they have not thought about it) and they are NO match for the left in tactics and strategies.

Psychologically, perception is reality. Optics is everything. Take for example, the separation of families issue with the people entering the U.S. I work in this field. As a foster parent, I see parents get arrested (both husband and wife.) A foster parent may not be able to take in all their kids, so some go into one foster home, the others in another. MOST of the time it is a flaming democrat who delivers the kids to me.

The husband is in a jail with men separated from his wife who is in jail with women. Their kids are separated from them in different homes and that's life. But, do it to undocumented foreigners and all Hell breaks loose. It's all smoke and mirrors. The right helps the left create a caravan and the masses cannot see that the sudden influx of foreigners is all a gimmick. If the Hispanics wanted to come here in a caravan, why not under the community organizer? He'd have welcomed them in and gave them all a joint on their way in the door.

I've just been waiting, hinting, and almost begging the build the wall guys to ask me one more question. They won't. They are not Christians so they cannot understand the foundational principles this country was built on. In their ignorance, they will destroy our Liberty, the foundational principles and probably cause the demise of the posterity of the founders of our Republic. I am, however, almost ready to do a part 4 giving the reasons that the current strategies will (and have) destroyed your Liberties and mine.

 

[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.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

Porter Rockwell —
“You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like. As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.

If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.

 

[eagle1462010]

Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

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?

LOL

The Constitution and the bill of Rights takes care of that............It is an unlawful order..........The Branch of Gov't for that Challenge is the courts.......If the Gov't has turned the courts into a Mickey Mouse Production and they try to enforce a religion down our throats........Then it is no longer the Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.........

Then there is only one option........The 2nd Amendment............and we take our country back.

Illegals are NOT CITIZENS............PERIOD.............They have rights and in those LEGAL RIGHTS they have used the loop holes in the laws to force their way into our country...........Those need to be closed............and the border needs to be secured..........

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.

If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.

Fuck that.........we need to build one around California............You can join Mexico since you love them so much.............Then you can do as you please there.........and so will we.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.

It's not god damn necessary. And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.

LOL

80 Trillion............

 

[eagle1462010]

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?

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............

NEXT.

 

[dblack]

Viva la police state.

Phucking Phascists.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”


Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.



I should not be able to EDUCATE someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim). Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.

You’re welcome.

I have never made the claims to which you allude. So, right off the bat, you are a liar. You simply lack any reasoning capacity. Not my fault. You should actually READ what I write. You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded. Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship. They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.

Porter Rockwell —
“You're probably right. I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like. As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.

Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?

I clearly read Chy Lung many times. The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.

Yeah, bro. You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll NEVER post again.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Same thing you do if you catch someone climbing the wall or tunneling under.

Listen. Don’t ask a bunch of stupid questions. It’s a bad idea. Expensive, a waste of time, won’t work, bla we’ve already told you all the reasons.

Now let’s talk about the real solutions to this. Oh wait. I forgot I’m talking to people who can only say three words. Build the wall.

Trump got a lot of people to vote for him because he said Mexico would pay. Sorry this is one campaign promise he can’t keep.

One other person here laughed when I said multi trillion. Well the fact is he’s talking about walling an entire border. It would be a monument to trump. That’s what he wants.

Let Texas wall itself in but won’t it have to worry about illegals coming in via the northern border too? Better wall the entire state

 

[sealybobo]

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.

.

You could name off ten other ideas and I would agree with most of them but building a wall is a dumb idea. Even when democrats proposed it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.

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?

LOL

The Constitution and the bill of Rights takes care of that............It is an unlawful order..........The Branch of Gov't for that Challenge is the courts.......If the Gov't has turned the courts into a Mickey Mouse Production and they try to enforce a religion down our throats........Then it is no longer the Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.........

Then there is only one option........The 2nd Amendment............and we take our country back.

Illegals are NOT CITIZENS............PERIOD.............They have rights and in those LEGAL RIGHTS they have used the loop holes in the laws to force their way into our country...........Those need to be closed............and the border needs to be secured..........

WTH is this nonsense? What is your point? Or do you have one? Never mind. If your next post is like this, then I'm going to ignore such crap. It looks like something cobbled together by someone on a bad acid trip.