No, it protects the rights of THE PEOPLE...all people living within the United States.

States or other governments have powers, people have rights. Government's only have powers that the people grant to it....which means government may not have any powers that we, as individuals don't possess without government, and which we have not expressly granted to government.

Anything not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government or prohibited from being a power of the states, is either a power of the states (assuming the people have granted one of their rights to that state as a power) or a right of the people.

Not at all. Naturalization is not immigration. It's not splitting hairs, it's just a fact.

The clause refers solely to the migration and importation of slaves and it became void when 13th amendment abolished slavery.

Radar, you keep moving the argument everytime your points get refuted. This game only lasts as long as both sides are willing to play and at this point your game has gotten rather tedious.

That clearly states that the US constitution is for the citizens of the US ONLY - pretty effin clear.

None of my points have ever been refuted. People keep bringing up parts of the Constitution that do not grant any power to the federal government over immigration.

• Repelling Invasions = Repelling invading armies.
  
• Migration and Importation of slaves is NOT the immigration of free people.
  
• Naturalization is not immigration
  
• The ability to create necessary and proper laws for the powers enumerated in the Constitution do not allow the government to create laws related to areas not enumerated in the Constitution.
  
• General Welfare means allowing people to live peacefully without being molested by government and does not grant the government carte blanch to create or enforce any laws it wishes.

The people of the United States = The people living in the United States.

It doesn't say "We the citizens of the United States".

That is nothing more than your opinion.

not in, it clearly states OF

- again not the it plainly states OURSELVES and OUR

either it is clear to you that it refers to the citizens OF the US or it is up for interpretation.
Either way, your argument is refuted, again.


PS - This is the point where you typically change your argument again.

For the sake of clarity - indulge me one more time.
They did not state "the people living within the boudaries of the United States" because that is NOT what they meant - very clearly, they meant the citizens of the US.

It is so crystal clear I don't understand how someone purportedly "smarter than Supreme Court justices" cannot see it.

We THE people of the United States. It's very clear that it refers to the people of the United States....aka the people living inside the United States.

I haven't changed my argument even once. I've proven it many times and thwarted attempts of people who keep coming at me from different directions.

This is the point at which you try to argue over the definition of a word and suggest something laughable.

Game?

It's CALVINBALL! The rules change constantly - and you can't play the same way twice!

NO TEH STUF N THE CONSUTION ITSLF IS ALL THT MATERS
Dude, youve said that before, which is why I'm right to say _____...
OKAY WELL THIS GUY SED THIS SO IM STILL RIGHT

lol @ ibby.

I'm going to try and put my critical thinking skills to work here.

1. Congress has the power to form a uniform rule of naturalization.

I think we can agree on this.

2. naturalization is the process in which an immigrant becomes a citizen.

I think we can agree on this as well.

3. Immigration is the movement of a person or persons from another country or region to another country or region with the purpose of stying there permanently.

So far we have just definitions. Easy to agree?

The critical thinking part of this, at least for me: if anyone, from anywhere can move to this country permanently any time they want, with no restrictions what so ever; why have a naturalization? Everyone should be able to be a citizen automatically by crossing the border, thereby forgoing the need to naturalize anyone. There would be no such thing as citizenship. Enumerating a power to be able to form rules for naturalization implies immigration. In fact you cannot have naturalization without immigration.

If part of the uniform rules for naturalization stipulate that convicted felons cannot be naturalized and cannot have entry to the united states, there is no conflict with the constitution.

Why have naturalization? To give people the opportunity to vote. Those who don't want to have taxation without equal representation will choose to become citizens.

If a uniform rule of naturalization states that a felon can't be naturalized, it does not mean they can't become an immigrant.