So...the people elect some other people, who vote as a body passing laws on immigration. These laws are signed into effect by the President, who was also elected by these same people.

This sounds suspiciously like the system of government set up in the U.S. Constitution.

What is this three-nation nonsense. A person is of the country of origin, they can't merely show up and say they represent the new country, unless they are naturalized.

My interpretation is more reasonable than yours. It clearly means what I think it means and not what you think it means.

refers is your OPINION, nothing more - You are interpreting it that way to suit you and your point. Thats fine, I choose, as does 99% of the rest of the world that: of means of and not "the".
derriving power has NOTHING to do with this radar - stop trying to confuse the issue - STAY ON TRACK A simple sentence ends this nonsense.

"of" means "of" and "of" does not mean "the".

The only way for THE PEOPLE to grant power over immigration to the U.S. government is to amend the Constitution. Merely creating a law which contradicts the limited authority granted to the federal government does not lend any legitimacy to that law regardless of how many people want it.

Those who are governed by a government are the ones the government derives it's powers from. All who are subject to the laws of a particular nation (including non-citizens) are OF that country.

no they are "in" that country - clearly a great distinction.

and "of" does not mean "the" nor does it mean "in"

Everybody IN the country is subject to the laws. Plenty of people who would NEVER describe themselves as OF the country -- say, for example, tourists -- are also subject to the laws. You're losing this semantics argument... hard.

So...some other people, chosen by the people who have been elected by all the people, review said laws as to their "constitutionality". They find no problem with it. More then once, at different periods of time spanning a at least 150 to 175 years.

Some guy, one of the people by the way, tries to tell me that all these other people don't know shit about what they are doing, I should just listen to him, he's the only one who's right. Come to think of it, Jim Jones had the same tag line.

I am not "interpreting" anything. If a government derives its powers from the consent of those it governs, all of the people who are governed are OF that country because they have a vested interest in how they are governed. No amount of arguing over the word "of" will make you right. No matter how many attempts you make to try to make something clear into something that is "debatable", you will fail.

"We the people of the United States" refers to all OF the people governed by the United States because this is where the government derives its powers. All who are among the consenting people governed by the United States are OF the United States.

Radar - again you are changing the argument - Your original point is wrong and therefore all the nonesense you build upon that faulty foundation shall come crashing down with it.
Its been fun, but now its just getting old. I have proved my point a dozen times over and yet you still CHOOSE to believe something that clearly is not correct. Enjoy your fantasy world.

My foundation is solid and irrefutable. I've backed up everything I've said. I've proven you wrong each and every single time you have tried to do a Bill Clinton and argue over the definition of "of" and proven for any reasonable and intelligent person that the U.S. Government has absolutely zero Constitutional authority over immigration.

The only ones in a fantasy world in this thread are those who have been proven wrong by me, but who still try to claim the federal government has any authority other than the specific enumerated powers.

Oh what the fuck - - just lemme ask you this. Who the hell are you to assume what the framers of the constitiution were "referring" to? How dare you infer what they "meant" when they clearly stated something else?

Your foundation is worthless. Your foundation hasn't even stood up to the definition of the word "of". You have simply proved that you are delusional - moreso than previously thought.

How dare you look for loopholes in the Constitution to twist it into what you want it to say instead of the simple words it really says? How dare you try to attempt to bring vagueness to the Constitution when it was clearly written to strictly limit the powers of the federal government to only the specific powers enumerated? Who the fuck are you to claim that "We the people" refers to anyone other than the people governed by the United States? Who the fuck are you to claim that only citizens are protected by the Constitution when everything the founders said contradicts that?