The Cellar
Page 7 of 10 123456 7 8910
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   There are no illegal immigrants in America (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16263)

TheMercenary 01-06-2008 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 422054)
For one thing, if there were a huge influx of migrants in australia, legal or otherwise, there'd be nowhere for them to live. Already there are many families who have nowhere to live. Increasing the population without having time to build housing would be just plain stupid.

If people are living on the street or camping out or whatever, there'd be increases in crime for starters, and that's not the only problem.

Any socioligist will tell you that overcrowding in any species is likely to lead to tension between groups which obviously we already have enough of in the world.

No, allowing a huge influx of immigrants would be bad for any economy, not to mention the social structure of the community.
And every single one of your points is happening right now in the US!:neutral:

Happy Monkey 01-06-2008 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 421696)
The clause refers to the migration (movement) of slaves or importation of slaves (bringing them into the country). It does not refer to the immigration of free people entering the country.
It refers to "Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".

Radar 01-06-2008 11:31 PM
It refers to slaves and does not refer to anyone other than slaves.

Ibby 01-06-2008 11:43 PM
Because you say so.

:right:

Radar 01-06-2008 11:50 PM
No, because that's what the Constitution says. That's all I happen to need, but for those who think that's not enough, it's also what the men said who wrote it; it's what every law school in America says; it's what the Supreme Court (and every court below the Supreme Court) says, it's what every single Constitutional scholar and expert says, etc...

regular.joe 01-06-2008 11:53 PM
Radar, I can't believe your preaching that again, after you've told us that the supreme court's opinion doesn't matter on an earlier post.

It only matters when you want it to?

It's late, I'm tired, and tired of this thread. Have fun ya'll.

classicman 01-07-2008 07:31 AM
Quote:
All originally posted by Radar in this thread:
Nothing else matters in a Constitutional debate other than the words in the Constitution.

Citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution. All human beings have the same human rights.

Nothing else you post other than the Constitution itself matters.

Anything other than the U.S. Constitution is below the U.S. Constitution including the opinions of the Supreme Court or articles on their website. End of story.

I know more about the U.S. Constitution than anyone to serve on the Supreme Court in the last 100 years so shove your Constitutional experts up your ass. If they can't read the 10th amendment they are no expert.

How you might ask am I so sure about what the phrase "general welfare" meant when they wrote the Constitution? Because the 1828 copy of Webster's has the phrase defined so someone won't try to twist it.

The states were meant to have power over other areas IF the people grant the state such powers, but neither the states, nor the fed should ever have any authority to limit or restrict our rights any more than the boundary of another person's equal rights.

No, because that's what the Constitution says. That's all I happen to need, but for those who think that's not enough, it's also what the men said who wrote it; it's what every law school in America says; it's what the Supreme Court (and every court below the Supreme Court) says, it's what every single Constitutional scholar and expert says, etc...

Fighting over the word "of" didn't work so now you want to dispute a comma?

Actually that last little argument caused all the rest of this contrarian nonsense to go by the wayside with it.

Learner 01-07-2008 01:45 PM
The limitations of statute constitutions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 419630)
I want to be clear. I'm not discussing immigration laws because my contention is that they are a violation of the Constitution. I'm not discussing case law because I'm not interested in someone's opinion of what the Constitution should say or what they think was implied.

I'm talking about the black and white words in the U.S. Constitution that actually PROHIBIT the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws. In fact it prohibits the federal government from doing about 80% of what it currently is doing.

Where you might ask can I find this miraculous part of the Constitution that puts such strict limits on the powers of federal government?

That my friend is in the 10th amendment. It was written as a catch all by the founders to make sure the government would never step beyond the bounds of what was specifically enumerated as a power of the federal government. This amendment means the federal government can have absolutely no "implied" powers.

It RESERVES anything NOT listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government and which has not been prohibited from being a power of the states as a right of the people and a power of the states.



I highlight the word "reserved" to focus on the fact that this means it is not within the domain of the federal government to legislate anything other than laws pertaining to the specific areas in which they are granted enumerated powers.
This discussion does in my view highlight well the difficulty of having a codified constitution. Here in the UK we have never had one, and despite that we do not seem to be any nearer absolutist rule than you (although both much nearer than one would like) - As Radar demonstrates it doesn't matter what fine words you agree if you are going to hunt Mexicans like rabbits and open Guantanamo, that extraordinary act of contempt for the rule of law.

It follows too that if the breaches of the Constitution are as widespread as he suggests - 80% - there is little point hanging on the the wreckage of the words so fixedly.

After Guantanamo it does seem you need a major reaffirmation of your national beliefs and values.

Aliantha 01-07-2008 04:30 PM
:corn:

Aliantha 01-07-2008 04:31 PM
Oh and welcome to the Cellar Learner. I see you've chosen to jump in at the deep end. ;)

Happy Monkey 01-07-2008 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422129)
It refers to slaves and does not refer to anyone other than slaves.
I actually quoted the Constitution on who it refers to: "Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".

Slaves aren't mentioned.

Radar 01-07-2008 07:39 PM
1. Slaves are persons.

2. Slaves are property.

3. Duty refers to a tax on an imported piece of property

4. Migration refers to movement and is not the same thing as immigration.


Clearly you don't comprehend the English language very well, so I'll try to break it down to your level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

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.
Here is the breakdown...

Congress is prohibited from stopping slavery before 1808 and must allow any of the slave states to bring in slaves and to move them around but Congress can charge a $10 duty or tax on each imported slave.

No other person has a duty charged for them other than those who are property. This means slave. No other person than a slave is migrated in America rather than having the freedom of movement. No other person is imported than a slave because a slave is property.

This clause refers only to slaves and can not be construed logically or honestly to refer to anyone other than a slave.

TheMercenary 01-07-2008 08:41 PM
Illegal Aliens are all criminals who should be rounded up and put in Gitmo or deported immediately.

Radar 01-07-2008 09:13 PM
Perhaps you're right, but we have no illegal aliens in America.

TheMercenary 01-07-2008 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422329)
Perhaps you're right, but we have no illegal aliens in America.
BS, and you know it. Every one of those Mexicans who crawled and swam across the border are illegal and should be deported yesterday! :D

Radar 01-07-2008 09:28 PM
Nope. America has never had a single illegal alien because 100% of federal immigration laws are unconstitutional and you know it.

Every single person who crawled, swam, or jumped over the border without documentation combined didn't violate a single Constitutionally valid immigration law so they are here LEGALLY and they are no better or worse than the Irish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, etc. immigrants who just showed up on boats before all of those unconstitutional immigration laws were written.

TheMercenary 01-07-2008 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422339)
Nope. America has never had a single illegal alien because 100% of federal immigration laws are unconstitutional and you know it.
You are full of shit and you know it.

Nothing you can say would change my mind. You are not, as you want us to believe, a scholar of the Constitution.

You are nothing more than a Radar of MASH who has no clue.

Enjoy your fantasy. :D

Aliantha 01-07-2008 09:34 PM
Hey...I liked Radar from MASH. He was a nice boy.

Radar 01-07-2008 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 422343)
You are full of shit and you know it.

Nothing you can say would change my mind. You are not, as you want us to believe, a scholar of the Constitution.

You are nothing more than a Radar of MASH who has no clue.

Enjoy your fantasy. :D

Deny it until you die and it won't change the indisputable fact that the U.S. Government has zero authority over immigration and that America has never had a single illegal alien.

Pull your head out of your ass and get some oxygen. You're starting to have hallucinations and delusions that the government has more power than it does.

You are nothing but a xenophobic or racist moron without a clue about the Constitution. I'm sure I won't change your mind, because you don't have a mind for me to change.

America has zero undocumented immigrants and you know it. :D

Radar 01-07-2008 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 422344)
Hey...I liked Radar from MASH. He was a nice boy.
So am I. :)

TheMercenary 01-07-2008 09:44 PM
Yea, other than being able to sense the impending arrival of a helicopter he was an idiot. Good point.

TheMercenary 01-07-2008 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422348)
Deny it until you die and it won't change the indisputable fact that the U.S. Government has zero authority over immigration and that America has never had a single illegal alien.

Pull your head out of your ass and get some oxygen. You're starting to have hallucinations and delusions that the government has more power than it does.

You are nothing but a xenophobic or racist moron without a clue about the Constitution. I'm sure I won't change your mind, because you don't have a mind for me to change.

America has zero undocumented immigrants and you know it. :D
Cool!!!!!!!!!

Try it out in a court of law today and see how that works out for you. Let us ALL know how it turns out...

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

What "maroon"

Aliantha 01-07-2008 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 422351)
Yea, other than being able to sense the impending arrival of a helicopter he was an idiot. Good point.
You obviously never spent much time actually watching the show.

The character of Radar was percieved as a country bumpkin with no brains, but one should never confuse naivety with stupidity. This was the case with Radar and is in general a good rule of thumb to live by.

Incidentally, one of the reasons for MASH's overwhelming success was the depth of the characters. Those who didn't pay enough attention probably never really got that part of it though.

Aliantha 01-07-2008 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422350)
So am I. :)
I don't consider people who are routinely rude to be nice people. Sorry Radar.

Actually I'm not really sorry at all. It just seemed appropriate to say so.

classicman 01-07-2008 10:06 PM
OF

Radar 01-07-2008 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 422361)
I don't consider people who are routinely rude to be nice people. Sorry Radar.

Actually I'm not really sorry at all. It just seemed appropriate to say so.
I'm nice to nice people. My family, friends, and co-workers think I'm delightful. :)

Radar 01-07-2008 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 422368)
OF
LOL!!!

Radar 01-07-2008 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 422359)
You obviously never spent much time actually watching the show.

The character of Radar was percieved as a country bumpkin with no brains, but one should never confuse naivety with stupidity. This was the case with Radar and is in general a good rule of thumb to live by.

Incidentally, one of the reasons for MASH's overwhelming success was the depth of the characters. Those who didn't pay enough attention probably never really got that part of it though.
I got the name Radar when I was in high school and college and I looked very much like Gary Burghoff (Radar on M*A*S*H). I won thousands of dollars in several Halloween costume contests merely by putting on the uniform, hat, and glasses and carrying a teddybear.

When in college I wore more of a black hat in the I.T. world than I do now. Now it's normally a white hat, but occasionally gray.

Happy Monkey 01-07-2008 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422316)
4. Migration refers to movement and is not the same thing as immigration.
Migration includes immigration and emmigration.
Quote:
No other person has a duty charged for them other than those who are property.
And the duty is only on importation. Nothing in the clause applies a duty to migration.
Quote:
No other person than a slave is migrated in America rather than having the freedom of movement.
It says nothing about forcible migration. It says migration of any persons the states wish to admit. Whether they are admitted at their own behest, or at the behest of an importer is unspecified, but the latter are subject to duties.

piercehawkeye45 01-08-2008 12:11 AM
Weird....

I actually didn't win the celebrity contest (I lost to Jesus, what the fuck is up with that!!!) but a lot of people comment on how I look like a certain high school drama character...

Radar 01-08-2008 12:11 AM
Let it go man. Move on. I've already proven it applies only to slaves. Better luck next time.

Happy Monkey 01-08-2008 08:43 AM
You've got nothing, eh?

Shawnee123 01-08-2008 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 422368)
OF
OK, I gotta ask. What does that mean?

ZenGum 01-08-2008 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 422460)
OK, I gotta ask. What does that mean?
I think there was a long debate about the interpretation of the word "of" in one of the clauses of the constitution of the United States of America.

Whether by being "in" the US you became one of the the people "of" the US.

It was about this time I glazed over and remembered why I left academic philosophy.

Then they started arguing abut a comma, and I went into a coma.

Shawnee123 01-08-2008 11:35 AM
I proposition that their prepositions presuppose the precedent that they have a freaking clue what they're arguing about, presumably...period. ;)

TheMercenary 01-08-2008 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 422506)
Then they started arguing abut a comma, and I went into a coma.
:biggrinje:

Radar 01-08-2008 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 422459)
You've got nothing, eh?
Nothing other than proving that the clause can ONLY refer to slaves many times, showing that you are wrong many times, showing not only the Constitution itself which proves me right, but also providing other information which I don't need, but which shows the Supreme Court, Every law school, every Constitutional scholar, and the writings of the founders themselves declaring that it refers ONLY to slaves.

TheMercenary 01-08-2008 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422548)
Nothing other than proving that the clause can ONLY refer to slaves many times, showing that you are wrong many times, showing not only the Constitution itself which proves me right, but also providing other information which I don't need, but which shows the Supreme Court, Every law school, every Constitutional scholar, and the writings of the founders themselves declaring that it refers ONLY to slaves.
But wait, you claimed you are a Constitutional scholar!

Radar 01-08-2008 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 422551)
But wait, you claimed you are a Constitutional scholar!
And I am. But it turns out there are more than one.

busterb 01-08-2008 02:54 PM
Quote:
But it turns out there are more than one.
It appears by number of post, there's a hell of a lot more than one.

Aliantha 01-08-2008 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterb (Post 422589)
It appears by number of post, there's a hell of a lot more than one.
Oh no, most of the time Radar has just been talking to himself. ;)

busterb 01-08-2008 04:45 PM
Hey. We need to get Drax in on this shit!!!!

Aliantha 01-08-2008 04:52 PM
I don't think Drax cares what Radar has to say. ;)

Radar 01-08-2008 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 422601)
Oh no, most of the time Radar has just been talking to himself. ;)
It's ok as long as I don't answer myself. :blah:

busterb 01-08-2008 04:56 PM
Quote:
It's ok as long as I don't answer myself.
And the proof is???

Radar 01-08-2008 05:07 PM
The proof that I don't answer myself?

Happy Monkey 01-08-2008 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422548)
Nothing other than proving that the clause can ONLY refer to slaves many times,
You've done nothing of the sort. All you have said is that the duty applies to slaves. But the duty only applies to imports, not migration. You haven't answered that point.

Quote:
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.
Separate it out. I will assume "or" to mean A or B or both. If you disagree, eliminate choice 3.
  1. The Migration ... 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 ...
  2. The ... 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.
  3. The Migration [and] 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.
Migration and/or Importation interference are prohibited, pre 1808.
Importation may be taxed.

Nothing in the wording restricts "Migration" to slaves.

Radar 01-08-2008 05:50 PM
Ok, let's separate it out and spell it out so you can understand it....

The movement OR importation of SLAVES that the states want to import won't be prohibited by Congress before 1808.

The word "or" doesn't play a part here. The movement (migration) or importation of slaves doesn't change the fact that they are slaves. If slave owners want to move them from one slave state to another (migration) or they want to import them from another country, they are still slaves. Migration is for the slaves that are already here, and importation is for the new slaves being brought in.

Happy Monkey 01-08-2008 06:00 PM
The word SLAVES plays no part here. It's not in the passage.

busterb 01-08-2008 06:22 PM
Radar. World renown Award Winning Libertarian Activist, Computer Network Engineer, Bartender, and Casino Craps Dealer. slow cooker scholar. BTW.

TheMercenary 01-08-2008 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterb (Post 422645)
Radar. World renown Award Winning Libertarian Activist, Computer Network Engineer, Bartender, and Casino Craps Dealer. slow cooker scholar. BTW.
[understatement]ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/understatementofthelargestorder]
:p

Radar 01-08-2008 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 422640)
The word SLAVES plays no part here. It's not in the passage.
The word slaves does play a part. There is only one kind of person that is imported or migrated for which a duty or tax is paid for....a slave.

Deny it all you want, but that's the truth. That clause refers ONLY to slaves and to nobody else.

Radar 01-08-2008 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterb (Post 422645)
Radar. World renown Award Winning Libertarian Activist, Computer Network Engineer, Bartender, and Casino Craps Dealer. slow cooker scholar. BTW.
That statement would be correct if you removed "world renown" and changed "slow cooker" to "Constitutional"

TheMercenary 01-08-2008 08:30 PM
Hey, more criminal illegals aliens crossed the border today. They are all taking your benifits and services away from the American public. Get ready to pay a little more for your services now.

Happy Monkey 01-08-2008 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar (Post 422667)
The word slaves does play a part. There is only one kind of person that is imported or migrated for which a duty or tax is paid for....a slave.
The duty or tax does not apply to "migration". "Migration", present in the prohibition clause, is explicitly absent in the duty or tax clause.

Radar 01-08-2008 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 422669)
Hey, more criminal illegals aliens crossed the border today. They are all taking your benifits and services away from the American public. Get ready to pay a little more for your services now.
Not one illegal alien has ever entered America. More criminal assholes who support violating the Constitution have been polluting online messageboards though.

Radar 01-08-2008 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 422675)
The duty or tax does not apply to "migration". "Migration", present in the prohibition clause, is explicitly absent in the duty or tax clause.
The duty or tax applies to the importation of slaves. Congress must allow slave owners to import slaves, or migrate them around within the United States until 1808. Either way it only applies to slaves.

Nothing you say will change that. It only applies to slaves and nobody else. IT ONLY APPLIES TO SLAVES AND NOBODY ELSE!!!

Aliantha 01-08-2008 10:00 PM
if you say it louder, someone might believe you more.

classicman 01-08-2008 10:08 PM
Only radar believes radar at this point. The more he tries to convince me, the less I agree.

Radar 01-08-2008 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 422685)
if you say it louder, someone might believe you more.
I don't care if he believes me. I've stated a fact. He can deny it a million times but it will not change. The more he denies it, the more stupid he looks. In fact nobody who denies the truth in what I say has an intellect above that of a flea.

Also, the typewritten word can't be "louder" if it's in all caps. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.
Page 7 of 10 123456 7 8910
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.