There are no illegal immigrants in America
 

In another thread that was less appropriate for this discussion I said...

To which I got the following response...


The migration and importation of slaves does not apply to the immigration of free people. The clause you are mentioning refers to slaves and can only refer to slaves as it is discussing an import tax or duty on goods being imported. There is only one kind of person that is also considered a commodity or good and that is a slave.

If you don't want to take my word for it, here is a link to U.S. Government website that says it refers to the slave trade...

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...nstitution.htm

Specifically they state...


Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 does not grant the federal government any authority over immigration. It prevents the federal government from ending slavery before 1808 as a compromise to get some of the southern states to join the union.

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.

I'm not discussing case law

Quote:

because I'm not interested in someone's opinion of what the Constitution should say or what they think was implied.

"Lord, Thank you for the patients I'm trying to exercise here." Unknown.
You cocksuckers from the west coast want all the votes you can get from these folks. I vote Independent. But not for folks like you! Read my lips!
"Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist." As I said before. Have you been told today? If not, FUCK YOU On second edit fuck u again. BusterB

:corn:

Yeah Ali. Me too

it's a big box. we could share. ;)

Humm. Touche?? SP

I see Radar is casting his line again. :hide: I'm just gonna stay back here and watch.

Apparently there are too many unpatriotic dickheads like you who haven't actually read or understood the Constitution and think the government can create any laws it chooses.

There is no such thing as an illegal alien in America so using the term "illegal alien" to describe an undocumented immigrant is like using the word "automobile" to describe a piano.

If you don't want to live in a country that was built entirely by immigrants with an open invitation for a free flow of immigrants from around the world, then GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY ASSHOLE!!!

This discussion was regarding the indisputable fact that our federal government has absolutely zero constitutional authority whatsoever to create or enforce immigration laws. Notice I used the word FACT and not OPINION? If you disagree, show me the part of the Constitution that specifically enumerates a power over immigration granted to the federal government. You can't because there is none.

Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Invasion refers to armed forces not peaceful immigrants. Only the most insane person would confuse the two...like Lou Dobbs. The founders welcomed immigrants, but would call upon the military to defend against invading armies.

So, once again this does not grant any authority over IMMIGRATION.

Before anyone tries to misuse another part of the Constitution, I'll head you off.

The necessary & proper clause grants powers to congress only to create laws necessary and proper to carry out the specific things enumerated in the Constitution and the power to make rules regarding naturalization has nothing to do with immigration.

So the states can enforce immigration laws? How would that even work?

You hit on Dobbs, perhaps you prefer Bill O' lielly?
MY?? In the great state of fruits and nuts! No thanks.

If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

It works like this. If the people of a particular state vote to allow their state the authority to limit immigration, that state can do so. However, if any of the other states in the union choose to allow immigrants to become state citizens, they would be allowed to move into any of the other states (including those who limit immigration) and be treated as equals in those states because of the 14th amendment.

To make this more clear...

If the people of Texas decided allow the state to make a law stating "No more immigrants", they'd be allowed to do so under the Constitution. If California decided to make a law that says, "All immigrants will automatically be granted California state citizen status", those immigrants would be free to move into Texas and to be treated the same way as any Texas state citizen. They would have all of the same rights and responsibilities as anyone born in Texas.

This is according to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

Take your pick....Loud Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other insane retards who spew lies about undocumented immigrants.

You should be so lucky to live in California. What's the temperature where you are? California has great weather, the most powerful economy of any state in the union, the most diverse population, and the most beautiful people.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. I'm guessing the only reason it doesn't work like this is because of political reasons, as the only time the federal laws are seriously brought up is right around election time when the idiots struggling in congress are their most vocal. No one really seems to want to actually enforce them and, really, who would? Immigrants are good for business.

My dictionary lists the first definition of invasion as...

invasion: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.


If I could get my hands on a Black's Law Dictionary from 1891, I'd look up the definition at that time since it's probably the most accurate and most likely matches this one.

We can also read about the discussions made by the founders when they created this clause. It was referring to invasions from British or other army troops.

In case I did, the first thing I'd do is move. I've worked there. No thanks.
You need a new one! Radar. At one time I kinda liked you, the hotdog deal, BUT HELLO?

Addendum! If my life's ambitions were to sell hot dogs and run for public office in the Great state of CA. Think I'd ask Mike for a ride on the anvil!
VERY humbly yours. bb

Nothing in the Constitution about a law dictionary being the arbiter.

Nothing in the Constitution about using the (highly subjective) inner thinking of the founders (which ones??) when trying to decide how the Constitution should be applied.

And so the question remains: If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

:wstupid: Forget the stupid part!

First, what type of immigration laws are we talking about? Are we saying that we can limit a certain number of people coming into the country, talking about limiting certain ethnicities coming into the country, or something different?

Now I will agree that immigration laws such as the ones in the late 1800s and early 1900s where they limit immigration to proportions that favor a particular ethnicity are unconstitutional but I disagree that limiting the number of people coming into the country is unconstitutional in every situation. I am pro-immigration but if a billion people start immigrating into the US, that will not help us at all because our economy will probably collapse.

But can we explain what types of immigration laws we are dealing with?

Ok, so I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer or the brightest bulb. What is it I am missing here - I've been liooking for about an hour found a lot of interesting reading and came to the conclusion that I really don't know what I'm looking for. What am I missing here? (Other than the Elephant right in front of me)

Federal Immigration Law Enforcement

immigration law: an overview

Immigration Act of 1924

It means deporting Roman Moroni to Sweden, might have been unconstitutional.

No document should have to bear the burden of settling disputes over definitions of words in the way you are suggesting.

Let me explain: If I have a contract stating that I will be paid $100 dollars to paint a fence, I can't turn around and claim that I should be paid $100 because I pissed on the fence. I can't say that the contract has to specify that painting the fence means painting it and not pissing on it, shitting on it, sneezing on it, etc.

I'm not being sneaky by signing this contract, then pissing on the fence and demanding payment. Because that's stupid.

Words mean things. Invasion means invasion.

Legal briefs and judicial rulings put definitions of key terms and phrases in the front of them all the time.

Yes, but do they use imaginary definitions?

Or, more to the point, unless they state that a word means what it actually means, can you later claim that it means something that it clearly doesn't and never has?

Does my fence painting contract have to specifically state that I will not be paid for shitting on the ground next to the fence, because "shitting next to" does not mean "painting"?

I don't think so, but have you ever read a contract? Most of them go on for pages, attempting to cover as many situations as possible. Some are truly ridiculous.

Edit: And a fence painting contract will probably go into some detail about what level of work is required. How much scraping. How much cleaning. Method of application, how many coats, conditions under which the paint will be applied, etc.

If it states "You must apply three coats" can I say that I pissed on it three times because it didn't provide a definition of "you", a definition of "must", a definition of "apply", a definition of "three", and a definition of "coats"? Can I say that it didn't specify that "three" means "three" and not "zero" and then demand payment for applying zero coats?

What I'm getting at is that you can't foresee all possible absurdist interpretations, so at some level words have to mean something. By default, what they actually mean.

Later, contrived meanings and things-you-wished-they-meant don't apply just because they didn't say "it doesn't mean that".

Could my employer claim that "dollars" refers to "pennies" and pay me $1, because they feel like it and the contract didn't specifically say "dollars means dollars"?

Or they could just say that "pay" means "not pay" and not pay me at all.

Most painting contracts will stipulate what sort of paint will be used during the process.

I understand your point Flint and I agree with it in theory, but this whole debate is ridiculous just like comparing pissing on a fence to painting it. I'm sure you agree.

In the explicit meaning of the word 'invade', it refers to anyone entering anywhere without permission however, the implied meaning of the word invasion is to enter a place with malicious intent. Very few immigrants enter anywhere with malicious intent. Usually they're trying to escape from somewhere worse.

Of course, as the proper definition is provided here:

Oooh Mr Norris, what a big 'gun' you have there! ;)

It's all moot because the Constitution is not a contract. It's the founding document of the Government.

Nevertheless, all contracts face this same problem; they fail in things like terms, and differences have to be settled somehow. Some contracts actually say who will decide whether the contract has been met.

I can't take it anymore. I have to come out from behind the couch. I clicked on one of classic mans links to read a little about immigration law. The first sentence I read was this:

The United States has a long history of immigration laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) with some major, and many minor, changes continues to be the basic immigration law of the country. The most significant amendment to the INA was in 1965 which abolished the natural origin provisions, and established a new quota system.

So what you're really trying to tell me is this: since 1952, perhaps longer, our congress has been absolutely ignoring the constitution on this issue, and no one has been able to point this fact out the the Congress? If some one has made a point about these unconstitutional laws congress has seen fit for over 50 years to ignore it? (I'm not gonna start with the Alien Act of 1798, which would mean that there is some sort of super conspiracy in play, probably including the Masons)

So, the next thing I read is this:

Congress has total and complete authority over immigration. Power of the President is limited to policies on refugees. Unless the issue concerns the rights of aliens to constitutional protections the courts have rarely intruded.

This would lead me to believe that the courts are in on some kind of conspiracy to get around our constitution on this issue. (Just like congress!!) Or perhaps Radar could be, well wrong would be a strong word to use, so I'll use the word erring.

Of course this is only one source of info, and it is from the Cornell University Law School. I'm sure they have their own agenda, right? Especially when they post a link to this section of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This question of naturalization and immigration. The definition of naturalizaion is: Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

or as Webster puts it: 1: to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship.

I can't really see any other way to interpret this then this is how people immigrate legally to the United States. They are naturalized, and admitted as citizens of the U.S.

I have to admit, I didn't know much about the libertarian party until now. The more I learn the less I like. This has been a useful discussion for me.

The widely accepted meaning of the word "invasion" pertains to invading armies and does not apply to a flow of peaceful immigrants. I reject any claim that the term invasion can be applied toward peaceful immigrants coming to America to build a better life for themselves and their families as so many other generations of immigrants have done in the past.

We don't need to read the writings of the founders when they discussed this. We don't need to look it up in a law dictionary. Invasion means armed military forces and that's it.

First opening a hotdog stand isn't my "life's ambition" but there's certainly nothing wrong with that or with running for political office. I guess you are more satisfied with your job blowing truckers for speed at rest stops.

Nice Johnny Dangerously reference. ;)

Exactly. An invasion means an invading armies and has never ever been used to describe peaceful immigrants regardless of their number. This includes the Irish, Dutch, German, English, etc.

The Constitution is a contract and the foundation of our government. It strictly limits the powers of the federal government to keep the majority of power with the states or the people.

When the founders said "invasion" they were using the commonly accepted term meaning invading armies and did not use it to describe a flow of peaceful immigrants. This part of the Constitution does not grant any power whatsoever to the federal government over immigration.

Nor does the necessary & proper clause, nor does the migration and importation of slaves, and nor does the power to make rules concerning naturalization.

I suggest what ever your narrow mind tells you keep that kind of shit to yourself. I might be old and in MS. But I might just be back to your cock sucking state one day. I hope you run for office again so I can set up a website and post this shit. BY MF!

Around 1920 we started regulating instead of just shooting them.

I'm saying it's been going on a lot longer than 1952.

The courts are very much in a conspiracy. They routinely rule directly against the Constitution when they deem it to be in the interests of government to do so. They are granted no such authority by the Constitution. Judges are hired and paid by the government and when they rule against the expansion of governmental powers, they face losing their jobs.

Ask Cornell University to provide the actual clause of the Constitution that grants power over immigration to the federal government or even to provide the part of the Constitution that allows government to have "implied" powers. I can provide the part that PROHIBITS the government from having implied powers and from doing anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, more than 80% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional.

If you can't see it, you need to clean your glasses. Immigration is the process by which an immigrant becomes a citizen and has nothing to do with how they immigrate here in the first place.

Most people who dislike the Libertarian Party or libertarian philosophy do so because they really don't know much about politics or they believe government should tell us what to do with our money, our body, etc. and otherwise be our nanny. They have no confidence in the ability of regular people to run their own lives in the way that is best for themselves without harming others. That's up to you. I am of the opinion that government isn't here to define our rights or to limit them and that any such laws are illegitimate. You don't have a right to go through life without being offended, but others do have a right to freedom of expression and the freedom to travel anonymously. This is the opposite position of that held by the founders.

How can you be so sure? How can you describe every type of "invasion" that ever happened? Who is the Final Arbiter of the question of what "invasion" could mean?

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Really -- when is the last time you heard someone call a single person crossing a border with peaceful intentions an invader?

Okay, okay, besides the last time you watched Fox News.

Thanks. I've been waiting for that. bb

Someone told me, maybe Mom, never argue with a fool. Other folks might not pick the right one. So good luck with you job of bull shitting the home folks. Join Maggie.

I'll tell you who the final arbiter is....and it's not the Supreme Court. The final arbiter is "We the People" and "We the people" granted specific powers to the federal government and the definition of the word "invasion" used by "We the people" refers to an armed or hostile invasion force....invading armies.

That's what it's always meant and attempts to twist the meaning of the words 218 years later doesn't fly.

One would have to be a fool to argue with someone who has facts, logic, reason, and black and white proof that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws.

I've proven my case. I've proven that the majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional....aka ILLEGAL and that there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" in America.

The only way to disprove me is to show me where the fed is granted authority over immigration in the Constitution.

So far we know it doesn't get any authority over immigration through it's power to repel invasions, to charge a duty or tax on the import of slaves, the power to make rules concerning naturalization, or through the necessary and proper clause.

Right You got the votes?

:tinfoil:

As if the framers could ostensibly know the precise nature of all types of "invasion" 218 years into the future. As if they could even possibly predict that 100% open borders present horrible problems that could harm the general welfare of a nation. As if they wouldn't mention it in the C if they did expect it would happen.

If it is "we the people" you are arguing for rule by "the people" 14 generations ago, which won't hold, or rule by modern day public in Democracy, which I know you don't like. It's not instructive to you that if we implemented the law as you envision it, the people would throw it away and develop a new Constitution.

The C isn't a suicide pact. The law can't work that way. The idea that it does is superstition on your behalf.

And you continue to ignore the sections of the C that you don't like. Who decides the meaning of "invasion"? It's right there in the C, if you care to read it.

Trust me Buster, as a lifelong Californian, not all of us feels the way Radar does about the immigration problem here-not even close. Most of the people I know would like to leave California over this mess, and I will be doing just that when we retire

I can easily believe that.

Like someone's house being invaded by roaches or the "British invasion"? What does the word "arms" mean, as in "the right to bear arms"?

:lol:

that's freakin' great!!

lol !@ kitsune

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and open borders don't amount to suicide. A free flow of immigrants is what made America the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It's higher than the Supreme Court, The President, and Congress. It is the foundation of our government and it is not to be ignored. Whether or not the founders could forsee problems in the future is irrelevant. They made the Constitution so it could be changed, but not ignored.

If you think the Federal government should have Constitutional authority over immigration, you should push for an amendment to the Constitution to allow the fed to do this rather than supporting unconstitutional laws or parts of government to handle what really isn't a problem at all.

Undocumented immigrants don't cost American citizens a single penny. They contribute more to the economy in taxes than they use in social services (which are also unconstitutional). And yes, they do pay taxes.

I don't ignore any part of the Constitution. A free flow of immigrants is not an invasion regardless of how much you say otherwise. America INVITED immigrants from all over the world to come here, and until the Constitution is amended to grant power over immigration to the federal government, all federal immigration laws are unconstitutional and therefore null and void and no immigrants who enter America with or without documentation are "illegal".