There are no illegal immigrants in America

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

[busterb]

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

Thanks. I've been waiting for that. bb

[busterb]

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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?

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by busterb

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.

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.

[busterb]

Right You got the votes?

[classicman]

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

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.

[binky]

Originally Posted by busterb

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

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

[busterb]

Trust me Buster, as a lifelong Californian, not all of us feels the way Radar does

I can easily believe that.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

...Words mean things. Invasion means invasion.

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"?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What does the word "arms" mean, as in "the right to bear arms"?

[Trilby]

that's freakin' great!!

[classicman]

lol !@ kitsune

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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".