There are no illegal immigrants in America

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

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]

It refers to slaves and does not refer to anyone other than slaves.

[Ibby]

Because you say so.

[Radar]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Radar

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]

[Aliantha]

Oh and welcome to the Cellar Learner. I see you've chosen to jump in at the deep end.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

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]

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.

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]

Illegal Aliens are all criminals who should be rounded up and put in Gitmo or deported immediately.

[Radar]

Perhaps you're right, but we have no illegal aliens in America.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

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!