There are no illegal immigrants in America
In another thread that was less appropriate for this discussion I said...
All I'm saying is there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant in the United States of America. The Founders never granted power over immigration to the federal government. All federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. The Fed has absolutely zero Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws.
By the way, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
So if all unconstitutional laws are automatically null and void without the requirement of judicial review (as stated by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison) it means all of the immigrants from everywhere on earth who were invited by us, are not ILLEGAL whether they are using documentation or not.
If you doubt that these immigrants weren't invited, you may want to read these words and see if they sound familiar...
[CENTER]"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"[/CENTER]
To which I got the following response...
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.
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/pubs/constitution/constitution.htm
Specifically they state...
COMMENTARY:
This paragraph refers to the slave trade. Dealers in slaves, as well as some slaveholders, wanted to make sure that Congress could not stop anyone from bringing African slaves into the country before the year 1808. That year, Congress did ban the importation of slaves.
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.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are RESERVED to the states respectively, or to the people.
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
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
it's a big box. we could share. ;)
I see Radar is casting his line again. :hide: I'm just gonna stay back here and watch.
I'm not discussing case law
"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
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, [SIZE=3]and shall protect each of them against invasion[/SIZE]; 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.
The Founders never granted power over immigration to the federal government.
So the states can enforce immigration laws? How would that even work?
You hit on Dobbs, perhaps you prefer Bill O' lielly?
then GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY ASSHOLE!!!
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?
So the states can enforce immigration laws? How would that even work?
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.
You hit on Dobbs, perhaps you prefer Bill O' lielly?
MY?? In the great state of fruits and nuts! No thanks.
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.
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.
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.
If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?
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.
You should be so lucky to live in California.
In case I did, the first thing I'd do is move. I've worked there. No thanks.
My dictionary lists the first definition of invasion as...
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
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.
Nothing in the Constitution about a law dictionary being the arbiter.
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.
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 1924It means deporting Roman Moroni to Sweden, might have been unconstitutional.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
It means deporting Roman Moroni to Sweden, might have been unconstitutional.
Nice Johnny Dangerously reference. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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 guess you are more satisfied with your job blowing truckers for speed at rest stops.
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!
So what you're really trying to tell me is this: since 1952, perhaps longer,...
Around 1920 we started regulating instead of just shooting them.
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?
I'm saying it's been going on a lot longer than 1952.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Trust me Buster, as a lifelong Californian, not all of us feels the way Radar does
I can easily believe that.
...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"?
What does the word "arms" mean, as in "the right to bear arms"?
:lol:
that's freakin' great!!
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".
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
The immigration problem? I don't see a problem at all. Immigrants built America. The undocumented immigrants who came here last night are no different than the Irish, Dutch, German, Italian, Greek, French, etc. immigrants who came before them.
America's greatest strength is our diversity. Those who fear competition for work don't deserve to have any.
The immigration problem? I don't see a problem at all. Immigrants built America. The undocumented immigrants who came here last night are no different than the Irish, Dutch, German, Italian, Greek, French, etc. immigrants who came before them.
America's greatest strength is our diversity. Those who fear competition for work don't deserve to have any.
sure they are Radar do you see billboards in the Irish, Dutch, German etc neighborhoods in their native languages? Do they make the schools teach their kids in their native language because they are too fucking lazy to learn English? No those immigrants were required to learn English to become citizens
Well alrighty then.
Have immigration laws been Constitutionally tested in the courts? What was the result?
edit: Under the Constitution, what rights do non-citizens have?
Aha - right after posting that, I found it:
Article I Section 8:
The Congress shall have power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
What of that, expert?
edit:
here's a page that explains how immigration law has worked through history and it's utterly clear that Congress' efforts to manage immigration were exactly as intended from the beginning.
What? Ya think he's going to click a link that might show him as full of shit?
I have no problem with people coming here to improve their lives, just stop and sign the f@#$%ing guest book along the way!!!
P.S. I'm an exiled Californian myself.
I have no problem with people coming here to improve their lives, just stop and sign the f@#$%ing guest book along the way!!!
Exactly, ok lemme see here,:eek: you're a rapist/murderer molester.... no thanks! :headshake
Or have a communicable disease, shunt to the Doctors for an evaluation and treatment, if there is one.
sure they are Radar do you see billboards in the Irish, Dutch, German etc neighborhoods in their native languages?
Out of all the problems ever addressed in the immigration issue including healthcare, taxes, fraud, population, wages, terrorism, jobs, crime, etc, your biggest problem is...billboards in other languages?
Not really a city person, are ya?
not at all Kitsune, that was just the first obvious difference that popped into my head, and as a matter of fact grew up in San Diego, which now sucks
sure they are Radar do you see billboards in the Irish, Dutch, German etc neighborhoods in their native languages? Do they make the schools teach their kids in their native language because they are too fucking lazy to learn English? No those immigrants were required to learn English to become citizens
Everyone is required to learn English to become a citizen. What's your point? They aren't interested in becoming citizens. They are fine just being immigrants and their children can be citizens. Many of them plan to go back to Mexico when they retire.
Also, it took 2-3 generations for many Germans to start speaking English. The same is true of Italians, Polish, Russians and many others. Those who immigrated here tried to build a better life for their children. Their children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren learned English and became citizens.
What's wrong with having billboards in other languages? Clearly there is a market for people who speak that language. Who are you to tell someone else what language they must put on a billboard?
I'm sure you are aware that English is not the language of America because America has no official language. We've done pretty good without one so far.
Well alrighty then.
Have immigration laws been Constitutionally tested in the courts? What was the result?
edit: Under the Constitution, what rights do non-citizens have?
Under the Constitution non-citizens have the same rights as any other human being. Our rights don't come from the Constitution. The only thing they can't do is vote. They have a right to trial by jury, to travel anonymously, to be secure in their personal effects (privacy), etc.
As far as the courts testing the Constitutionality, that is irrelevant. The courts routinely rule in violation of the Constitution including the Supreme Court.
Aha - right after posting that, I found it:
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
What of that, expert?
edit: here's a page that explains how immigration law has worked through history and it's utterly clear that Congress' efforts to manage immigration were exactly as intended from the beginning.
Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen. It has absolutely nothing to do with how someone becomes an immigrant in the first place. Having power to make rules over naturalization does not grant any power whatsoever over immigration.
Congress is PROHIBITED from making legislating anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and PROHIBITED from having any "implied" powers.
not at all Kitsune, that was just the first obvious difference that popped into my head, and as a matter of fact grew up in San Diego, which now sucks
I went to basic training in San Diego. It was beautiful then, and it still is.
Radar, I agree completely with the spirit of what you're saying. Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect. It has become something to give a nod to like the Magna Carta. We live in UG's magical democracy now, anything goes.
If anything goes and the government doesn't abide by the limits on its powers and works to violate our rights instead of defend them and practices imperialism, it's time to overthrow the government and regardless of what people think, an armed revolution in America still has a great chance of success....if we can get enough of the apathetic, lazy, people with short attention spans to get their asses off the couch to fight.
The problem is decades of government education has made people stupidly believe their rights come from government or from "society" and they think government is all powerful and is above the people rather than being our servant.
Unfortunately people think as long as they have cable tv and microwave meals, they are free. I've been trying to figure out exactly what it would take to get people to actually stand up and take up arms, but the government's actions are out in the open now and people still don't care. It's like alcoholism. You can't help someone fix a problem if they don't even recognize that they have one.
During my years of political activism, I found myself constantly reminded of a quote from the movie, The Matrix. It's when Morpheus is showing Neo what the Matrix really is.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to protect it.
You can't help someone fix a problem if they don't even recognize that they have one.
Did you ever think that what we are right now is exactly what the majority wants us to be? That if it all came down to a vote, this is exactly where we'd end up all over again because people enjoy living this way?
O.K. lets see. The Government today has not told me what to do with my money, my time, my travel destination, where I live, who I talk and associate with. I've traveled between 3 states over the xmas holidays and was not stopped, anywhere for anything. Even though it's illegal, I could probably by crack or a gun on the corner downtown somewhere. The reason I can do this illegal activity is because of our great freedoms here.
I for one have not been restricted in any way in the freedoms that I have been so graciously afforded in these great United States. There was that time I was arrested in Macedonia...but then I was IN MACEDONIA.
I for one do not like this talk of armed overthrow of the United States. Especially from a citizen who enjoys the freedoms here. I will not sit idly by and listen to such drivel.
You just made an open threat to overthrow the U.S. I get paid to take such statements seriously. You will probably say, if you were investigated that your rights were being violated. What utter nonsense. Right now, if you pick up arms against the U.S., you pick up arms against me. Be warned, and do not make such statements lightly.
Did you ever think that what we are right now is exactly what the majority wants us to be? That if it all came down to a vote, this is exactly where we'd end up all over again because people enjoy living this way?
Did you ever think that we shouldn't have what the majority wants? I happen to think my rights are more important than what the majority wants. I also don't think people enjoy living this way. If you ask people if they like paying income taxes, or having their children and grandchildren born into debt, having their rights attacked, etc. my guess is they'd say no.
O.K. lets see. The Government today has not told me what to do with my money, my time, my travel destination, where I live, who I talk and associate with. I've traveled between 3 states over the xmas holidays and was not stopped, anywhere for anything. Even though it's illegal, I could probably by crack or a gun on the corner downtown somewhere. The reason I can do this illegal activity is because of our great freedoms here.
I for one have not been restricted in any way in the freedoms that I have been so graciously afforded in these great United States. There was that time I was arrested in Macedonia...but then I was IN MACEDONIA.
I for one do not like this talk of armed overthrow of the United States. Especially from a citizen who enjoys the freedoms here. I will not sit idly by and listen to such drivel.
You just made an open threat to overthrow the U.S. I get paid to take such statements seriously. You will probably say, if you were investigated that your rights were being violated. What utter nonsense. Right now, if you pick up arms against the U.S., you pick up arms against me. Be warned, and do not make such statements lightly.
Be warned, if an armed revolution takes place to return America to the people of America and you stand in my way, I will gun you down and you will die like a dog. You would be smart not to take that lightly either.
If you ask people if they like paying income taxes, or having their children and grandchildren born into debt, having their rights attacked, etc. my guess is they'd say no.
Food, water, shelter, fuel. Those will be what start an armed revolution, not the desire to perfect the current government. Direct threats to lives have the ability to trigger the fight response in people and you're simply not going to see that in this age of comfort and fortune in the US. No one is going to feel the need to rebel when they're mind knows they're warm, fat, and happy. Only the desperate fight. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to pick up a gun over this. Do it and you'll be lauded as a nutcase.
Tell you what -- go ahead and take up arms and tell others you're doing it in the name of handing over immigration law to the states in support of the people flooding over the border. I'm sure there will be waves of support right behind you.
Yelling, Viva Senior Radar.
The problem is decades of government education has made people stupidly believe their rights come from government or from "society" and they think government is all powerful and is above the people rather than being our servant.
Our differences in our philosophy of rights have very little to do with revolution, but more in tolerance of different laws. If there is a law that the people feel is unnecessary, people will not be happy no matter were they think rights come from. Also, the government teaches your version of rights, not mine.
Seriously Radar, government employees have no problem killing for a steady paycheck. People are really good at rationalizing their actions. When you put that up against a set of ideas that people won't even vote for, you're going to lose. Just sit back and wait for the system to collapse under the weight of irrelevence. Our system of government will disappear as a side note, not as a major event. Centralization is failing. While you wait, live a good, joyous, productive life so that you won't regret the failure of the revolution on your death bed. Proven idiots like Che wasted their and others' lives for revolutions they couldn't control. Don't follow that model.
Unnecessary laws we have plenty of. What pisses people off is laws that are not for (against?) everyone, or selectively applied. Most people will grumble and bear it if everyone's in the same boat, then work within the system to bitch.
Food, water, shelter, fuel. Those will be what start an armed revolution, not the desire to perfect the current government. Direct threats to lives have the ability to trigger the fight response in people and you're simply not going to see that in this age of comfort and fortune in the US. No one is going to feel the need to rebel when they're mind knows they're warm, fat, and happy. Only the desperate fight. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to pick up a gun over this. Do it and you'll be lauded as a nutcase.
Tell you what -- go ahead and take up arms and tell others you're doing it in the name of handing over immigration law to the states in support of the people flooding over the border. I'm sure there will be waves of support right behind you.
So having ourselves spied on, losing habeus corpus, being locked up without charges indefinately by the government for merely being accused of something, having our property stolen from us by the government, having families broken up by government, and having Americans murdered by our government isn't enough to get people to take up arms?
All of these things are already happening.
I guess the only way to get people off the couch is to take away their couch.
The west coast always had the best dope!
I forgot to pay a traffic ticket and they sent me a letter saying they were gonna arrest me!
But I went to the township building and paid the fine and they said it was cool.
no revolution this month
So having ourselves spied on, losing habeus corpus, being locked up without charges indefinately by the government for merely being accused of something, having our property stolen from us by the government, having families broken up by government, and having Americans murdered by our government isn't enough to get people to take up arms?
Take a look outside and see for yourself.
The basic needs of people have to be affected before they'll do anything. None of the above affects these things, therefore no action.
It really doesn't matter as long as people feel free or have other self-obligations that rate higher than freedom.
Besides, your definition of freedom is going to be different from someone else's.
I'm pretty sure getting locked up indefinitely without access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime goes against most people's definition of "freedom". So is being spied on by our own government. Having our property stolen by the government. Being murdered by our government, etc.
But hey, they only murdered my neighbor, not me...so I'm still free right?
The thing you have to remember is that in ideal Radar-land, there are no income taxes and no social services--no public education, hospitals are free to deny even emergency care to anyone who can't pay... if you completely took away all things of that nature, most of the complaints about illegal immigrants would also disappear.
But then we'd be living in ideal Radar-land, rather than reality.
I went to basic training in San Diego. It was beautiful then, and it still is.
Okay Radar you win basic training certainly trumps 30 years of living, school then working in a city
The thing you have to remember is that in ideal Radar-land, there are no income taxes and no social services--no public education, hospitals are free to deny even emergency care to anyone who can't pay... if you completely took away all things of that nature, most of the complaints about illegal immigrants would also disappear.
But then we'd be living in ideal Radar-land, rather than reality.
There's a place that was exactly as you described. It was the most free and prosperous nation on earth. It wasn't called "Radar-land", it was the United States of America. Back then we had better schools, a healthcare system nearly everyone could afford where doctors would come to your home, the poor and elderly had MORE help than they do now, and it was provided by those who genuinely cared about them, etc.
Okay Radar you win basic training certainly trumps 30 years of living, school then working in a city
I go there often. I live less than 2 hours away and go to the outlet stores down there, and to Mexico or San Diego a lot. It's BEAUTIFUL down there RIGHT NOW. The standard of living there is FANTASTIC.
There's a place that was exactly as you described. It was the most free and prosperous nation on earth. It wasn't called "Radar-land", it was the United States of America. Back then we had better schools, a healthcare system nearly everyone could afford where doctors would come to your home, the poor and elderly had MORE help than they do now, and it was provided by those who genuinely cared about them, etc.
...and people ran around shooting all the indigenous people and stealing their land. Black people were slaves. Women weren't allowed to vote...etc etc etc...
Were they doing those things in 1920? 1930? 1940? 1950? 1960? 1970?
Most of the unconstitutional social programs, the department of education, etc. have been created since those times. In fact other than women's suffrage, you could go back to 1865 so you're looking at 100 years where nobody was a slave, where we had a government that pretty closely stuck to the Constitution (other than 1913), where we had unprecedented prosperity, made friendships with all nations, etc.
I love how people stupidly dismiss all of the great things America had back then because of 1 or 2 bad things that had more to do with the culture of the time globally than had to do with something wrong with America.
These are the same idiots who say, "The founders were rich white slave owners who didn't want women to vote...blah blah blah" as though that discounts any of the true freedom they fought for.
The point is that this utopia you're talking about was just as far from perfect as the utopia others think they live in now.
If that's your point, you have no point. Nobody said the world is perfect. I never said we lived in utopia. I don't believe utopia is possible. At one time, our government stayed out of our personal lives and it was a more secure, happier, and better time than it is now.
The valid role and scope of government does not include providing health care, education, charity, food, shelter, clothing, retirement, etc. for people.
Well you'd better get working on that time machine and blast yourself back there.
If you could make it snappy that'd be pleasant for the rest of us.
Radar, do you think there might be a reason why we have changed from the ways of the past?
Looking at modern hunter-gatherer populations, we have found that the murder rate is much lower than in modern society. Since we all used to be hunter-gatherers and since then we have adopted a police force that is seen as corrupt, it only makes sense that we get rid of the police force and see the murder rate decrease.
Or, there might be other variables that are leading to the problem, not the solution to those variables...
Well you'd better get working on that time machine and blast yourself back there.
If you could make it snappy that'd be pleasant for the rest of us.
Or better yet, I can help take the country back now, and get rid of all the unconstitutional parts of government....either peacefully....or by other means.
Or better yet, I can help take the country back now, and get rid of all the unconstitutional parts of government....either peacefully....or by other means.
I can't wait for this movie to come out in theaters. Bruckheimer is doing this one, right?
Assuming that many innocent people will die in your revolution, how are you squaring that with the whole initiation of force issue?
"If they're not fighting alongside me, then they are by definition not innocent." - Magic 8-ball, future-quoting Radar
I suppose the really awesome thing is that Radar is not in jail, indefinitely right now, for supposing such a thing as armed overthrow of the government. Freedom of speech is a pretty cool thing.
Everyone who works for the government is not a bad guy. Most of the bad guys in government are elected. Makes me think. Doesn't mean we should shut down democracy.
The police are not the bad guys. Yea, some of em are card carrying human beings subject to the same whims and selfish actions as anyone else on earth. Doesn't mean we should shut down the police.
Selfless service is hard to find. The people immersed in selfless service aren't advertising. They are being selfless. for that reason, we see more of the bad then we do the good. Doesn't mean it's time to throw the baby out with the bath water.
In defense of the people we don't know who are toiling away doing their damnedest to protect and defend our society. Shortly after 9/11 there was a collective gasp, as many people in our nation asked "How did we allow this to happen?". "Who's responsible, who wasn't on watch???". Now, the same people are trying to get in the way of our defense. Sheesh, you can't have it both ways.
If you don't like something about the laws, and government in the U.S. then get involved in the democracy we have and work to get it changed. If the you fail in your attempt, then live with it. It's a democracy. Not getting your way here, and taking up arms over the issue makes you just another petty dictator who wants his way. Waaaaaa! Now give me my cake!! Childish, immature, and selfish, unable to look beyond yourself...only wanting what seems to be the easy way out. Unable to accept the reality of the community in which you live.
They held Jose Padilla, so let's go bomb the Department of Energy! Those fuckers are stealing all my cellophane wrappers!
The country has gone to total shit since 1950! Well except that it hasn't, in any memorable way. When you step back and take a look, you may notice that things are really going quite well. Half our money is taxed away? I guess that's a sort of glass-half-empty thing, because the other side of that is we're so massively fucking rich that we don't even give a shit.
Gummint stayed out of personal lives back then? This is a libertarian meme which, I think, is a big lie, or at least a misunderstanding of how things are/were. If you care to skip the civil war we can start with the Jim Crow laws which mandated "separate but equal", which started immediately following. Those laws were a part of this wonderfully libertarian model you enjoy so well. Did you just not learn about them in public school or something?
Did you notice that it was federalism that ended those laws? Anti-freedom federalism?
Did you think it was better when 50% of us were poor farm families? Did you not notice that the period you say things got bad coincides neatly with the industrial revolution? Did you not notice that our ability to stay out of war with other countries - except for Mexico - and Spain via Cuba - ended with the invention of the airplane, which allows people to reach us in shorter than two weeks' time?
Jose Padilla held without charges, hell they fried Sacco and Vanzetti during this freedom-lovin' period. The libertarians of their era, they put 'em in the electric chair. Good times!
Assuming that many innocent people will die in your revolution, how are you squaring that with the whole initiation of force issue?
It's not the initiation of force. It's the use of defensive force against those who are initiating force against me. Those who are working with or defending those who are using force against me are also using force against me.
In other words, they started it, and I'll finish it and anyone who gets in my way isn't innocent.
"If they're not fighting alongside me, then they are by definition not innocent." - Magic 8-ball, future-quoting Radar
Very close, but not quite. If they don't stand in my way, and allow me to take the country back, they aren't my enemy. If they do, they aren't innocent.
I suppose the really awesome thing is that Radar is not in jail, indefinitely right now, for supposing such a thing as armed overthrow of the government. Freedom of speech is a pretty cool thing.
Everyone who works for the government is not a bad guy. Most of the bad guys in government are elected. Makes me think. Doesn't mean we should shut down democracy.
The police are not the bad guys. Yea, some of em are card carrying human beings subject to the same whims and selfish actions as anyone else on earth. Doesn't mean we should shut down the police.
Selfless service is hard to find. The people immersed in selfless service aren't advertising. They are being selfless. for that reason, we see more of the bad then we do the good. Doesn't mean it's time to throw the baby out with the bath water.
In defense of the people we don't know who are toiling away doing their damnedest to protect and defend our society. Shortly after 9/11 there was a collective gasp, as many people in our nation asked "How did we allow this to happen?". "Who's responsible, who wasn't on watch???". Now, the same people are trying to get in the way of our defense. Sheesh, you can't have it both ways.
If you don't like something about the laws, and government in the U.S. then get involved in the democracy we have and work to get it changed. If the you fail in your attempt, then live with it. It's a democracy. Not getting your way here, and taking up arms over the issue makes you just another petty dictator who wants his way. Waaaaaa! Now give me my cake!! Childish, immature, and selfish, unable to look beyond yourself...only wanting what seems to be the easy way out. Unable to accept the reality of the community in which you live.
I say it's childish and naive to assume you can make change from within the corrupt machine. It's designed not to change. And those in power work to keep anyone else from ever getting power. America is not a democracy. It never was. For awhile people pretended it was, but it's not; especially with the voting machines being controlled by special interests.
It is my right and my duty to take up arms against any government that violates my rights. You may want to read the Declaration of Independence.
My right to say what I want doesn't come from government so saying I intend to take part in an armed revolution to take the government back online does not prove that I am free. It proves they haven't violated this particular right as of this minute, but they may as they have with so many others.
I'm not against immigration at all. I'm againt immigrants coming in and expecting to be put on welfare systems and get all of the same privaliges as those of us that have been putting into the system or who were born here naturally. Plus....we don't follow the constitution anymore anyways so why is everyone getting so pissed off? We have no true freedom of speech or expression and elected officials pretty much follow their own agendas and get their kick backs so why is everyone worried?we have no true control over anything except our own choices. I'm ready for the revoultion! how bout yall?
Get over it guys, they are illegal and we need to stop the bleeding at the borders and prevent them from coming here illegally. Then they need to be documented and regulated. Period. Regardless of what Radar wants you to believe, this issue is not one of whether or not he believes if they are illegal. That is a dead end arguement.
America is not a democracy. It never was.
You are right. It is a Republic. Thank God it is not a Democracy.
Get over it guys, they are illegal and we need to stop the bleeding at the borders and prevent them from coming here illegally. Then they need to be documented and regulated. Period. Regardless of what Radar wants you to believe, this issue is not one of whether or not he believes if they are illegal. That is a dead end arguement.
The fact remains that they are not violating the law so they are
LEGAL. The indisputable truth is that the federal government has no legitimate authority to create or enforce immigration laws and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
There is no question as to the legality of these immigrants because there are no illegal immigrants in America and there won't be unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to grant the federal government authority over immigration.
Any time anyone uses the term "illegal" to describe undocumented immigrants, they are lying. They most likely have an ax to grind in the form of racism or xenophobia.
Radar, please rate the following situations in order of desirability:
1.) Unrestricted immigration, and no social services
2.) Unrestricted immigration, and expensive/universal social policies that only established citizens have to pay for
3.) Restricted immigration, and expensive/universal social policies that only established citizens have to pay for
Obviously you would strongly prefer option 1. But can you admit that option 3 is still better than option 2?
NO CUZ THE GUBMENT GIVN ME STUF TAKS AWAY MY RITES
Radar, please rate the following situations in order of desirability:
1.) Unrestricted immigration, and no social services
2.) Unrestricted immigration, and expensive/universal social policies that only established citizens have to pay for
3.) Restricted immigration, and expensive/universal social policies that only established citizens have to pay for
Obviously you would strongly prefer option 1. But can you admit that option 3 is still better than option 2?
Option 2 and 3 are the same to me. I don't support social programs for citizens anymore than I support them for non-citizens. And for the record, undocumented immigrants contribute more to the economy than they use in services, and not just more....BILLIONS more. They are a net gain to the economy and tax base and therefore don't cost American citizens a single penny.
Option 2 and 3 are the same to me.
Then why would you be fighting to switch from one to the other? Fight about the social programs first, if that's what you want, then immigration will magically take care of itself.
And for the record, undocumented immigrants contribute more to the economy than they use in services, and not just more....BILLIONS more. They are a net gain to the economy and tax base and therefore don't cost American citizens a single penny.
Yes, we've had that discussion many times. It's one of the ones where I can provide lots of references, and you provide none. I'm not bothering again. Let's stick with the hypothetical/philosophical argument for once, shall we?
Option 2 and 3 are the same to me. I don't support social programs for citizens anymore than I support them for non-citizens. And for the record, undocumented immigrants contribute more to the economy than they use in services, and not just more....BILLIONS more. They are a net gain to the economy and tax base and therefore don't cost American citizens a single penny.
Arent you the one that halfway proved that the 'undocumented immigrants' dont pay taxes, because
you dont pay taxes (or at least know how to very easily dodge them) cause you dont believe that taxes are legal?
Then why would you be fighting to switch from one to the other? Fight about the social programs first, if that's what you want, then immigration will magically take care of itself.
I say the quickest way to get rid of the social programs is to make everyone scared the immigrants are out to get 'em. Open the floodgates, and if people start to feel the pinch, they'll end the programs.
Yes, we've had that discussion many times. It's one of the ones where I can provide lots of references, and you provide none. I'm not bothering again. Let's stick with the hypothetical/philosophical argument for once, shall we?
I don't recall that you and I have had any conversations. I've presented proof many times over in threads.
Here's a link to one of the many articles I've linked to in the past...
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/19/how_immigrants_contribute.phpArent you the one that halfway proved that the 'undocumented immigrants' dont pay taxes, because you dont pay taxes (or at least know how to very easily dodge them) cause you dont believe that taxes are legal?
No, I'm the one who showed that undocumented immigrants pay plenty of taxes even if they don't pay income taxes. Though the ones who borrow a social security number get regular jobs and income taxes are taken out of that paycheck including social security which they NEVER collect from.
OK, I'm just a little bit troubled by anyone saying taxing isn't fair in a society.
How can the government build roads and basic infrastructure etc if the community doesn't contribute?
And for the record, undocumented immigrants contribute more to the economy than they use in services, and not just more....BILLIONS more. They are a net gain to the economy and tax base and therefore don't cost American citizens a single penny.
Prove it with objective facts.
No, I'm the one who showed that undocumented immigrants pay plenty of taxes even if they don't pay income taxes. Though the ones who borrow a social security number get regular jobs and income taxes are taken out of that paycheck including social security which they NEVER collect from.
Most do not "borrow a social security number". Most work under the table for cash.
If the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost comes to $10.4 billion a year. Whether one considers this to be a large sum or not is, of course, a matter of perspective. But, this figure is unambiguously negative and certainly not trivial. It is also worth remembering that these figures are only for the federal government and do not include any costs at the state or local level, where the impact is likely to be significant.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.htmlThe fact remains that they are not violating the law so they are LEGAL. The indisputable truth is that the federal government has no legitimate authority to create or enforce immigration laws and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
There is no question as to the legality of these immigrants because there are no illegal immigrants in America and there won't be unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to grant the federal government authority over immigration.
Any time anyone uses the term "illegal" to describe undocumented immigrants, they are lying. They most likely have an ax to grind in the form of racism or xenophobia.
What you state is
opinion, not fact. I can tell you that the
fact is that the arrest and detention powers of the illegal aliens entering the US illegally are real and legitimate. There is no whole scale release of these illegal immigrants based on legal appeal by contesting law you interpret it. If there is please provide objective facts which document these events.
Attempting to attack an argument based on accusations of "racism or xenophobia" is a straw man approach.
At least our state is trying to reign in these
illegal immigrants, starting 1 Jan, 2008:
In addition, the GSICA forbids the state from contracting with employers who do not verify the immigration status of new employees. Section 2 of the GSICA requires an employer to verify the immigration status of new employees through a federal work authorization program that is operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security. The verification requirements will apply to contractors and subcontractors with 500 or more employees on July 1, 2007, to contractors or subcontractors with 100 or more workers on July 1, 2008; and, after July 1, 2009, all government contractors and subcontractors will be subject to the new laws. While Section 2 does not contain any provisions related to enforcement, it does require the Commissioner of Labor to promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to enforce the law and to publish them on the Georgia Department of Labor's Web site.
While the GSICA will certainly affect Georgia businesses, one must also be cognizant of existing federal laws, which also address the hiring of illegal immigrants. For example, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. ? 1324a, one who knowingly hires illegal immigrants may be subject to civil penalties ranging from $200 to $10,000 and criminal penalties that could include imprisonment.
Although the GSICA has been described by some as a "tough immigration law," the overall purpose behind the GSICA is to strike a balance between welcoming individuals that seek to legally live and work in Georgia, while protecting the rights of United States citizens. Either way, it is important for Georgia employers that have become increasingly dependant on immigrant or migrant labor to determine how the new laws will affect their businesses.
http://www.wikigwinnett.com/content.cfm?Action=wiki&WikiID=3686&CFID=2993141&CFTOKEN=48059084http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=420155&postcount=16
Heh, yea, sure this guy and his
illegal mates have contributed enough to make up for the loss.
Number of Illegal Aliens in the Country: 21,013,427.
Money Wired to Mexico City since January 2006: $34,648,085,563.
Cost of Social Security Services for Illegal Aliens since 1996: $397,465,864,322.
Number of Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools: 4.071,971.
Cost of Illegal Aliens Incarcerated since 2001: $1,437,741,781.
Number of Illegal Aliens Incarcerated: 341,854.
Number of Illegal Alien Fugitives: 653,088.
Skilled Jobs Taken by Illegal Aliens: 10,052,905.
Anchor babies since 2002: 2,045,584.
Figures can trick your eyes. Take particular note that some of the figures reflect BILLIONS not millions of dollars – and that the third item exceeds one-third of a TRILLION dollars. Can you imagine how much it will cost taxpayers if we triple the number of illegals entering this country?
http://immigrationcounters.com/datasource.htmlfrom immigrationcounters.com
As a result of illegal immigration some government agencies have benefited from growth in their programs to meet the expanding demands of their services. Some businesses are temporarily benefiting from illegal hiring. However, because of the increased costs of social services, law enforcement, lost revenue due to displaced legal hires, lost revenue from tax fraud and remittances, no sound research supports a net financial gain to the country. There are no free social services, those costs are shifted over into higher taxes and insurance premiums. Non-profit services provided to illegal immigrants shifts resources that could be used for legal immigrants and citizens. The majority of research finds that illegal immigration is bad for America and often the illegal immigrants themselves. The intent of the immigration laws and that of the nation's founders are being violated on a scale few could have imagined. It may be presumptuous for the government to assume it can implement a new and expanded amnesty guest worker program when its been unable or unwilling to manage the existing immigration laws.
My bold for emphasis.
OK, I'm just a little bit troubled by anyone saying taxing isn't fair in a society.
How can the government build roads and basic infrastructure etc if the community doesn't contribute?
Before 1913, we had no income taxes. We had roads, schools, hospitals, post offices, etc.
In fact 100% of the Constitutional parts of our government could be paid for using only the tariffs and excise taxes already collected without raising them even a penny.
What you state is opinion, not fact. I can tell you that the fact is that the arrest and detention powers of the illegal aliens entering the US illegally are real and legitimate. There is no whole scale release of these illegal immigrants based on legal appeal by contesting law you interpret it. If there is please provide objective facts which document these events.
Attempting to attack an argument based on accusations of "racism or xenophobia" is a straw man approach.
I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a
FACT when I say the U.S. Government has absolutely zero legitimate or Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws. The U.S. Constitution PROHIBITS the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws. I've proven this many times over.
This is black and white. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. I don't "interpret" the Constitution because it doesn't require interpretation. It's written in simple English and it means what it says and it says the Federal government has absolutely zero authority over immigration and has no implied powers because everything not enumerated in the Constitution is RESERVED as a power of the states or a right of the people.
Since there are no legitimate federal immigration laws, those who lie and claim immigrants are costing us money, that they are coming here for handouts, that they are closing hospitals, that they are here illegally, they are more likely to commit crimes than people born here, they are less intelligent than those born here, etc. have some other ax to grind.
They aren't here illegally, yet these people want to force them out. So if it's not a legal issue, it's a personal issue. And saying that it's either racism or xenophobia is truthful, not a straw man.
I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a FACT when I say the U.S. Government has absolutely zero legitimate or Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws. The U.S. Constitution PROHIBITS the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws. I've proven this many times over.
This is black and white. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. I don't "interpret" the Constitution because it doesn't require interpretation. It's written in simple English and it means what it says and it says the Federal government has absolutely zero authority over immigration and has no implied powers because everything not enumerated in the Constitution is RESERVED as a power of the states or a right of the people.
Since there are no legitimate federal immigration laws, those who lie and claim immigrants are costing us money, that they are coming here for handouts, that they are closing hospitals, that they are here illegally, they are more likely to commit crimes than people born here, they are less intelligent than those born here, etc. have some other ax to grind.
They aren't here illegally, yet these people want to force them out. So if it's not a legal issue, it's a personal issue. And saying that it's either racism or xenophobia is truthful, not a straw man.
You are twisting the facts to meet your own needs to define law. You continue down this straw man approach by calling people xenophobes or racists and that is a failed path to make your case. You have not provided any primary resources to support your argument, you just want us to accept what you say on face value, and no one will do that on this subject. I have no idea how you think you can cherry pick legal issues at a federal government level and win an argument, because you can't and nothing you have stated to this date on this issue would be held up in court. There are Federal Statutes which make it illegal to enter our country in an unlawful manner.
"Congress enacted the McCarran-Walter
Bill of 1952, which combined existing immigration laws scattered throughout the federal statutes and recodified them into the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), located in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The INA contains both civil and criminal laws that are applied to immigration issues. Traditionally,
the federal government has reserved civil enforcement power, such as verifying citizenship and deporting undocumented aliens, for itself, while allowing state and local governments some power over the criminal enforcement that supports illegal immigration control. While state police may investigate criminal activities such as a false identification or alien smuggling rings, federal
immigration officials will handle civil issues involving citizenship and deportation,
and do so without any input or assistance
from the state. However, this traditional
separation of sovereign powers is slowly eroding as states are granted, and in some cases are taking, more of a role in dealing
with illegal immigration."
http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/wb/07wb6.pdf
All of the people of whom you speak are
ILLEGAL ALIENS and in this country unlawfully. Get it, breaking federal statute. Means they can go to jail and be deported after a hearing in front of a Federal Magistrate.
Before 1913, we had no income taxes. We had roads, schools, hospitals, post offices, etc.
In fact 100% of the Constitutional parts of our government could be paid for using only the tariffs and excise taxes already collected without raising them even a penny.
Before 1913, most people didn't have cars and roads were not maintained as they are now. Hospitals and schools etc were funded (largely) by private entities or churches.
Unless your country is living in surplus (and we all know it's not) on a continual basis, I don't think your government can afford not to tax people, and even if it were, it'd have to be a huge surplus.
Before 1913, we had no income taxes. We had roads, schools, hospitals, post offices, etc.
In fact 100% of the Constitutional parts of our government could be paid for using only the tariffs and excise taxes already collected without raising them even a penny.
I would venture to say that things have changed a little bit since 1913.
"Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, illegal immigration is a federal crime.
The code states: "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."
That illegal immigration is a crime has been the law since 1929. That folks buy into the fact that the first offense usually gets a "civil penalty" in the form of a fine leads them to believe that a misdemeanor is akin to a traffic citation. In reality, it is still a federal crime, but the penalty does not generally involve imprisonment. Subsequent offenses are supposed to be treated as federal felonies and do garner imprisonment."You are a liar. I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts. I'm not "twisting" or "cherry picking" facts. I'm stating them clearly and in no uncertain terms.
The U.S. Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority over immigration and all federal immigration laws are unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore null and void.
That's a fact. It's not twisted. It's not wrong.
I've provided proof from the Constitution itself which PROHIBITS the federal government from having "implied powers" or from legislating anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Any immigration laws created by Congress are irrelevant, including U.S. Code. Quote them all you like because they are unconstitutional. The Constitution is above all other laws in America, above the Congress, above the President, and above the Supreme Court.
Once again, these are not opinions, they are FACTS and they are stated clearly without "twisting" or "cherry picking" them.
None of the undocumented immigrants in America is violating any Constitutionally valid laws, and none of them are "illegal". Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and an idiot....period.
You can lie about these people being "illegal" all you like. You can lie about the federal government having any authority over immigration. You can lie about most of the anti-immigrant crowd not being racist or xenophobic, but that's all they are...lies.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The INDISPUTABLE FACT is the federal government has absolutely zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws and every single federal immigration law ever created is unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore null and void the moment it was created without the requirement of judicial review. End of story.
Anyone who supports any federal immigration laws is anti-American, and is spitting in the faces of our founders and supports violating the Constitution. If they are a veteran like myself, they are also a traitor to America and a scumbag.
So after you overthrow the government and let all the immigrants in, are you going to share your backyard with them Radar?
Before 1913, most people didn't have cars and roads were not maintained as they are now. Hospitals and schools etc were funded (largely) by private entities or churches.
Unless your country is living in surplus (and we all know it's not) on a continual basis, I don't think your government can afford not to tax people, and even if it were, it'd have to be a huge surplus.
It doesn't matter what the conditions of the roads were in 1913, because our current excise taxes and tariffs collected can pay for the roads as they currently are. Also, hospitals and schools SHOULD be funded entirely by private funds.
Government should never have a "surplus". In should never have a single dime that it doesn't require to carry out only what is listed in the Constitution and NOTHING ELSE.
America's military should be 25% of its current size and each and every single U.S. military base outside of our own borders should be closed immediately and permanently. All government organizations or programs not enumerated in the Constitution should be eliminated including welfare, Medicare, Social Security, public education, business and farm subsidies, foreign aid, BATF, IRS, CIA, DEA, FBI, NSA, FCC, FDA, BLM, Homeland Security, ICE, etc.
Then our federal government would be doing what it should...staying out of our business and defending America. We'd have a legislature, a judicial system, a president, roads, a strong defensive military, etc.
We'd be more free, those in need would get more help than they do now, we'd have better schools, a better healthcare system, etc.
You are a liar. I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts. I'm not "twisting" or "cherry picking" facts. I'm stating them clearly and in no uncertain terms.
The U.S. Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority over immigration and all federal immigration laws are unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore null and void.
That's a fact. It's not twisted. It's not wrong.
I've provided proof from the Constitution itself which PROHIBITS the federal government from having "implied powers" or from legislating anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Any immigration laws created by Congress are irrelevant, including U.S. Code. Quote them all you like because they are unconstitutional. The Constitution is above all other laws in America, above the Congress, above the President, and above the Supreme Court.
Once again, these are not opinions, they are FACTS and they are stated clearly without "twisting" or "cherry picking" them.
None of the undocumented immigrants in America is violating any Constitutionally valid laws, and none of them are "illegal". Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and an idiot....period.
You can lie about these people being "illegal" all you like. You can lie about the federal government having any authority over immigration. You can lie about most of the anti-immigrant crowd not being racist or xenophobic, but that's all they are...lies.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The INDISPUTABLE FACT is the federal government has absolutely zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws and every single federal immigration law ever created is unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore null and void the moment it was created without the requirement of judicial review. End of story.
Anyone who supports any federal immigration laws is anti-American, and is spitting in the faces of our founders and supports violating the Constitution. If they are a veteran like myself, they are also a traitor to America and a scumbag.
All of those people are
completely and utterly illegal and should be thrown out on their ears, ok well not all of the illegals, but many of them. To think that the federal government cannot inact laws that deal with immigration shows the fantasy world you live in. I fully support the federal government in their efforts to round up and detain people who have broken our laws. There is nothing you can do about the federal government and their efforts, which is why you probably like to come here and exclaim your fantasy about how
you believe the government can work within the framework of the Constitution. To bad you cannot support your notions and there is no way you could make such a legal case in a Federal Court. Have fun living your fantasy...:D
You sound like a child holding his breath crying and jumping up and down calling me a liar.... really pretty funny. :D
So after you overthrow the government and let all the immigrants in, are you going to share your backyard with them Radar?
Only if they want to rent it. Did people have to share their backyards with the Irish, the Dutch, the Italians, the Germans, the English, the Greeks, the Russians, the Polish, etc.?
All of these people came in greater numbers than the Hispanic immigrants from a percentage of our total population standpoint, and they turned out to be a net positive for America just as the undocumented Mexican immigrants are. They worked to build a better life for themselves, and their loved ones, and sent money to their own country when they could. There's certainly no problem with that.
All of those people are completely and utterly illegal and should be thrown out on their ears, ok well not all of the illegals, but many of them. To think that the federal government cannot inact laws that deal with immigration shows the fantasy world you live in. I fully support the federal government in their efforts to round up and detain people who have broken our laws. There is nothing you can do about the federal government and their efforts, which is why you probably like to come here and exclaim your fantasy about how you believe the government can work within the framework of the Constitution. To bad you cannot support your notions and there is no way you could make such a legal case in a Federal Court. Have fun living your fantasy...:D
You prove nothing but your own stupidity, your disdain of the Constitution, and the fact that you are less deserving to be in America than the worst one of them. You claim there's nothing I can do, but my friends Smith & Wesson, and myself say otherwise. Don't be so stupid as to think I can't or won't take up arms in the defense of these people who are
LEGALLY entering the United States without documentation or checking in with Uncle Sam. No pull your head out of your ass you fucking idiot.
You don't like the facts, so you try to ignore them. You think because your personal opinion is that the government should have certain powers, it does regardless of the Constitution. Unlike you, I served in the military and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and I still take that oath seriously. You spit in the faces of our founders and if I were in the same room with you, I'd spit in your face and you'd do nothing about it other than cry like a little bitch.
Also, I didn't merely call you a liar, I proved it. Anyone who says these people are here illegally is a lying asshole, and unworthy to call themselves American. They should be deported to make room for the undocumented and
LEGAL Mexican immigrants who truly understand the American dream.
:bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:
:corn:
:biglaugha:
And you don't think the fact that most of the desirable areas to live already have ownership claims on them will cause conflict?
Remember, when the huge influx of immigrants arrived, much of the land was available, if not for free, then certainly at bargain basement prices.
Who do you think is going to practically give away their nice piece of land to a huge influx of new immigrants?
Don't you think these issues might contribute to the need for immigration laws?
Regardless of whether you want it to be true or not, all countries only have so much room to support a certain number of people. Once you go over that you risk civil war at the least.
This argument you have, whether it's correct or not, doesn't matter. The current state of the world does not allow for it unless you want to completely destroy your country.
You prove nothing but your own stupidity, your disdain of the Constitution, and the fact that you are less deserving to be in America than the worst one of them. You claim there's nothing I can do, but my friends Smith & Wesson, and myself say otherwise. Don't be so stupid as to think I can't or won't take up arms in the defense of these people who are LEGALLY entering the United States without documentation or checking in with Uncle Sam. No pull your head out of your ass you fucking idiot.
You don't like the facts, so you try to ignore them. You think because your personal opinion is that the government should have certain powers, it does regardless of the Constitution. Unlike you, I served in the military and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and I still take that oath seriously. You spit in the faces of our founders and if I were in the same room with you, I'd spit in your face and you'd do nothing about it other than cry like a little bitch.
You lose again. Your argument fails so you fall to personal attacks and threats. Another sure sign that your argument has no merit and you have no cogent argument to make. You are a pretty funny guy. :crazy:
Unlike you, I served in the military and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and I still take that oath seriously.
I served 20+ years and retired, how many did you serve? You again make ass-u-mptions about things you know little about.
They should be deported to make room for the undocumented and LEGAL Mexican immigrants who truly understand the American dream.
You must be a Mexican or the son of an
illegal Mexican...:rolleyes:
What would you know of cogent arguments? I've already nailed your sorry ass to the wall, and provided indisputable facts. Your arguments amount to, "nuh uh....the government can make those laws...see here's one right here" as though that proves anything other than your own stupidity.
Also, I've made no threats. I'm hardly likely to be in a room with you so spitting in your face as you've spit in the faces of the founders is a moot point.
The fact remains that I'm right, and I've proven it, and you're wrong, and you've proven nothing. Nothing you say or do will change that. No amount of denials will change the fact that our federal government has absolutely zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws and that everyone who claims otherwise is a liar.
I served 20+ years and retired, how many did you serve? You again make ass-u-mptions about things you know little about.
I assumed you were in the military, but you didn't take your oath seriously or you wouldn't be supporting unconstitutional laws, jackass.
You must be a Mexican or the son of an illegal Mexican...:rolleyes:
No, I'm the offspring of Irish immigrants who were no better or worse than the undocumented and
LEGAL Mexican immigrants who came here last night and who are no different than the sorry ass immigrants you are the offspring of.
:bawling:
ROTFLMAO!!!
:D :D
:bawling:
Were you this big of a cry baby on Active Duty as well? Did they kick you out?
No, I've never been a crybaby; not when I was on active duty, not now, and not ever. I served my time in the military and I got out. I didn't sign up for another 4 years. I didn't enjoy working for half the pay I can get in the private sector or working for people who were morons or who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when they hadn't read it or understood it...like you.
I'm earning more than most generals in the military now and I'm certainly a better man, and a better American than you'll ever be.
No, I've never been a crybaby; not when I was on active duty, not now, and not ever. I served my time in the military and I got out. I didn't sign up for another 4 years. I didn't enjoy working for half the pay I can get in the private sector or working for people who were morons or who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when they hadn't read it or understood it...like you.
I'm earning more than most generals in the military now and I'm certainly a better man, and a better American than you'll ever be.
[yawn] yea, I had punks like you court martialed all the time. No biggie, have a great fantasy life. :3eye:
In my rabbit assed mind, I wonder, does Radar really believe, or is he just yanking folks chain? His last post about all for the money kinda sucks to us VETS.
In my rabbit assed mind, I wonder, does Radar really believe, or is he just yanking folks chain? His last post about all for the money kinda sucks to us VETS.
Oh he believes in it, in his little fantasy world. I saw hundreds of people like him over my career. Never would have made it past 4 years. What ever...
We know what we did and how we served. We don't need some delusional punk to tell us about what we believe or did in service to this country.
{next slide please}
Radar, that image you posted implies that a woman who speaks her mind should be beaten. YOU are an asshole.
You know who else earns more than a general!?!?!?
Whores, drug dealers, shister religious leaders, and John Edwards. :D
How cute. The pathetic moron who supports violating the Constitution and who lives in his own dream world where Congress has powers prohibited to it by the Constitution, calls me a punk. LOL!!! :lame:
Your service means nothing if you claim the federal government has any authority over immigration after being spoonfed the FACT that the Constitution prohibits it. I served with honor and distinction and left with my honorable discharge to do more challenging things while continuing to uphold my oath to defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies of the Constitution...like you.
You know who else earns more than a general!?!?!?
Whores, drug dealers, shister religious leaders, and John Edwards. :D
And businessmen, engineers, architects, and yes, successful attorneys like John Edwards. All of those on your list and mine are better people than you. :rolleyes:
And businessmen, engineers, architects, and yes, successful attorneys like John Edwards. All of those on your list and mine are better people than you. :rolleyes:
Wait, wait!!! "successful attorneys like John Edwards" who made millions on case law and statutes inacted by Congress!
:lol2:
Your service means nothing if you claim the federal government has any authority over immigration after being spoonfed the FACT that the Constitution prohibits it.
Son, you are no judge of that. 4 years and out hardly qualifies you to judge the rest of us.:headshake: :D
uphold the Constitution when they hadn't read it or understood it...
Radar. The only thing I've got out of 161 post, is that your maybe a narrow minded sob and haven't changed a single poster's mind. Go to bed
Son, you are no judge of that. 4 years and out hardly qualifies you to judge the rest of us.:headshake: :D
My 4 years makes me as much of a veteran as someone with 30 years and I'm certainly better educated, more honest, more patriotic, and have more integrity than you or a million more like you combined.
I certainly can judge those who support violating the U.S. Constitution and who have lied when they took an oath to the American people like you.
I've destroyed your laughable attempts to claim immigration laws are valid :blownup: and I've shown that you are nothing more than an annoying little turd. :turd:
Radar. The only thing I've got out of 161 post, is that your maybe a narrow minded sob and haven't changed a single poster's mind. Go to bed
I didn't seek out to change anyone's mind, only to prove the truth and to show that those who claim the government has any authority over immigration are liars, and those who want to force out undocumented Mexican immigrants are racists, xenophobes, and idiots.
How open minded should I be to the wrong answer when I know my answer to be correct?
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
And you don't think the fact that most of the desirable areas to live already have ownership claims on them will cause conflict?
Remember, when the huge influx of immigrants arrived, much of the land was available, if not for free, then certainly at bargain basement prices.
Who do you think is going to practically give away their nice piece of land to a huge influx of new immigrants?
Don't you think these issues might contribute to the need for immigration laws?
Regardless of whether you want it to be true or not, all countries only have so much room to support a certain number of people. Once you go over that you risk civil war at the least.
This argument you have, whether it's correct or not, doesn't matter. The current state of the world does not allow for it unless you want to completely destroy your country.
Do you have any response to this Radar or are you going to just continue the pissing contest with merc?
How open minded should I be to the wrong answer when I know my answer to be correct?
You are delusional.
Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental illness that involves holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology (signs or symptoms of mental illness). In particular, a person with delusional disorder has never met any other criteria for schizophrenia and does not have any marked hallucinations, although tactile (touch) or olfactory (smell) hallucinations may be present if they are related to the theme of the delusion.
A person with delusional disorder can be quite functional and does not tend to show any odd or bizarre behavior except as a direct result of the delusional belief. "Despite the encapsulation of the delusional system and the relative sparing of the personality, the patient's way of life is likely to become more and more overwhelmed by the dominating effect of the abnormal beliefs". (Munro, 1999)
It is worth noting that the term paranoia was previously used in psychiatry to denote what is now called 'delusional disorder'. The modern psychiatric use of the word paranoia is subtly different but now rarely refers to this specific diagnosis.
My 4 years makes me as much of a veteran as someone with 30 years and I'm certainly better educated, more honest, more patriotic, and have more integrity than you or a million more like you combined.
I certainly can judge those who support violating the U.S. Constitution and who have lied when they took an oath to the American people like you.
I've destroyed your laughable attempts to claim immigration laws are valid and I've shown that you are nothing more than an annoying little turd. :turd:
You are certainly as much a Veteran. But that is about it. Your four years of service give you no ability to judge people over an internet forum because they disagree with your fantasy world and how you interpret the Constitutional authority of Congress.
Illegal aliens are a tumor on society that needs to be controlled and excised. You have posted no evidence that you hold advanced degrees in law or any other area of expertise that would strengthen your argument. You have posted no factual objective data to support your arguments that Congress has no authority. Again you fail...:D
Do you have any response to this Radar or are you going to just continue the pissing contest with merc?
There was really nothing to respond to. My thread isn't about whether or not government SHOULD have the power to make immigration laws.
I'm stating the
FACT that it DOES NOT have any Constitutional authority to create or enforce them right now.
Do you have any response to this Radar or are you going to just continue the pissing contest with merc?
He can't because he can't support any of those thoughts with facts.
You are certainly as much a Veteran. But that is about it. Your four years of service give you no ability to judge people over an internet forum because they disagree with your fantasy world and how you interpret the Constitutional authority of Congress. Illegal aliens are a tumor on society that needs to be controlled and excised. You have posted no evidence that you hold advanced degrees in law or any other area of expertise that would strengthen your argument. You have posted no factual objective data to support your arguments that Congress has no authority. Again you fail...:D
My veteran status does not give me the ability to judge pathological liars and morons like you on the internet, but my many years as a Constitutional scholar and my superior education certainly does. One does not need a degree in law to read the simple English in the Constitution.
I've posted objective, factual, indisputable facts that the U.S. Government has absolutely zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws. Specifically I posted the 10th amendment which states that all things not listed in the Constitution are powers of the states or rights of the people and I proved that immigration is not listed and thwarted a few laughable attempts to stretch the Constitution by misusing the parts that allow government to repel invading hostile forces, the importation and migration of slaves, the ability of Congress to make rules concerning naturalization (not immigration), and the necessary and proper clause.
My argument doesn't need strengthening. It is air-tight, factual, and indisputable.
I've proven you to be nothing but a laughably stupid, racist, pathologically lying, asshole. You, and your moronic ilk, are more of a cancer to America than every undocumented immigrant to ever come to America.
My veteran status does not give me the ability to judge pathological liars and morons like you on the internet, but my many years as a Constitutional scholar and my superior education certainly does. One does not need a degree in law to read the simple English in the Constitution.
I've posted objective, factual, indisputable facts that the U.S. Government has absolutely zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws. Specifically I posted the 10th amendment which states that all things not listed in the Constitution are powers of the states or rights of the people and I proved that immigration is not listed and thwarted a few laughable attempts to stretch the Constitution by misusing the parts that allow government to repel invading hostile forces, the importation and migration of slaves, the ability of Congress to make rules concerning naturalization (not immigration), and the necessary and proper clause.
My argument doesn't need strengthening. It is air-tight, factual, and indisputable.
I've proven you to be nothing but a laughably stupid, racist, pathologically lying, asshole. You, and your moronic ilk, are more of a cancer to America than every undocumented immigrant to ever come to America.
You loze again... failed to provide objective facts other than your rants. Is tw your twin brother?
More facts about the
Illegal aliens and their effects on our economy:
"Impact of Mexican
Immigration on Public Coffers
So far, this report has generally concentrated on public service use by Mexican immigrants; however, this is only half of the fiscal equation. Immigrants also pay taxes to federal, state, and local governments. The CPS contains estimated federal income tax liabilities for those in the sample. These estimates are based on adjusted gross income, number of dependents, and other tax characteristics. These estimates are useful because they can provide some insight into the likely tax payments made by immigrants and natives. Because of their much lower incomes and their larger family size, Mexican immigrants pay dramatically less in federal income taxes than do natives. The March 2000 CPS indicates that in 1999, the average federal income tax payment by households headed by Mexican immigrants was $2,156, less than one third of the $7,255 average tax contribution made by native households. By design, the federal income tax system is supposed to tax those with higher income and fewer dependents at higher rates than those with lower income and more dependents. So the much lower income tax contributions of Mexican immigrants simply reflect the tax code and not some systematic attempt by Mexican immigrants to avoid paying taxes.
In 1999, 74 percent of households headed by natives had to pay at least some federal income tax, compared to only 59 percent of Mexican immigrant households. Even if one confines the analysis to legal Mexican immigrants, the gap between their tax contributions and those of natives remains large. Using the same method as before to distinguish legal and illegal Mexican immigrant households, the estimated federal income liability of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants in 1999 was $2,538. Thus, the very low tax contribution of Mexican immigrants is not simply or even mostly a function of legal status, but rather reflects their much lower incomes and larger average family size.
The much lower tax payments made by Mexican immigrants point to a fundamental problem associated with unskilled immigration that seems unavoidable. Even if Mexican Immigrants’ use of public services were roughly equal to natives, there would still be a significant drain on public coffers because their average tax payments would be much lower. While much of the fiscal concern centers on use of means-tested programs, clearly tax payments matter at least as much when evaluating the fiscal impact of Mexican immigration. Changing welfare eligibility or other efforts designed to reduce immigrant use of public services will not change the fact that Mexican immigrants pay significantly less in taxes than natives.
While the above analysis provides some insight into the impact of Mexican immigrants on tax receipts at the federal level, it does not show the total fiscal impact of Mexican immigration. Over the last decade, a number of studies have attempted to estimate the total fiscal impact (tax payments minus services used) of immigrants on the United States at the federal, state, and local levels.
The most comprehensive research on this subject was done by the National Research Council (NRC), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted in 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime. The NAS further estimated that the total combined fiscal impact of the average immigrant (all educational categories included) was a negative $3,000. Thus, when all immigrants are examined they are found to have a modest negative impact on public coffers. These figures are only for the original immigrant, they do not include public services used or taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants.
Using the fiscal analysis developed by the NRC, it is possible to roughly estimate the fiscal effect of adult Mexican immigrants on the United States. Applying the NRC’s estimates by educational attainment and age is possible because the NRC’s research is based on the same data as this study — the March Current Population Survey.28 Using the estimates developed by the NRC and based on the educational attainment and age of newly arrived adult Mexican immigrants in 2000, we find that the lifetime fiscal burden created by the average adult Mexican immigrant is $50,300.29 It should be pointed out that these figures were based on 1996 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the fiscal burden would be $55,200 in 2000.
Since a very large share of Mexican immigrants have little formal education, the fiscal burden they create seems unavoidable. The modern American labor market offers very limited opportunities for the unskilled — immigrant or native. It therefore should come as no surprise that they use a great deal more in public services than they pay in taxes during the course of their lives. While consistent with previous research as well as common sense, the large fiscal deficit created by Mexican immigration should sound a cautionary note to those who argue that there is no harm in allowing large numbers of unskilled workers from Mexico into the country. Even if employers wish to have access to unskilled immigrant labor, the cost to taxpayers indicates that for the nation this may not be wise. Mexican immigration becomes, in effect, a subsidy for employers of unskilled labor, with taxpayers providing services such as education, health insurance and medical care, and income-transfer programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit to workers who, because of their low incomes, pay nowhere near enough in taxes to cover their consumption of services."
http://www.illegalaliens.us/economics.htmYou loze again... failed to provide objective facts other than your rants. Is tw your twin brother?
I have provided objective facts many times over.
Objective and Verifiable Fact: The 10th amendment PROHIBITS the federal government from legislating or taking part in anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and RESERVES everything not listed in the Constitution as a power of the states or a right of the people.
Objective and Verifiable Fact: No part of the U.S. Constitution mentions immigration as one of the powers of the federal government.
End of story. Nothing you say matters beyond this. No mention of the many unconstitutional federal immigration laws matters. No mention of U.S. Code, or court cases, or unconstitutional government departments like ICE matters. No law, court decision, or branch of government matters because they are all below the U.S. Constitution.
So once again, we see what you really are...
More on the negative effects of
illegal aliens on our economy...
An excerpt follows:
"Business interests however are short-term. Easy immediate access to labour will always be preferred to the costs of training and capital investment for the longer term. In the nature of economic cycles, yesterday’s essential labour can often become, as the defunct factories and mills of Europe have shown, today’s unemployed. Employers who demanded immigrant labour are not held to account for this or required to contribute to subsequent costs of their unemployed former workers. Few things are more permanent that temporary worker from a poor country. If business were made responsible for the lifetime costs of their migrant labour in the same way as they must now deal with the lifetime environmental costs of their products, perhaps enthusiasm for labour migration might be moderated and make way for longer-term investment in capital-intensive restructuring."
Continues:
http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Colemanmigration.pdfMass Immigration Cost American Taxpayers $69 Billion Net and 2 Million Jobs
Study by Dr. Donald Huddle Reports Legal Immigration of over 1 Million Per Year Accounts for over 62% of Costs
State Costs to Taxpayers are Also Soaring (1996 Net Costs % up from 1992):
California: $28 billion up 35%
New York: $14 billion up 29%
Texas: $7 billion up 37%
Florida: $6 billion up 77%
The first study of the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers in 1997 conducted by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University, found that:
The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992.
Over 62% of the net national cost of immigration in 1996, $40.6 billion, was attributable to legal and legalized (amnesty) immigrants. Illegal immigration generates about 38%, $24 billion of the total net cost. Legal immigration levels are over one million per year, and rising.
During 1996, approximately 2.3 million predominantly low-skill American workers were displaced from their jobs due to the continued heavy influx of immigrant workers since 1970. Taxpayers paid more than $15.2 billion in public assistance for those displaced workers in 1996, including Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), unemployment compensation, and food stamps.
A net deficit of $8.5 billion dollars to the Social Security system in 1996 is attributable to the economic impact of the foreign-born population. Continued mass immigration threatens the solvency of the Social Security system.
Net cumulative costs for the 1998-2007 decade are projected to reach $932 billion, an average of $93.2 billion per year, even with recent changes in welfare and immigration policies and a prosperous economy, if current mass immigration trends are allowed to continue.
Breakdown for 1997 Costs of Legal Immigration
Public Schools (Primary, Secondary, Higher, etc) $22.5 billion
Bilingual Education, ESOL, ESL Education $ 3.3 billion
Medicaid $12.8 billion
AFDC (for legal and illegal immigrant's offspring) $ 2.4 billion
Social Security $24.8 billion
Supplemental Security Income $ 2.9 billion
Housing Assistance $ 2.6 billion
Criminal Justice $ 2.6 billion
Jobs Lost by Americans $10.8 billion
Other Programs $51.4 billion
1997 Total Costs for LEGAL Immigration: $136 billion
Add 1997 total costs for illegal immigration of $41 billion and subtract an estimated $108 billion in taxes paid by all immigrants (legal and illegal) in 1997 to obtain the overall net figure of $69 billion charged to you, and other American taxpayers.
Other key facts regarding immigration are:
1.) If current immigration trends continue, the current U.S. population of
274 million will nearly double to over 500,000,000 by 2050. (The U.S. was 135 million at the end of WWII.)
2.) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.
3.) The prestigious National Research Council found at the state and local levels (which bear most of the burden for K-12 education) the net fiscal burden of the average immigrant-headed household (i.e., after subtracting state and local taxes the household paid) was:
$1,484 per immigrant-headed household in New Jersey (in the 1989-1990 fiscal year); and $3,463 in California (in 1994-1995)(p. 276-277)
Why should we continue to allow our own working poor, homeless, and unemployed to continue to suffer from the job loss, wage depression, and other burdens imposed by mass immigration?
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/huddlenr.html There was really nothing to respond to. My thread isn't about whether or not government SHOULD have the power to make immigration laws.
I'm stating the FACT that it DOES NOT have any Constitutional authority to create or enforce them right now.
Right, so you didn't want to discuss it? You just went in with your view and wanted to shove it down everyone else's throat? You just want people to acknowledge that your way of thinking is right?
My question was, what if your way is right? What then?
If you don't want to answer that question, then it proves my first statement because you're not interested in discussing anything other than your point of view which you've made clear you're not going to change.
So, if we work on the assumption that you're correct what then? Do you have a response? Have you thought beyond your own views at all?
[SIZE="5"]The Truth about Undocumented Immigration[/SIZE]
[SIZE="4"]
Undocumented Immigrants Effect on Social Security[/SIZE]
[LIST]
[*]Undocumented immigrants compose about three percent of the total US population. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso)
[*]The estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the Social Security system with a subsidy of about $7 billion a year. (The New York Times)
[*]Immigrants contribute billions of dollars annually but receive no public pension in retirement, are not eligible for Medicare, and are not entitled to any other benefits. (Social Security Administration)
[*]Most undocumented workers pay taxes, and they pay a variety of taxes. (The New York Times)
[*]The money that undocumented immigrants paid in 2004 added up to about 10 percent of that year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it pays in pension benefits. (Social Security Administration)
[*]The money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections. (Social Security Administration)
[*]After the 1986 passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the Social Security Administration began receiving mountains of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect or fake Social Security numbers, and placed them in the "earnings suspense file." Since then, the file has grown, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. (Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago)
[*]Many older workers return home to Latin America when they reach retirement age. (BusinessWeek)
[/LIST]
[SIZE="4"]The Healthcare System and Undocumented Immigrants[/SIZE]
[LIST]
[*]Immigrants are not swamping the U.S. health care system and use it far less than native-born Americans. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[*]Immigrants accounted for 10.4 percent of the U.S. population but only 7.9 percent of total health spending and 8 percent of government health spending. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[*]Thirty percent of immigrants use no health care at all during the course of a year. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[*]Immigrant children spent or cost $270 a year, compared to $1,059 for native-born children. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[*]Most immigrants have health insurance. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[*]In reality, if more restrictions were placed on health care for immigrants, very little money would be saved, and many immigrant children would be put at grave risk. Many immigrant children already fail to get regular checkups, and as a result, more end up needing emergency care, or get no care at all. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[*]Many immigrants actually help to subsidize health care and social security for the rest the country. (Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University)
[*]Immigrants pay taxes -- including Medicare payroll taxes -- and most pay health insurance premiums, but they receive only half as much care as other families. (The American Journal of Public Health)
[/LIST]
[SIZE="4"]Economic Impact of Undocumented Immigrants[/SIZE]
[LIST]
[*]Undocumented immigrants have become a new source of economic growth as giant U.S. consumer companies like banks, insurers, mortgage lenders, credit-card outfits, phone carriers, and others aggressively market to over 11 million undocumented customers. (BusinessWeek)
[*]Undocumented immigrants add 600,000 to 700,000 new consumers to the economy every year. (Pew Research Center)
[*]84% of undocumented immigrants are 18-to-44-year-olds, in their prime spending years, vs. 60% of legal residents. (BusinessWeek)
[*]Allowing immigrants financial privileges boosts corporate profits because it enables them to move out of the cash economy, put their money in banks, and take out credit cards, car loans, and home mortgages. U.S. gross national product also surges because consumers with credit can spend more than those limited to cash. (BusinessWeek)
[*]When more undocumented immigrants pay income and property taxes, they help ease the tax burden for others when it comes to paying for schools, health care, roads, and other services immigrants use. (BusinessWeek)
[*]Letting the undocumented save and invest, could also result in a decline in crime because if immigrants are allowed to protect their money in banks, the rate of hold ups and robberies in Latino or immigrant neighborhoods drop. (Austin Police Department)
[*]Immigrants benefit the economy more than they take away in social services. (National Academy of the Sciences)
[*]In 2004, Arizona suffered severe labor shortages and huge quantities of lettuce went unpicked because growers lacked pickers. In 2005, the Central Valley in California had 70,000 to 80,000 labor positions that were unfilled. Legalizing workers would alleviate such labor shortages. (Benjamin Powell, economist at the Independent Institute)
[*]Immigrants are one of the main labor sources for the rebuilding and clean-up effort in post-Katrina Louisiana and Mississippi. (NewAmericanMedia.org)
[*]As much as half of all U.S. retail banking growth is expected to come from new immigrants over the next decade. (The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp)
[*]Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrant households earn enough to qualify for $95,000 mortgages. (National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals)
[*]ITIN and conventional mortgages taken out by undocumented could be worth as much as $60 billion over the next five years. (National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals) Undocumented immigrants now comprise fully half of all farm laborers, up from 12% in 1990. (US Department of Labor)
[*]Undocumented immigrants are 25% of workers in the meat and poultry industry, 24% of dishwashers, and 27% of drywall and ceiling tile installers. (The Pew Research Center)
[*]The overall proportion of unauthorized workers in the labor force is 4.3%. Employers from many sectors of the US economy employ unauthorized immigrants – including enormous amounts of private US households. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso)
[*]The estimated population growth rate in Mexico is declining rapidly and may soon be slower than that in the US. (United Nations)
[*]Immigrants benefit the United States economy but their potential remains hindered by current laws. They do not deplete government resources, as is widely believed. (Benjamin Powell, economist at the Independent Institute)
[*]Undocumented add at least $22 billion, in total, to the economy each year, and legalizing their status would increase that amount. (Benjamin Powell, economist at the Independent Institute).
[/LIST]
[SIZE="4"]National Security and the Undocumented[/SIZE]
[LIST]
[*]None of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country via the US/Mexico border. In fact, the US is most vulnerable at its ports of entry, including ship ports, airports, and land ports. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso).
[*]It is not easy to immigrate to the US legally as it often takes decades before an individual can obtain many kinds of legal immigrant visas. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso).
[*]Working with Mexico is central to the future of controlling the US border. Through cooperation with Mexico, the US will be able to isolate criminals, publicize rules, and identify forms of Mexican identification. (Peter Laufer, former NBC new correspondent).
[*]Enhanced border enforcement only increases the number of deaths of men, women, and children at the border annually. Areas with heavy border security see up to 100 additional deaths a year. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso).
[*]While heavy border does not stop the volume of unauthorized border crossing, it does increase the costs and risks of coming to the US, including death, injury, and the use of smugglers. It also reduces the number of back and forth trips, forcing undocumented immigrants to stay longer. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso).
[/LIST]
Post your citation please so we can examine where it comes from and where they gather their facts from. Thanks.
Why should I? So you can attack the source?
It's from
here
Possibly biased
Why should I? So you can attack the source?
Of course. You hold yourself up on these forums to be a "Constitutional Scholar". Anyone who has attended advanced education beyond a 4 year degree and been involved in research knows that not a single research project or thesis can be presented without citations which must be scrutinized by fellow members of the educational community. All I am asking is for you to present your citations so they may be examined in detail as to their source and factual basis. Pretty simple and standard request in the realm of debate.
How open minded should I be to the wrong answer when I know my answer to be correct?
NUff said. Time to put this to bed, and just not for tonight!
Possibly biased? Why would you suggest that? Every source is listed. How is that biased?
I didn't say it was. I don't care enough about your debate to look into it. I'll leave that to one of your fellow countrymen.
NUff said. Time to put this to bed, and just not for tonight!
Ok, so if you know 2+2 = 4, you'd be open to me claiming it's 27 right? Would you be open to me convincing you that your name is Dicknose Assington? Probably not. You know your name so you won't be open to someone else trying to tell you it is something else. Hopefully you know 2+2 = 4
(Though this isn't such a safe assumption with your extremely limited intellect)Radar may be a kook, and while i sometimes agree with him I think he's crazy at least as often...
But merc, you have not cited a SINGLE reason why/how federal immigration laws are legal. You HAVE shown that they are a good thing, and have shown that they may be neccessary, but you have NOT shown that they are legal. You can't dispute Radar's constitutional analysis, there... the constitution DOESN'T give the federal government that power, unless you want to argue about the aforementioned clause granting them power over naturalization... which I think Radar's prettymuch taken care of.
His case: the constitution forbids it cause A and B and C
Your case: youre crazy and wrong and immigrants are bad and...
Back up your position legally, if you want to participate in an argument as to the legality of the government's actions.
Every source is listed, none of them meet the standards set forth for examination in an appropriate notation or footnote. APA guidelines are generally the rule. In otherwords if you cannot find the exact original text it does not count. Now as a "Constitutional Scholar" and your vast years of education in reading original source documents you should already know that, right?
Radar may be a kook, and while i sometimes agree with him I think he's crazy at least as often...
But merc, you have not cited a SINGLE reason why/how federal immigration laws are legal. You HAVE shown that they are a good thing, and have shown that they may be neccessary, but you have NOT shown that they are legal. You can't dispute Radar's constitutional analysis, there... the constitution DOESN'T give the federal government that power, unless you want to argue about the aforementioned clause granting them power over naturalization... which I think Radar's prettymuch taken care of.
His case: the constitution forbids it cause A and B and C
Your case: youre crazy and wrong and immigrants are bad and...
Back up your position legally, if you want to participate in an argument as to the legality of the government's actions.
Actually if you Google "The Tenth Amendment" you will find a number of scholarly sites which show that the argument is quite circular. There are a number of citations which show that the Supreme Court as recently as 1987 has supported the notion that Congress can enact Federal Law and the states are required to abide by them. Practical examples in your recent life are The No Child Left Behind, among some others. Yet we are to believe that the Federal Government cannot enforce statute on states. How about you go traffic in some major drugs or try to bring home a kilo of cocaine and test that theory for us. In a fantasy world like Radar's you can argue that there is no authority, in fact I challenge you or Radar to put it to the practical test and let us know how that works out for you. I think they have the internet in Federal Prisons if you are on good behavior.
His case: the constitution forbids it cause A and B and C
Your case: youre crazy and wrong and immigrants are bad and...
Back up your position legally, if you want to participate in an argument as to the legality of the government's actions.
Don't show up and try to tell me how or what to argue, ok. Unless you care to take a position on it. :3eye:
Just because they can absolutely do it with impunity, and everyone lets them, doesn't mean its actually legal...
Here is the source text...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No court decisions contradicting this matter. No laws contradicting this matter. No articles disputing this matter.
The 10th amendment PROHIBITS the federal government from having "implied powers".
Just because they can absolutely do it with impunity, and everyone lets them, doesn't mean its actually legal...
Really? Care to test that theory in a court of law with your life?
Here is the source text...
No court decisions contradicting this matter. No laws contradicting this matter. No articles disputing this matter.
The 10th amendment PROHIBITS the federal government from having "implied powers".
Sorry, you fail again. Does not support citations for:
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=420844&postcount=177
Are you sure you are "Constitutional Scholar"?
Just because they can absolutely do it with impunity, and everyone lets them, doesn't mean its actually legal...
Exactly. His argument is like saying, "I killed someone and didn't get arrested, so murder must be legal if you don't get caught"
You can be tried for murder both in Federal and State courts. In fact you can be tried in both courts for the same crime if found guilty in at least one.
Well that went right over your head. You are saying that because the federal government is making and enforcing immigration laws, this proves they have the legitimate authority to so despite what the Constitution says. You're saying if they get away with violating the Constitution, they must have the legitimate power to violate the Constitution when they want.
You mention state and federal courts. What court do I take the Supreme Court to when it violates its limited powers or the rights of the American people or ignores when the rest of government does it?
Well that went right over your head. You are saying that because the federal government is making and enforcing immigration laws, this proves they have the legitimate authority to so despite what the Constitution says. You're saying if they get away with violating the Constitution, they must have the legitimate power to violate the Constitution when they want.
You mention state and federal courts. What court do I take the Supreme Court to when it violates its limited powers or the rights of the American people or ignores when the rest of government does it?
Actually no, we never finished the other issues.
First I would have to agree with you that they are violating legitimate authority, which I do not. I do not believe that the Supreme Court violates it's powers or the rights of the American people because they are the final authority on all of the issues of the Executive and Legislative Branches as set up in our form of government.
The Supreme Court, created by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, has final authority in all legal questions or controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
There is no other court. You must abide by their rule even if you don't agree with the decision.
Pages 482 through 484 pretty much sum up the role of the SC.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/scprimer.pdfI didn't ask if they were violating our rights or if you agree with it. I asked you if the Supreme Court allows violations of our rights, or makes blatantly unconstitutional rulings that violate our rights. What court do we take the Supreme Court to to resolve such issues?
What you have a hard time realizing is that...
1) The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of the Constitution
2) The Constitution is higher than the Supreme Court
3) A law does not need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to be considered unconstitutional
4) The Supreme Court does not get to define the Constitution
5) Decisions of the Supreme Court can be unconstitutional.
6) We are NOT required to abide by any unconstitutional rulings of the Supreme Court, or any laws which contradict the Constitution regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
Actually you are wrong on many points there, as my link pointed out. Now what you want me to believe, again, and without any original source of documentation, footnote, or citation on your part, is that you type with authority. I have posted original sources. Where are yours?
I'm not wrong on any of my points. This is all the citation and source I need. It's the U.S. Constitution and it is the SUPREME law in the land. It's higher than the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress. All laws which contradict it are AUTOMATICALLY null and void without the requirement of judicial review.
This is according to the Supreme Court itself in the Marbury vs. Madison decision in which Chief Justice Marshall said, "all laws repugnant to the Constitution ARE null and void."
He didn't say they WILL be null and void. He said they ARE.
Nothing else you post other than the Constitution itself matters.
I cut out the most important part for you. I urge you to read the document in full which explains why you are wrong and that the court in fact does have the power afforded it by the Framers. You are mistaken and for some reason hung up on some issues that you need to disable the role of the SC and the Congress. What is your real issue? The election in 2000 where Gore lost? Some other issue, what's your beef?
Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review
was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice
John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief
Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn
unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of
its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be
fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the
judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation
and application were made necessary by the very nature of the
Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that
document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration
to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted
in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own
application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced
by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should
be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose
those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John
Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining
to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed
foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is
limited only to deciding specific cases.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdfI'm not wrong on any of my points. This is all the citation and source I need. It's the U.S. Constitution and it is the SUPREME law in the land. It's higher than the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress. All laws which contradict it are AUTOMATICALLY null and void without the requirement of judicial review.
This is according to the Supreme Court itself in the Marbury vs. Madison decision in which Chief Justice Marshall said, "all laws repugnant to the Constitution ARE null and void."
He didn't say they WILL be null and void. He said they ARE.
Nothing else you post other than the Constitution itself matters.
Since you cannot and have not in any way proven any credentials or original source documentation I cannot accept anything you post as credible. I am no lawyer, but it is pretty easy to find Constitutional experts who have a lot more credibility than you have provided in this argument. Enjoy your fantasy and let me know when you are willing to test the powers of the Federal Government so I can read about it in the papers. Later.
I cut out the most important part for you. I urge you to read the document in full which explains why you are wrong and that the court in fact does have the power afforded it by the Framers. You are mistaken and for some reason hung up on some issues that you need to disable the role of the SC and the Congress. What is your real issue? The election in 2000 where Gore lost? Some other issue, what's your beef?
Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review
was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice
John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief
Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn
unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of
its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be
fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the
judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation
and application were made necessary by the very nature of the
Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that
document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration
to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted
in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own
application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced
by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should
be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose
those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John
Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining
to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed
foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is
limited only to deciding specific cases.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
I don't care what your pdf file says. It's not the U.S. Constitution. 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.
Since you cannot and have not in any way proven any credentials or original source documentation I cannot accept anything you post as credible. I am no lawyer, but it is pretty easy to find Constitutional experts who have a lot more credibility than you have provided in this argument. Enjoy your fantasy and let me know when you are willing to test the powers of the Federal Government so I can read about it in the papers. Later.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
That's all the citation I need. It's the end all be all of references. Nothing you've posted at all has any merit or value. Nothing that you've posted has any credibility.
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.
“It is emphatically the province of the
judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation
and application were made necessary by the very nature of the
Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that
document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration
to meet changing conditions.
I found that to be quite interesting - Althought the constitution is viewed above everything else it gave room in itself for "...elaboration to meet changing conditions."
The Constitution offers no room for negotiation. It means what it says and nothing more or less. It doesn't require interpretation. The federal government has absolutely no leeway. They have zero implied powers and are specifically PROHIBITED from having them. Anyone, including Supreme Court justices, who say otherwise are liars or idiots.
Definition of immigration: entrance of a person (an alien) into a new country for the purpose of establishing permanent residence.
Definition of naturalization: official act by which a person is made a national of a country other than his or her native one.
When the Congress makes a laws that form a uniform rule of naturalization, they are making rules for immigrants to become citizens. The first paragraph of section 8 in the constitution describes the congress as being able to provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States. The last paragraph of section 8 gives congress the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If the congress decides that it is in the welfare of the United States to control immigration into the United States, it is well within the power of congress to make these laws.
So, yes technically, people are free to travel where ever they want, heck I suppose I could move to china and open a rubber dog shit factory. I would subject myself to the laws of China in the process. Once they cross the border into the U.S. they fall under the laws of the land, enacted by our congress. I don't see where this is unconstitutional. Between providing for the general welfare of the United States, and forming a uniform rule of naturalization congress is well withing it's bounds forming laws on immigration and naturalization.
About the Supreme Court.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I still don't see the problem.
Radar, surely you jest. You know more about the constitution then anyone person who has served on the Supreme Court in the last hundred years? Is "shoving your Constitutional experts up your ass."
a legal term? I look forward to your installment as chief justice. What refreshing language in the court briefs.
I am glad that you posted a like to the Cornell university site. here is one that discusses a little of this issue of flexibility.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag33_user.htmlThe term "general welfare" does not grant any specific powers to Congress. Feel free to read this...
http://alanchapman.org/libertyvault/files/generalwelfare.html
Congress is given the authority to make laws necessary and proper for carrying out the specific 18 things they were granted power over and nothing else. This is why they said, "for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers"
No, I don't jest. I genuinely know more about the Constitution than anyone to serve on the Supreme Court in the last 100 years based on their frequently blatantly unconstitutional decisions.
I posted a link to the Constitution. Cornell's opinion about the flexibility in the language of the Constitution is irrelevant. The opinions of the Supreme Court regarding flexibility are irrelevant. Only the Constitution itself matters. It means what it says and it says the federal government has absolutely zero "implied" powers.
"shoving your Constitutional experts up your ass" is an English term meant to show disrespect to someone who is owed no respect and who disrespects the U.S. Constitution.
Correct, the term "general welfare", taken by itself does not confer any power to congress. Very good!
The complete statement "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" which includes the phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" means something else entirely. By something else entirely I am referring to the meaning of the two words "general welfare" when used as a complete sentence. General welfare.
So to quote an earlier post by you on this forum "Cornell's opinion about the flexibility in the language of the Constitution is irrelevant. The opinions of the Supreme Court regarding flexibility are irrelevant. Only the Constitution itself matters." I don't know why you would link to a website other then the constitution, after preaching the latter.
Since the exact wording of the constitution gives Congress this power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, then Radar, you are correct: the Constitution can not be wrong. It is very clear. It is not ambiguous. Just read the words.
P.S. the question about the legal term of shoving something up your ass was sarcasm. A type of humor. You may recognize that.
Correct, the term "general welfare", taken by itself does not confer any power to congress. Very good!
The complete statement "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" which includes the phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" means something else entirely.
Yes, and what it means is that the U.S. government may create a DEFENSIVE military to be used when America is attacked or invaded by hostile military forces (common defense) and allowing the people of America "The enjoyment of peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." (The definition of general welfare)
The term "general welfare" does not give the government carte blanche to write any laws it chooses in any area. In fact they are only allowed to create or enforce laws pertaining to the specific 18 enumerated areas in which they are granted limited powers....and NOTHING else.
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson
The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.
Shit aint what it used to be - If you want things like they were in the 1800's - then go build a time machine and fly your nutty ass back there. If you want to live in the real world of TODAY then get with it. This is way past senseless and annoying.
The Constitution isn't worded in general terms. It's worded in specific and restrictive terms. The Constitution isn't vague or ambiguous, or general. It was written specifically to restrict and limit the powers of government while not restricting the rights of citizens. All things NOT enumerated in the Constitution (the phrase "general welfare" is not an enumerated power) are PROHIBITED for the federal government to take part in or to legislate.
That's pretty cut and dry.
If you don't want a government with limited powers that must abide by the U.S. Constitution, get the hell out of America because it will be that way either peacefully or violently.
The founding fathers wisely worded the Constitution in very specific and restrictive terms but also allowed it to be changed through the amendment process if such changes were needed.
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
Was that in the constitution? Cus if not it is meaningless. You said nothing else matters, no? Or is it just the stuff that refutes your points doesn't matter?
The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.
That is pretty cut & dry too.
Nothing else matters in a Constitutional debate other than the words in the Constitution. The phrase "general welfare" means allowing citizens to enjoy peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government...nothing more and nothing less. It does not grant any powers to the federal government.
I was merely posting the opinion of what one of the framers of the Constitution, for dramatic effect. :)
The Founding Fathers wisely worded the Constitution in very specific and restrictive terms and were clear that it was meant to be taken literally and that the federal government was to have zero implied powers and could only gain powers through the amendment process.
This is cut, dry, and unlike yours....accurate.
They said Congress shall rule naturalization. They didn't say how, when, where and how much. That's general terms.
And Congress shall rule naturalization. Naturalization of course is not the same thing as immigration and does not encompass immigration.
Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen. Congress absolutely can make all rules regarding the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen, but not over the process of immigrating here in the first place.
But non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights.
I think we're getting closer here.
Citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution. All human beings have the same human rights.
Rrriight, but the US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are RESERVED to the states respectively, or to the people.
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 highlighted the "or to the people" because I think what that means is up for discussion.
And Congress shall rule naturalization. Naturalization of course is not the same thing as immigration and does not encompass immigration.
Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen. Congress absolutely can make all rules regarding the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen, but not over the process of immigrating here in the first place.
You are totally splitting hairs here.
Nothing else matters in a Constitutional debate other than the words in the Constitution.
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.
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.
The tax or duty is specific to importation, but the clause also refers to migration, separately.
Rrriight, but the US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.
No, it protects the rights of THE PEOPLE...all people living within the United States.
I highlighted the "or to the people" because I think what that means is up for discussion.
States or other governments have powers, people have rights. Government's only have powers that the people grant to it....which means government may not have any powers that we, as individuals don't possess without government, and which we have not expressly granted to government.
Anything not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government or prohibited from being a power of the states, is either a power of the states
(assuming the people have granted one of their rights to that state as a power) or a right of the people.
You are totally splitting hairs here.
Not at all. Naturalization is not immigration. It's not splitting hairs, it's just a fact.
The tax or duty is specific to importation, but the clause also refers to migration, separately.
The clause refers solely to the migration and importation of slaves and it became void when 13th amendment abolished slavery.
Radar, you keep moving the argument everytime your points get refuted. This game only lasts as long as both sides are willing to play and at this point your game has gotten rather tedious.
Rrriight, but the US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.
No, it protects the rights of THE PEOPLE...all people living within the United States.
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That clearly states that the US constitution is for the citizens of the US ONLY - pretty effin clear.
Radar, you keep moving the argument everytime your points get refuted. This game only lasts as long as both sides are willing to play and at this point your game has gotten rather tedious.
None of my points have ever been refuted. People keep bringing up parts of the Constitution that do not grant any power to the federal government over immigration.
[LIST]
[*]Repelling Invasions = Repelling invading armies.
[*]Migration and Importation of slaves is NOT the immigration of free people.
[*]Naturalization is not immigration
[*]The ability to create necessary and proper laws for the powers enumerated in the Constitution do not allow the government to create laws related to areas not enumerated in the Constitution.
[*]General Welfare means allowing people to live peacefully without being molested by government and does not grant the government carte blanch to create or enforce any laws it wishes.
[/LIST]
That clearly states that the US constitution is for the citizens of the US ONLY - pretty effin clear.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The people of the United States = The people living in the United States.
It doesn't say "We the citizens of the United States".
The people of the United States = The people living in the United States.
That is nothing more than
your opinion.
We the people of the United States
not in, it clearly states
OF
ourselves and our posterity
- again not
the it plainly states
OURSELVES and
OUR
either it is clear to you that it refers to the citizens
OF the US or it is up for interpretation.
Either way, your argument is refuted, again.
PS - This is the point where you typically change your argument again.
The people of the United States = The people living in the United States.
It doesn't say "We the citizens of the United States".
For the sake of clarity - indulge me one more time.
They did not state "the people living within the boudaries of the United States" because that is NOT what they meant - very clearly, they meant the citizens of the US.
It is so crystal clear I don't understand how someone purportedly "smarter than Supreme Court justices" cannot see it.
We THE people of the United States. It's very clear that it refers to the people of the United States....aka the people living inside the United States.
I haven't changed my argument even once. I've proven it many times and thwarted attempts of people who keep coming at me from different directions.
This is the point at which you try to argue over the definition of a word and suggest something laughable.
Radar, you keep moving the argument everytime your points get refuted. This game only lasts as long as both sides are willing to play and at this point your game has gotten rather tedious.
Game?
It's CALVINBALL! The rules change constantly - and you can't play the same way twice!
NO TEH STUF N THE CONSUTION ITSLF IS ALL THT MATERS
Dude, youve said that before, which is why I'm right to say _____...
OKAY WELL THIS GUY SED THIS SO IM STILL RIGHT
I'm going to try and put my critical thinking skills to work here.
1. Congress has the power to form a uniform rule of naturalization.
I think we can agree on this.
2. naturalization is the process in which an immigrant becomes a citizen.
I think we can agree on this as well.
3. Immigration is the movement of a person or persons from another country or region to another country or region with the purpose of stying there permanently.
So far we have just definitions. Easy to agree?
The critical thinking part of this, at least for me: if anyone, from anywhere can move to this country permanently any time they want, with no restrictions what so ever; why have a naturalization? Everyone should be able to be a citizen automatically by crossing the border, thereby forgoing the need to naturalize anyone. There would be no such thing as citizenship. Enumerating a power to be able to form rules for naturalization implies immigration. In fact you cannot have naturalization without immigration.
If part of the uniform rules for naturalization stipulate that convicted felons cannot be naturalized and cannot have entry to the united states, there is no conflict with the constitution.
Why have naturalization? To give people the opportunity to vote. Those who don't want to have taxation without equal representation will choose to become citizens.
If a uniform rule of naturalization states that a felon can't be naturalized, it does not mean they can't become an immigrant.
We THE people of the United States. It's very clear that it refers to the people of the United States....aka the people living inside the United States.
You are so full of crap - How many times have YOU stated "they meant EXACTLY what they said"? If they menat "the people living in the US" they would have said that. Since they didn't specifically say "the people living in the US", then they
DID NOT MEAN THAT. How thick are you?
If a uniform rule of naturalization states that a felon can't be naturalized, it does not mean they can't become an immigrant.
...and an illegal one at that.
They did say that. We THE PEOPLE of the United States refers to the people in the United States. That's what it says.
Let me make it more clear for you. Before there was a United States, there were only people. They weren't citizens, they were just people living in America. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders said that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Government gets its powers from the people who are governed. Government may not have any powers that individuals do not have without government.
Since all of the people living within the borders of the United States are subject to the Constitutionally valid laws of the United States, they are "governed" by the U.S. Government. Not some people....ALL people.
The U.S. Government derives its powers from THE PEOPLE who are governed by the U.S. Government, and yes this includes non-citizens and undocumented immigrants. They are also subject to all of the laws of the United States which do not contradict the Constitution (such as immigration laws). If they commit murder, they go to jail. If they steal, they go to jail, etc.
They are absolutely part of WE THE PEOPLE.
An immigrant would surely be a "person of France living in the United States". An immigrant wouldn't describe themselves as a person of the United States. He's got you dead to rights, so to speak.
They did say that. We THE PEOPLE of the United States refers to the people in the United States. That's what it says.
no it refers to the people
OF the US not in. It is very clear. No playing with this one. If the meant "in" they would have said "in". The two words (in & of) have very different meanings. By your own admission they meant exactly what they wrote -
"of "
At best, it is up for interpretation which is what we are doing now and you still lose because everything else is therefore up for interpretation as well.
You are too smart a guy to not see the reality right in front of you.
It depends on what your definition of of is.
It depends on what your definition of of is.
Take a look at any dictionary and defining the word "of" is never "the"
Although we can discuss and debate it. I am wiiling to do that. That still proves the point of "interpretation"
It's not up for interpretation. It means we the people of the united states.
You keep highlighting the word "of" as though that means something special when it does not. The people who are governed by the United States are THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. This is where the government drives its powers.
An immigrant would surely be a "person of France living in the United States". An immigrant wouldn't describe themselves as a person of the United States. He's got you dead to rights, so to speak.
Immigrants are those who live here. If a French immigrant lives in America and he travels to Brazil and someone asks where he is here from, he will say he is in Brazil FROM the United States. He is Pierre
OF Idaho. Nothing needs to be interpreted and nothing is vague no matter how much you try to make it so.
It derives its powers from being elected by... the people of the United States. The citizens, the voters.
It's not up for interpretation. It means we the people of the united states.
You keep highlighting the word "of" as though that means something special when it does not. The people who are governed by the United States are THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. This is where the government drives its powers.
Radar, That is not even worthy of a response. You are trying to switch the argument to the derrivation of power and to governance.
I would love to debate that with you right after we finish up this one, if you please. One thing at a time.
Please agree that:
1) the writers meant exactly what they wrote
(you have already done this numerous times) and
2) "of" is not the same as "the"
Wrong. It derives its powers from the CONSENT of the governed....the permission of the people. It exercises those powers through people becoming elected.
Immigrants are those who live here. If a French immigrant lives in America and he travels to Brazil and someone asks where he is here from, he will say he is in Brazil FROM the United States. He is Pierre OF Idaho. Nothing needs to be interpreted and nothing is vague no matter how much you try to make it so.
Depends on if he is a legal or illegal immigrant.
Radar, That is not even worthy of a response. You are trying to switch the argument to the derrivit4ion of power and to governance.
I would love to debate that with you rifght after we finish up this one.
Plese agree that:
1) the writers meant exactly what they wrote
(you have already done this numerous times) and
2) "of" is not the same as "the"
1. The writers mean exactly what they wrote, and it's not vague, ambiguous, or in need of "interpretation".
2. The people OF the United States refers to all of the people who are governed by the United States. All of them are OF the United States because the United States derives its powers from their consent.
Depends on if he is a legal or illegal immigrant.
There is no difference in America since the Federal government isn't granted any powers over immigration by the U.S. Constitution.
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.
Immigrants are those who live here. If a French immigrant lives in America and he travels to Brazil and someone asks where he is here from, he will say he is in Brazil FROM the United States. He is Pierre OF Idaho. Nothing needs to be interpreted and nothing is vague no matter how much you try to make it so.
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.
1. The writers mean exactly what they wrote, and it's not vague, ambiguous, or in need of "interpretation".
2. The people OF the United States "refers" to all of the people who are governed by the United States.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
Lost. Hard. Can't admit it. Too closed. In repeat denial.
It's pathetic, is what it is. It's pathetic.
Radar, How dare you make loopholes in the Constitution to twist it into what you want it to say? How dare you try to attempt to bring vagueness to the Constitution when it was clearly written "of" and not "the"?
Your feeble attempts to twist the Constitution are laughable. Your pathetic struggle to argue the definition of the word "of" was as sad as watching a fish flopping around in a net he can't escape from. You can't escape from the truth that the U.S. Government has no constitutional authority to govern immigration and that the Constitution protects the rights of ALL people who are within the borders of the United States including tourists, immigrants, and citizens. All of them are entitled to due process, all have freedom of speech protected by the government, all are equal under the law to any citizen born in America. The only difference is that only citizens may vote to change the laws or those enforcing them.
no more diversions radar - the gig is up, the band has left and the bar is closed.
Have a great nite.
Lemme say for the record; I think you are a very patriotic guy, just misguided. That is nothing more than my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
Take it easy man. No hard feelings.
I live in Taiwan.
I am in Taiwan.
I am American.
I am from America.
I am a US national, a citizen.
I am OF America.
A naturalized immigrant would be 'of' America - would be american. A long-term immigrant citizen of another country - 'of' another country - would be IN America, not of it.
You can't win this semantics argument. Argue something you actually have any kind of decent foundation to build your argument on.
It's nice to be able to "agree to disagree" without it getting too ugly.
Oh, it got ugly enough. :)
:shock: nah - it never got that ugly or too personal. A well heated debate.
At least we now have closure .....:bolt:
Now here's the fun part, in case you thought it wasn't fun enough already:
We're all wrong -- and I knew this going into this last flurry. In fact I was planning to advance the first seven words to make the whole point when you did for me, c-man. But here's the third act:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html
The newly minted document began with a grand flourish - the Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.
We the People of the United States
The Framers were an elite group - among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the people.
"We the People" -- always intended to reinforce the idea that the government is by the people, for the people. Never intended to make a broad statement about who they indicated.
That was the original intent.
Yet here we sit, running two totally different "obvious" interpretations and arguing over which of our wrong two takes on it are "correct".
You can see why we wound up with a system of courts and justice through case law. It's quite clear, through this thread, that an "obvious" interpretation is not obvious at all; that Radar has, as he always does, substituted HIS wrong interpretation as "obvious".
After all this, it's a clear example that somebody needs to have the ultimate say, and gosh just maybe it should be somebody who has actually studied the case law for years instead of a self-anointed expert who doesn't know or care about the actual, complete meanings of the first seven words of his most prized document.
What a shit-stirrer you are UT! - I'm gonna have to sleep on that one -I gott a get to bed.
Oh and this next part is interesting too;
in Order to form a more perfect Union
The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.
Greatest document ever? Well hey maybe, but not intended to be
ideal in the sense Radar thinks of it. Closer to perfect is all it intended to be, and probably because perfect is unachievable in a world populated by us imperfect humans.
We the people = the common man according to your quotation. Who is more common than the people living inside America?
I haven't substituted a wrong interpretation or a correct interpretation. I don't interpret at all. I stated the meaning of the words in their original context. The meaning of "We the people" refers to all of the people in the United States....the common man.
And case law is irrelevant when it comes to Constitutional discussions. Why would someone require years of studying irrelevant case law to discuss the words that are plainly written in the Constitution?
I do know and care about the true, correct, actual, and original meanings of the words in the Constitution and demand that they be taken in their original context. This is what I've been discussing. Nothing I've said is out of line with what the founders discussed when making the Constitution or with the words in the Constitution.
I've backed up everything I've said.
Oh and this next part is interesting too;
Greatest document ever? Well hey maybe, but not intended to be ideal in the sense Radar thinks of it. Closer to perfect is all it intended to be, and probably because perfect is unachievable in a world populated by us imperfect humans.
I'll agree with this statement. The Constitution was made to be
MORE perfect than the articles of the confederation, specifically they wanted to include the ability for the government to create taxes & tariffs since it couldn't under the AOC.
This is also why the founders created the amendment process so when times change and people feel the government should have a power that has not yet been enumerated, they could add it to the Constitution. For instance they could amend it to grant Constitutional authority over immigration to the federal government.
In fact, I'll even go so far as to say the Constitution is not a perfect document. There are many changes I would make to it to strengthen the language and close any attempts to make loopholes from the original intent of the founders for instance those who mention the word militias in the 2nd amendment and suggest this means our individual right to keep and bear arms is somehow limited solely to members of militias.
We the people = the common man according to your quotation. Who is more common than the people living inside America?
The
citizens of the United States.
This is as blatantly obvious to me as your view is to you.
We the people = everyone living within the borders of the United States. It's painfully obvious that all people are born with the same rights regardless of their citizenship and that the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of EVERYONE in the United States. EVERYONE has the right to due process, to a trial by jury, to the presumption of innocence, to freedom of speech, to freedom of religion, etc. and the Constitution was made to protect those rights for EVERYONE living in America regardless of their immigration status.
NO ONLY MY BLATNTLY OBVIUS IDEAS R RITE
Radar, we agreed to disagree last night and now you are starting the same old argument again. Why? Has something radically changed with the constitution overnight?
No, I just wanted to have the last post. ;)
I've worked as a Drill Sergeant. One of the questions I would ask new recruits during some down time is this: How many amendments are there to that document that you all swore to protect and defend?
I'd say 2 to 5 out of 120 guys knew the correct answer.
Another question that I asked one day to a room full of young soldiers, was: What is the birthday of the United States. Maybe it was the wording, I don't know....only 10% out of 240 of these mugs knew the answer. For a period of about 1.5 years I asked every group that came through that question, same result...10%. Most of that 10% were foreign nationals.
It has been a great, spirited discussion. I for one take very seriously my oath of enlistment. I have read the constitution, hell I swore an oath to protect and defend it. This discussion has driven me to read it again, and to look at a lot of commentary as well. Thank you.
One of the greatest things about our nation is our diversity, along with our great freedoms. It's an awesome thing that we can have discussion, and one or more of us is not locked up for voicing our opinions. However different those opinions may be. I used to have a copy of the constitution printed by the Congress, a little blue book. In the beginning of the book was a letter from the members of the Congress that ratified the constitution. The process was one of compromise. Everyone had to give something up. It is one of the great lessons of our nation.
Thank you for the discussion, and have a happy and prosperous year!
How many amendments are there to that document that you all swore to protect and defend?
That's a really hard question. I had to look it up. (answer in white text below)
[COLOR=White]27[/COLOR]
the USA's borders are so porous, especially along the coastlines as guards are rather thinly posted. Thus its easy to enter the country by boat. Isn't such a thing to be scared of?
Robsterman, coming out of the troll slamming thread to join the rest of us. Robster!
The Constitution of The United States of America only applies to legal citizens of the US, not to illegal aliens who are basically criminals.
Ohh Noo, not again?!?!?!
Maybe we should have a cellar vote and settle it that way.
Ohh Noo, not again?!?!?!
Maybe we should have a cellar vote and settle it that way.
"And now for something completely different."
The Constitution of The United States of America only applies to legal citizens of the US, not to illegal aliens who are basically criminals.
What?
If the Constitution, the very basis upon which all our other laws are founded, does not apply to non citizens, what does apply? What other laws apply if our Constitution does not?
Immigrants are those who live here. If a French immigrant lives in America and he travels to Brazil and someone asks where he is here from, he will say he is in Brazil FROM the United States. He is Pierre OF Idaho. Nothing needs to be interpreted and nothing is vague no matter how much you try to make it so.
Point of order, Radar.
Pierre is in South Dakota, not Idaho.
Carry on.
Are you serious, regular.joe? Do you think that the statement mercy made that the constitution doesn't apply to non citizens is the same argument from the previous hundred posts?
I don't.
I see this as a different question altogether.
I would also be very interested in hearing your input on this. I have found your recent posts on this topic to be quite valuable. You're reasonable, articulate, informed, intelligent and engaged in the discussion.
Thanks bigV. It's beating a horse for me. I'm all posted out for now. Perhaps later, after I take a break. I'll keep reading.
What?
If the Constitution, the very basis upon which all our other laws are founded, does not apply to non citizens, what does apply? What other laws apply if our Constitution does not?
It does apply. They are merely attempting to dehumanize others and suggest that merely being born in America entitles you to more rights than someone else. Humans are born with rights. Those rights don't come from governments. The Constitution was written to limit the power and authority of government and to defend the rights of all people who are governed by the United States....this of course applies to the undocumented and
LEGAL immigrants who came here without checking in with Uncle Sam. :)
Now that we have settled this and we all know the Constitution defends the rights of all people governed in the United States, and that the federal government has zero Constitutional authority over immigration we can finally put this thread to rest. :jig:
epic fail
totally; not the sharpest tack in the box.
Now that we have settled this and we all know the Constitution defends the rights of all people governed in the United States, and that the federal government has zero Constitutional authority over immigration we can finally put this thread to rest. :jig:
[SIZE="5"]YES PLEASE[/SIZE]
What?
If the Constitution, the very basis upon which all our other laws are founded, does not apply to non citizens, what does apply? What other laws apply if our Constitution does not?
Written by, and intended for
the citizens of the United States. It was not written for people of Mexico, Canada, Japan, or China. Once
legal migrants come here and become
US citizens they are afforded all the rights of
our Constitution as it was written. It was not written for the ciminals to enter our country
illegally.
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 It is important to notice that this is a government of the people, not of the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, in effect as our first form of "national" government, agreed to by the Continental Congress on November 15,1777 and in force after ratification by Maryland on March 1, 1782 until the ratification of the Constitution for the United States in 1788 and George Washington's inauguration as the nation's first President under the Constitution on April 30, 1789, the States as political entities, and not the people, entered into "a firm league of friendship", each State retaining "its sovereignty, freedom and independence." The new Constitution for the United States brought in a new Nation, the United States of America, deriving its "just powers from the consent of the governed."
"The people, the highest authority known to our system," said President Monroe, "from whom all our institutions spring and whom they depend, formed it."
"Its language, 'We the People,' is the institution of one great consolidated National government of the people of all the States, instead of a government by compact with the States for its agents," exclaimed Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying assembly while leading opposition to its adoption, "The people gave the [Constitutional] Convention no power to use their name." Some States restricted the authority of their delegates to revising the Articles of Confederation. It was claimed that the casting aside of the Articles of Confederation (which could be altered or amended only by the concurrence of every State) for a constitution to become effective when adopted by nine of the thirteen States was revolutionary. It was, in fact, a coup d'Etat. Revision only was uppermost in the minds of many. On February 21, 1787, the Congress existing under the Articles called a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." But it was the belief of the Constitutional Convention that as the new instrument was to go to the people for ratification or rejection, the objections stated by Henry and others were really unimportant.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html[SIZE="5"]YES PLEASE[/SIZE]
Thank you. So it's settled. ALL PEOPLE living within the borders of the United States have the same Constitutional protection of their rights and the federal government has absolutely no Constitutional authority over immigration.
End of story.
You're wrong mercy.
Let's follow your argument a bit to it's logical conclusions.
You say, The Constitution applies only to US citizens. That the Constitution does not apply to illegal immigrants. This is ridiculous on its face. By what definition and authority are these immigrants illegal then? It's pretty easy to understand what makes them immigrants. They were there, they are here.... not so tough.
But you insist on calling them illegal, implying that there's some law that they're breaking. How can they break a law that doesn't apply to them?
Thank you. So it's settled. ALL PEOPLE living within the borders of the United States have the same Constitutional protection of their rights and the federal government has absolutely no Constitutional authority over immigration.
End of story.
OMG! We should have all just read the first post and that would have been the end of it.
Silly us!
mercy, let's take it in the other direction too.
The Constitution applies to US citizens. Ok, then. When you, a US citizen, travel to another country, are you still covered by the Constitution? A better question is this: Are you subject to the laws of the country you're in?
Now that we have settled this and we all know the Constitution defends the rights of all people governed in the United States, and that the federal government has zero Constitutional authority over immigration we can finally put this thread to rest.
My dear radar - you nutty lil fruitcake - please, please, please at least keep your dignity. :jig:
( yeah, I stole ur smilie)
OMG! We should have all just read the first post and that would have been the end of it.
Silly us!
I'm glad we finally got that straightened out. :p
mercy, let's take it in the other direction too.
The Constitution applies to US citizens. Ok, then. When you, a US citizen, travel to another country, are you still covered by the Constitution? A better question is this: Are you subject to the laws of the country you're in?
Someone here gets it.
My dear radar - you nutty lil fruitcake - please, please, please at least keep your dignity. :jig:
( yeah, I stole ur smilie)
dignity? When did I get that? I certainly want to keep that. :jig:
The clause refers solely to the migration and importation of slaves ...
It doesn't say so. Are you bringing in something from outside the Constitution?
Slaves don't migrate.
It doesn't say so. Are you bringing in something from outside the Constitution?
Slaves don't migrate.
They migrate the same way cattle do. Their masters take them from one place to another. Slaves are imported. Slaves are property for which you paid a duty or a tax to import. Free people are not imported, are not property, and do not require a tax or a duty. The clause can only refer to slavery and our founders said so, the Supreme Court said so, the U.S. government and every single law school in America say so, and most of all the U.S. Constitution says so through the use of words like import, duty, tax, and migration rather than immigration.
Owned animals don't migrate; free ones do.
The tax applies to imports (slaves), not migrants. The paragraph bars Congress from interfering with imports AND migration, up to a certain date, but allows a tax or duty on imports only. No tax for migration.
The Supreme Court, the US Government, and every single law school in America all say the Federal government can regulate immigration. I thought you didn't want to bring them into the argument.
Migration refers to movement, not merely natural migrations, but forced ones. The Duty and Tax refer to an imported good; specifically the slave. The importation (bringing property into America) and migration (moving the livestock...aka slaves into different states to be sold) of slaves can only apply to slaves, and not the immigration of free people.
The Constitution says that the federal government may not have implied powers or the power to restrict or legislate immigration.
Radar, you keep telling us what this or that particular passage "refers to" ??? If it is so clear, then why do you have to keep explaining what it means, is applicable to, defining or relegating?
I was thinking about what UT showed us a few days back - we are all wrong! Those guys were way ahead of us and foresaw these very same arguments that we are having today. Thats why some argue that passages or phrases in the constitution are intentionally vague. Perhaps they entrusted future leaders to do the right things and apply the "implied meaning" to the current world or situations.
Certainly they didn't want us to stagnate in our thoughts and ideas or our direction for this most awesome country. I hope that we as a people have the ability and wisdom to, as a collective, choose those leaders. :2cents:
Coconuts migrate.
Here's my grate
It's a beauty, too, Spexx. :)
It's a beauty, too, Spexx. :)
Yeah, its great.
You're wrong mercy.
Let's follow your argument a bit to it's logical conclusions.
You say, The Constitution applies only to US citizens. That the Constitution does not apply to illegal immigrants. This is ridiculous on its face. By what definition and authority are these immigrants illegal then? It's pretty easy to understand what makes them immigrants. They were there, they are here.... not so tough.
But you insist on calling them illegal, implying that there's some law that they're breaking. How can they break a law that doesn't apply to them?
Plenty of people who come here are subject to our laws, tourists from anywhere. If they break a law here they are subject to penalty, and deportation. The illegal immigrants who cross the border illegally have broken laws by doing so. Just because you step foot in the US does not give you all the rights afforded our Constitution. That is where this whole thread started with me. Just because you are here does not make you an American citizen. Tourists, visitors, illegal aliens, and even documented aliens are not American citizens.
Birds migrate.
My new years resolution is to migrate off this thread for good. I keep coming back, (it feels like when you pass a traffic accident and have to look). But no more.
Birds migrate.
Are you referring to a European or African swallow?
My new years resolution is to migrate off this thread for good. I keep coming back, (it feels like when you pass a traffic accident and have to look). But no more.
Go to rehab
How does a mig rate? Well they used to be good fighter jets - no?
Plenty of people who come here are subject to our laws, tourists from anywhere.
For some reason this made me think of the Danish woman who was arrested in NYC for leaving her baby outside a restaurant while she ate.
The city dropped the charges and she sued and won.
:headshake
For some reason this made me think of the Danish woman who was arrested in NYC for leaving her baby outside a restaurant while she ate. The city dropped the charges and she sued and won.
:headshake
Has more to do with our legal system than it does our Constitution. Good on her, hope she got rich.
What's that supposed to mean? Radar Blows?!?! You bastard!
Has more to do with our legal system than it does our Constitution. Good on her, hope she got rich.
It has more to do with our laws than our highest law?
Migration refers to movement, not merely natural migrations, but forced ones. The Duty and Tax refer to an imported good; specifically the slave. The importation (bringing property into America) and migration (moving the livestock...aka slaves into different states to be sold) of slaves can only apply to slaves, and not the immigration of free people.
The duty only applies to the importation, not migration. And even if we accept that slaves migrate, so do any other "Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".
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.
O.K., I'm back for more. Food for thought.
The definition of constitution in the context in which we have been using it is: the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed...or... the document embodying these principles.
The document that embodies the principles according to which the United States is governed.
Principles. I'm going to include the entire compliment of definitions:
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use.
7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.
8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle.
9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.
10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life.
11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.
12. Chemistry. a constituent of a substance, esp. one giving to it some distinctive quality or effect.
13. Obsolete. beginning or commencement.
—Idioms
14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.
15. on principle,
a. according to personal rules for right conduct; as a matter of moral principle: He refused on principle to agree to the terms of the treaty.
b. according to a fixed rule, method, or practice: He drank hot milk every night on principle.
So, what are the principles embodied by our constitution? Just a question. I think they can be found in the opening paragraph.
I stand by my statements earlier. General welfare is not dealing with only the defense of the nation.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Definition of the coma: the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, esp. when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point.
We've had to go into some discussion as to the meaning of these things. It's important to understand perhaps.
Notice the coma between the phrase "provide for the common defence", and the phrase "promote the general Welfare". It is no mistake later that among the powers given to congress is to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. Hey, two of the different things that were outlined in the opening paragraph of the document.
So, if the people elected to congress, decide to pass a law for the general welfare of the United States, and that law deals with immigration they are well with within the spirit and principle of the Constitution. The constitution is not law, it is the document that embodies the principles which formed our nation and governmental system. Congress makes the laws.
As an example, in 1974 there was a law passed enacting a national speed limit of 55 MPH. It does not specify in the constitution that congress can do that. The law was not repealed on it's constitutionality or lack there of. The law was enforce until 1995 when it was passed back to the states. Although the constitution does not specifically give congress this ability to set a national speed limit, they did just that based on the general welfare of the U.S.
Fighting over the word "of" didn't work so now you want to dispute a comma?
The phrase "promote the general welfare" does not grant any power to Congress PERIOD. Promote the general welfare means allowing citizens to enjoy peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. It means nothing more or less than that.
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. Here's an actual photocopy of the entry...
http://alanchapman.org/libertyvault/files/generalwelfare.html
Contrary to what you're attempting to twist "general welfare" into, it is NOT a blank check for the government to create any laws it wishes and it grants no powers to the federal government at all.
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson
How does diplomatic immunity play into this? On one hand, it shows that some people in this country are not subject to our laws and constitution. On the other hand it shows that to get this immunity, there needs to be a formal accepted agreement constructed.
Bottom line, after all the comas and "the"'s, immigration law is not unconstitutional in theory, or in practice. Radar, you should be a lawyer and start representing those who are currently considered illegal aliens. I'm sure they would appreciate your help and assistance.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here...maybe there should be an amendment that says, "congress has the power to regulate immigration". Are you arguing on principle here? Are you saying that we should not regulate immigration to our country? Bottom line is we should, and we do. It may not lie within the letter of the constitution, it certainly lies with the spirit and principle of the constitution.
What I really see with Radar is a man who intensely reveres the constitution and intensely distrusts the people elected by the process set up by the constitution. What a conflict. I'm not saying that all of our elected officials are worthy of trust. The process is worthy of trust. We have the power to remove them, or not, based on the constitution. Not only do we have to abide by the letter of the words written, the spirit of the document as well.
I'm going to include a list here of all sections of the United Sates Code that are unconstitutional, since there is no specific power granted to congress to regulate these areas.
TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 13 CENSUS
TITLE 16 CONSERVATION
TITLE 20 EDUCATION
TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 23 HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 29 LABOR
TITLE 30 MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 49 TRANSPORTATION
Wow, why am I not in law school, I obviously belong there.
Fighting over the word "of" didn't work so now you want to dispute a comma?
:eyebrow: :headshake
I thought this debate was settled when we all realized Radar was right as always?
Bottom line, after all the comas and "the"'s, immigration law is not unconstitutional in theory, or in practice. Radar, you should be a lawyer and start representing those who are currently considered illegal aliens. I'm sure they would appreciate your help and assistance.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here...maybe there should be an amendment that says, "congress has the power to regulate immigration". Are you arguing on principle here? Are you saying that we should not regulate immigration to our country? Bottom line is we should, and we do. It may not lie within the letter of the constitution, it certainly lies with the spirit and principle of the constitution.
What I really see with Radar is a man who intensely reveres the constitution and intensely distrusts the people elected by the process set up by the constitution. What a conflict. I'm not saying that all of our elected officials are worthy of trust. The process is worthy of trust. We have the power to remove them, or not, based on the constitution. Not only do we have to abide by the letter of the words written, the spirit of the document as well.
I'm going to include a list here of all sections of the United Sates Code that are unconstitutional, since there is no specific power granted to congress to regulate these areas.
TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 13 CENSUS
TITLE 16 CONSERVATION
TITLE 20 EDUCATION
TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 23 HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 29 LABOR
TITLE 30 MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 49 TRANSPORTATION
Wow, why am I not in law school, I obviously belong there.
Actually, the Constitution does grant congress power over making roads...postal roads to be specific, and a census so taxes can be apportioned according to the population.
Everything else on the list would be better off in private hands.
As far as whether or not I think immigration should be regulated, my personal opinion is that we should keep up our tradition of welcoming a free flow of immigrants with open arms. But at the very least we should not allow the federal government to regulate immigration unless the Constitution is amended to grant such powers to Congress. The same goes for everything else you mentioned.
Allowing the government to control any area not specifically granted to them by the Constitution is wrong. Also, it's good to keep in mind that the federal government wasn't meant to control these things. It was meant to involved in our lives as little as possible, to settle disputes among states, etc.
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.
As far as whether or not I think immigration should be regulated, my personal opinion is that we should keep up our tradition of welcoming a free flow of immigrants with open arms.
I was going to raise this when you folks were arguing about whether immigration could be construed as "invasion", but you all seemed busy.
Suppose the Chinese government has an agent reading the Cellar, and they realize that they can send people to the US at will. They start a program to send, say, 350 million people to the US over, say, 5 years. Huge ships carry massive numbers to the west coast where they are put on rafts and paddle themselves ashore.
They are completely unarmed, wave American flags as they wade ashore, avow no hostile intentions, obey the laws, totally swamp the local infrastructure, seek citizenship and voting rights ... and are arriving at about 70 million per year, and within five years will make up more than half of the population.
This example is very far fetched. I'm trying to illustrate the point that there comes a time when uncontrolled migration would be very bad for the receiving country and the people who are there now.
What would you do, Radar? Grit your teeth and keep holding the door open? Or limit immigration?
This is no longer a question about the constitution. Rather about what should be done.
What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries? Nothing but common sense. Most likely any Chinese that came here would love the economic and social freedoms and they would be flying those flags for real.
Would having a half Chinese population be a bad thing? How about half Irish? If enough people immigrated here that opportunity started drying up, they would start to go somewhere else.
More people would mean we'd need more workers to service them and would certainly drive the economy to build housing and more infrastructure. My opinion is the only limit on our immigration should be the desire for others to come here.
What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries?
Well, every country that I know about has laws that control immigration.
I think the people and thus the government of a country have a right to protect their interests (to a certain degree - humanitarian refugees being an exception) by limiting immigration. I was wondering if you agreed.
And there are two types of limiting - the first (which we've already discussed) being limiting the total number, the second being preventing certain individuals from migrating: criminals, trouble-makers, agents of hostile powers, etc.
If you wouldn't limit the overall number, would you prevent certain individuals, based on their behaviour or intentions? I would. You?
I think the people and thus the government of a country have a right to protect their interests (to a certain degree - humanitarian refugees being an exception) by limiting immigration.
Do you justify by using xenophobia? Xenophobia is the only basis for America's fear of immigration using the exact same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. Ironically, many of those who believed that Saddam lie also fear immigration using the same logic. The Economist of 5 January 2008 describes this situation with proper perspective.
About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants. Around a third of Silicon Valley companies were started by Indian and Chinese. The low-skilled are needed too, especially in farming, services, and care for children and the elderly. It is no coincidence that countries that welcome immigrants - such as Sweden, Ireland, America, and Britain - have better economic records than those that shun them.
Given all these gains, why the backlash? Partly because politicians prefer to pander to xenophobic fears than to explain immigration's benefits. But not all fear of foreigners is irrational. Voters have genuine concerns. Large numbers of incomers may be unsettling; economic gloom makes native fear for their jobs; sharp disparities of income across borders threaten rich countries with floods of foreigners; outsiders who look and sound notably different from their hosts may find it hard to integrate. To keep borders open, such fears have to be acknowledged and dealt with, not swept under the carpet. ...
Above all, perspective is needed. The vast population movements of the past four decades have not brought the social strife the scaremongers predicted. On the contrary, they have offered a better life for millions of migrants and have enriched the receiving countries both culturally and materially. but to preserve these great benefits in the future, politicians need to the courage not only to speak up against the populist tide in favour of the gains immigration can bring, but also to deal honestly with the problems it can sometimes cause.
Xenophobia of immigration is based in myths, lies, and propaganda. Rush Limbaugh preaches this xenophobia as Rush routinely does - facts be damned. Therefore these immigration problems exist right alongside another Limbaugh truth - Saddam's WMDs. Why did Saddam have WMDs? As even stated by some here in the Cellar - only because we feared he might. Great nations have greater immigration.
What is a major problem for the Silion Valley? Immigration restrictions because so many Americans fear as Cheney and George Jr do rather than promote a stronger American future.
Immigration problems in America are from those who would exercise their fears rather that learn reality. More specifically, those are same people who believe Rush Limbaugh decrees. Immigrants mean net profits for America; not the massive welfare myths promoted by extremists. Oh. And those whose jobs are at risk due to immigrants? Why were they so anti-American as to not get educated?
TW, if you follow the exchange from posts 350 to 352, you might see that my comments were in the context of a huge flood of people. Doubling the population in five years kind of scenario. I cannot imagine this would be in any country's interest - the infrastructure would simply be swamped.
I was talking about whether a nation has the right to regulate immigration to manage this sort of situation. I was not saying that all immigration is bad.
My perspective is that of an Australian. A constant, moderate flow if diverse immigration is definitely good for Australia. A huge wave would create a lot of problems.
Please do not suggest I am xenophobic. Right now I am a xeno. And a quick think of my friends from the last decade or so shows that a good deal less than half are old-style "anglo" Australians.
And please, do not ever liken me in any way to Rush Limbaugh. Ever.
TW, if you follow the exchange from posts 350 to 352, you might see that my comments were in the context of a huge flood of people. Doubling the population in five years kind of scenario. I cannot imagine this would be in any country's interest - the infrastructure would simply be swamped.
Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? It is the assumption found in Rush Limbaugh logic. But where are the numbers - the facts? That assumption is not proven by history. Your intent may not be to agree with Rush – who does preach xenophobia to promote a political agenda as Goebels did in Nazi Germany. You have assumed reasoning based in the xenophobia found in Limbaugh logic. Obviously that does not even imply you are xenophobic.
Of course no reasonable person is suggesting population doubling even with unrestricted immigration. Those doubling numbers are also provided by the myths and fears from Limbaugh types.
Of course a massive influx would create problems. The Economist said same. Problems that mean only good things when solved as The Economist also notes. Did Rush logic forget to mention that part - the good part? Of course. Did he forget to mention addressing those problems means only good things? Of course. It promotes his poltiical agenda of preaching to those who 'know by entertaining their fears'.
Are you xenophobic? I don't know, I don't care, I never stated it, and it is not relevant. But you should be asking a question in the last sentence of this paragraph. In the deep south, when your conclusions or actions correspond with others who were overtly racist, then at what point do you question your actions? You may not intend to be racist, you may dislike reacists, and do not regard yourself as racist. But does it matter when your actions correspond with racists? Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?
Now don't do as classicman so often does. Do not read superficially to assume I have called you racist (or xenophobic). Do not entertain your emotions to ignore the statements here. I am intentionally making it easy to come to two radically different conclusions based upon whether you entertain the logic or entertain personal biases (emotions). The 'your' in that previous paragraph is not the same as something else called ZenGum. It was intentionally written so that you might jump to wild conclusions - as Rush Limbaugh supporters do. Or step back, read with greater care, and then grasp an underlying point and the associated questions. Only thing relevant in any of my posts are the facts.
There is a fine line between those who use xenophobia to make conclusions and those who come to the same conclusion but do not intend to be xenophobic. Again I ask the question. Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? The assumption is converted to fact by the xenophobic. Others used same reasoning to ‘know’ Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any facts that say a massive immigration influx is 'destructive'. Somehow the xenophobic have converted ‘problems’ into ‘disaster’. They are completely different. Only emotion to converts problems into something destructive. It is a game that Limbaugh can play with great affect.
Problematic? Of course massive immigration creates problems. So what? Confronting and solving those problems means an even greater nation as proven by this nations history and the point bluntly made by The Economist. We are suppose to learn from history – not rewrite it.
But again, this simple question that Rush disciples do not ask because they automatically believe what they are told: Why is a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? Source of such ‘fact’ comes from those with a ‘them verses us’ mentality. Same intolerants also believed Saddam would conspire to attack the US – when obvious facts said otherwise. But again, they knew Saddam wanted to attack the US because their fears converted wild speculation into facts. Their fears also assume massive immigration is bad – using same speculation declared as fact.
Any assumptions of an “I am xenophobic” suggestion was 100% your assumption. It did not exist in anything I posted; may be posted so that you might make that assumption (to test your ability to separate what was posted from personal assumptions), and is completely contradictory to the purpose of that post. “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?” Did you apply this fact when reading that post? Actions and intents are two completely different concepts that may coincide or contradict. Did I specifically say ZenGum is xenophobic? Now reread the paragraph that ends with “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?”
Then ask "Why is a massive inflow of immigrants bad?" when history and the above The Economist quote say otherwise.
tw, so what you are saying is that if, IF,there was an influx of 350,000,000 immigrants into America over 5 years this would be a good thing. Yes I am asking seriously. Since there was no link to your Economist article, I am questioning where the line is drawn. Where do the laws of diminishing return come into play here? How many is too many? Is there such a number? Logic and common sense says that at some point a MASSIVE influx would overwhelm a system not designed for that many people. Food, housing, waste removal, education, employment.... all of these things cannot happen immediately, as you an engineer certainly knows. Please address these issues. I , for one, am very open on immigration.
What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries? Nothing but common sense. Most likely any Chinese that came here would love the economic and social freedoms and they would be flying those flags for real.
Would having a half Chinese population be a bad thing? How about half Irish? If enough people immigrated here that opportunity started drying up, they would start to go somewhere else.
More people would mean we'd need more workers to service them and would certainly drive the economy to build housing and more infrastructure. My opinion is the only limit on our immigration should be the desire for others to come here.
No one wants to immigrate to China. Hell hole of pollution and global warming.
How does diplomatic immunity play into this? On one hand, it shows that some people in this country are not subject to our laws and constitution. On the other hand it shows that to get this immunity, there needs to be a formal accepted agreement constructed.
They must become citizens. Illegal aliens are not citizens of this country, they are criminals.
About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.
They are here on
legal visas, granted by the government. Until we get a documentation program for those who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas illegally the others are criminal elements sapping our resources dry from those who are legal and natural born citizens.
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.
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:
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".
It refers to slaves and does not refer to anyone other than slaves.
Because you say so.
:right:
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...
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.
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.
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.
Oh and welcome to the Cellar Learner. I see you've chosen to jump in at the deep end. ;)
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.
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.
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.
Illegal Aliens are all criminals who should be rounded up and put in Gitmo or deported immediately.
Perhaps you're right, but we have no illegal aliens in America.
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
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.
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
Hey...I liked Radar from MASH. He was a nice boy.
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
Hey...I liked Radar from MASH. He was a nice boy.
So am I. :)
Yea, other than being able to sense the impending arrival of a helicopter he was an idiot. Good point.
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"
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.
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.
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]OF[/COLOR][/SIZE]
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. :)
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]OF[/COLOR][/SIZE]
LOL!!!
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.
4. Migration refers to movement and is not the same thing as immigration.
Migration includes immigration and emmigration.
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.
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.
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...
Let it go man. Move on. I've already proven it applies only to slaves. Better luck next time.
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]OF[/COLOR][/SIZE]
OK, I gotta ask. What does that mean?
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.
I proposition that their prepositions presuppose the precedent that they have a freaking clue what they're arguing about, presumably...period. ;)
Then they started arguing abut a comma, and I went into a coma.
:biggrinje:
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.
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!
But wait, you claimed you are a Constitutional scholar!
And I am. But it turns out there are more than one.
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.
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. ;)
Hey. We need to get Drax in on this shit!!!!
I don't think Drax cares what Radar has to say. ;)
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:
It's ok as long as I don't answer myself.
And the proof is???
The proof that I don't answer myself?
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.
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.
[LIST=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 ...
[*]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.
[*]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.[/LIST]Migration and/or Importation interference are prohibited, pre 1808.
Importation may be taxed.
Nothing in the wording restricts "Migration" to slaves.
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.
The word SLAVES plays no part here. It's not in the passage.
Radar. World renown Award Winning Libertarian Activist, Computer Network Engineer, Bartender, and Casino Craps Dealer. slow cooker scholar. BTW.
Radar. World renown Award Winning Libertarian Activist, Computer Network Engineer, Bartender, and Casino Craps Dealer. slow cooker scholar. BTW.
[understatement]ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/understatementofthelargestorder]
:p
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. 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"
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
if you say it louder, someone might believe you more.
Only radar believes radar at this point. The more he tries to convince me, the less I agree.
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. :)
okie dokie - hopefully your insults put this thread to a long overdue end.
There you go being all rude and nasty again.
You could always try bold. That might help.
In fact nobody who denies the truth in what I say has an intellect above that of a flea.
Your little universe must be
very nice. I wish
I had that kind of mindless self-confidence. Very reassuring, I'm sure.
It's easy to feel superior when so many around you are inferior. Even an average man would feel super intelligent in a room full of Special Olympians.
Radar, here's a line you could try.
I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG SO NER NER NE NER NER!
Illegal aliens busted!
It's easy to feel superior when so many around you are inferior. Even an average man would feel super intelligent in a room full of Special Olympians.
Maybe thats why we all feel so good after reading your posts in this thread.
(I already feel bad replying to this)
I'm happy you feel good. I don't. I feel superior, but not good. How can I feel good knowing so many morons are running around loose? Especially racists criminals like Merc.
I'd take a dozen of the worst immigrants over him anytime. They care more about America than he does, they understand the American dream more than he does, they respect the Constitution more than he does, they follow the principles of our founders unlike him, etc. In short, they are far more deserving to be in America and to call themselves Americans than he, and all of the people like him combined are.
Radar and I have something in common I think. There is no conceit in my family, I have it all.
BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
:D :thumb: :king: :mock: :stickpoke :lol2: :jig:
The duty or tax applies to the importation of slaves.
But not the migration of any other people that states choose to admit.
I'm happy you feel good. I don't. I feel superior, but not good. How can I feel good knowing so many morons are running around loose? Especially racists criminals like Merc.
I'd take a dozen of the worst immigrants over him anytime. They care more about America than he does, they understand the American dream more than he does, they respect the Constitution more than he does, they follow the principles of our founders unlike him, etc. In short, they are far more deserving to be in America and to call themselves Americans than he, and all of the people like him combined are.
Ghey... You got to better than that.
More criminal illegal aliens:
It's too bad they don't read too well in the south. California is certainly better than every southern state combined, and the most poorly educated Mexican here is more intelligent and classy than the best redneck from down there.
But not the migration of any other people that states choose to admit.
The people in question were slaves that the states chose to admit. The migration of them (movement) refers to moving slaves from one state to another. No "people" other than slaves were discussed in that clause.
and the most poorly educated Mexican here is more intelligent and classy than the best redneck from down there.
Way to really stick it to 'em Radar.:rolleyes:
Georgia is starting to arrest them and have them deported by ICE. Since they are here illegally they don't have much recourse. The state is also going after the businesses. All good stuff.
The people in question were slaves that the states chose to admit. The migration of them (movement) refers to moving slaves from one state to another. No "people" other than slaves were discussed in that clause.
Nothing in the passage supports that claim.
Everything in the passage supports it. It talks about the migration of slaves and the importation of slaves, and the fact that the federal government can't abolish slavery before 1808 but may charge a tax or duty for them.
Georgia is starting to arrest them and have them deported by ICE. Since they are here illegally they don't have much recourse. The state is also going after the businesses. All good stuff.
Instead of the minuteman project, maybe I should join a Patriot Project where we take up arms against members of the unconstitutional ICE department and allow the immigrants to cross the border unmolested.
Maybe you should. It would draw your issue to a head. You would then have the finest lawyers and constitutional scholars debating the issue in the public realm and the issue can be put to rest.
Instead of the minuteman project, maybe I should join a Patriot Project where we take up arms against members of the unconstitutional ICE department and allow the immigrants to cross the border unmolested.
I would love if you would, that is actually a grand idea. And as lookout stated, after you are arrested by the Border Patrol and put in prison for supporting illegal criminals you can challenge all of your fantasies in a court of law. I think it would be a good thing for you. You probably don't pay taxes either.:rolleyes:
Crap, we'd have to pay for his lawyer.....
Crap, we'd have to pay for his lawyer.....
Ugggggggggg... No we wouldn't, he told me earlier in this thread as he was in the Military for four years, got out and now makes more money than most general officers. So I say since he will be involved in smuggling more illegal aliens into the country we just get the feds to go seize all his assets, money, house, cars, whatever. Then we could use it to pay his public defender.:D
I would love if you would, that is actually a grand idea. And as lookout stated, after you are arrested by the Border Patrol and put in prison for supporting illegal criminals you can challenge all of your fantasies in a court of law. I think it would be a good thing for you. You probably don't pay taxes either.:rolleyes:
I don't think a dead border patrol agent is going to be able to arrest me.
Also, I pay plenty of taxes. I'd even pay income taxes if you or anyone can show me the law that compels me to do so. Joe Bannister, John Turner, and Sherry Jackson are all former IRS agents who quit their jobs when they couldn't find that law. When they asked the IRS to show them the law that compels us to pay income taxes so they would know they were doing the right thing, they were told they could resign and were not shown any law.
The government is my servant, and I am its master. If my servant doesn't abide by my rules (The U.S. Constitution) I will stop feeding the servant until he gets his act straight.
I don't think a dead border patrol agent is going to be able to arrest me.
absolutely brilliant retort rambo. Your faith in your convictions is so weak that you would kill a guy doing his job rather than take the chance that the law doesn't support your view?
they were told they could resign and were not shown any law.
People are allowed to resign from jobs all the time. Often they are encouraged to do so when their mindset doesn't mesh well with the task at hand. That doesn't necessarily prove them right.
I don't think a dead border patrol agent is going to be able to arrest me.
Also, I pay plenty of taxes. I'd even pay income taxes if you or anyone can show me the law that compels me to do so. Joe Bannister, John Turner, and Sherry Jackson are all former IRS agents who quit their jobs when they couldn't find that law. When they asked the IRS to show them the law that compels us to pay income taxes so they would know they were doing the right thing, they were told they could resign and were not shown any law.
The government is my servant, and I am its master. If my servant doesn't abide by my rules (The U.S. Constitution) I will stop feeding the servant until he gets his act straight.
So now you are threatening to kill a border patrol agent who tries to arrest you....
And you admit to not paying taxes...
You have issues.
Everything in the passage supports it. It talks about the migration of slaves and the importation of slaves, and the fact that the federal government can't abolish slavery before 1808 but may charge a tax or duty for them.
No, it doesn't mention slaves. Slavery can be inferred, but only in relation to the importation and duties, not in relation to migration. "Migration" as the forcible movement of slaves between states is a construct you brought in, not one that is in the passage, especially to the exclusion of all other types of migration.
shhh! if you make the walls of his little world crumble he might be forced to live in ours.
This last page just made me laugh.
I'm right and you're wrong, so ner ner ne ner ner! lol
Unbelievable.
Migration is not IMmigration. Slaves are migrated. Free people are immigrated.
Migration is not immigration, but immigration is migration. Slaves are migrated, free people migrate. The passage gives no preference to either construction.
So now you are threatening to kill a border patrol agent who tries to arrest you....
And you admit to not paying taxes...
You have issues.
I'm not threatening anyone. I'd be using DEFENSIVE force against those who attempt to violate or harass free people crossing the border LEGALLY. I'd be standing up for the Constitution and being a real American patriot.
Also, I didn't say I don't pay taxes. I pay plenty of taxes. I pay every tax that I am legally required to pay. I pay sales tax, excise taxes on my phone, cable, gas, electric, etc. bills, I pay gas tax when I fill up my car, I pay tariffs through higher prices on imported goods, I pay PLENTY of taxes.
I just said, I am not required to pay INCOME taxes because the government has no legitimate authority to take the fruits of my labor, and can never have such a legitimate power because people don't have the legitimate authority to take what others have earned by force and therefore can't grant that power to the government.
As far as issues goes, if you call being surrounded by assholes, morons, and gutless, anti-American scumbags like you...issues, I guess yes, I've got a few of those.
Illegals aliens just crawl, swim, walk, or enter this country illegally through some other means. They are birds who never fly back to the south, but they send their money south of the border!
issues, I guess yes, I've got a few of those.
You have LOTS of issues dude, delusions of grandeur is one of your biggest!:3eye:
Migration is not immigration, but immigration is migration. Slaves are migrated, free people migrate. The passage gives no preference to either construction.
Slaves migrate...free people immigrate.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 refers ONLY to slaves. It discusses the migration or importation of slaves and the fact that the federal government may not prohibit slavery from the states that want to allow slaves to be imported or migrated into those states.
It can not be construed to have any relation or connection to immigration or movement of free people by any stretch of the rational mind.
You have LOTS of issues dude, delusions of grandeur is one of your biggest!:3eye:
That's nothing compared to your delusions of adequacy.
As per the Constitution of The United Sates section 8 paragraph 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So, Congress has passed into law the United States Code.
United States Code TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A--INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A--DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC1
I hope that helps.
Illegals aliens just crawl, swim, walk, or enter this country illegally through some other means. They are birds who never fly back to the south, but they send their money south of the border!
No illegal immigrant has ever entered the United States. Those who cross the border by crawling, walking, swimming, running, or jumping are entering the country LEGALLY and are not violating any legitimate laws. They work hard, and contribute BILLIONS more to the U.S. economy than they use in services, and what they do with the rest of the money they earn is irrelevant.
If they are sending it back to Mexico, that is a good thing. It means Mexican people will be able to afford to buy more American made products.
No illegal immigrant has ever entered the United States. Those who cross the border by crawling, walking, swimming, running, or jumping are entering the country LEGALLY and are not violating any legitimate laws. They work hard, and contribute BILLIONS more to the U.S. economy than they use in services, and what they do with the rest of the money they earn is irrelevant.
If they are sending it back to Mexico, that is a good thing. It means Mexican people will be able to afford to buy more American made products.
They are all criminals as our laws define it. If they are not why are they being arrested and deported? Check our your local prison, they are filled with these illegals.
As per the Constitution of The United Sates section 8 paragraph 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So, Congress has passed into law the United States Code.
United States Code TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A--INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A--DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC1
I hope that helps.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
All taxes must be apportioned among the states. This means they take a census and divide the whole amount of money it takes to run the government into parts based on the population and each state's share is to be divided by the population of that state.
This is not happening with income taxes. Also Congress is granted the limited ability to create taxes, but not to tax income. Our rights can't be taxed. They can't make a breathing tax, an eating tax, or an earning a paycheck tax.
They are all criminals as our laws define it. If they are not why are they being arrested and deported? Check our your local prison, they are filled with these illegals.
They are not criminals as our laws define it. Our highest law says the federal government may not create or enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any legitimate laws.
They are being arrested and deported ILLEGALLY and being harassed by idiots who know nothing about the Constitution. Also, undocumented immigrants are NOT filling up our prisons. In fact they are LESS likely to be arrested than people born here.
I realize you're not well educated down south, but all Hispanics or Mexicans are not undocumented immigrants.
I hope you can get put into the same cell as Al Capone. What a neat feeling, what a sense of history that would feel like.
Slaves migrate...free people immigrate.
And free people, when immigrating (or emmigrating, or just moving around within a country), migrate.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 refers ONLY to slaves. It discusses the migration or importation of slaves and the fact that the federal government may not prohibit slavery from the states that want to allow slaves to be imported or migrated into those states.
You have yet to do more than assert that. The closest you have come to even attempting to support that assertion required you to make up a rule that free people don't migrate. I defy you to find a definition of "migrate" that has that restriction.
Slaves migrate...free people immigrate.
What part of the definition of migration excludes free people?
For that matter what part of the definition of immigration excludes enforced immigration?
Which dicktionary do you use? I'd be interested to seek that one out for my collection.
The wording dealing with direct taxes was removed in the 14th amendment:
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Hey, it's a game of constitution tag. You're it!!!
How can I feel good knowing so many morons are running around loose? Especially racists criminals like Merc.
I'd take a dozen of the worst immigrants over him anytime. They care more about America than he does, they understand the American dream more than he does, they respect the Constitution more than he does, they follow the principles of our founders unlike him, etc. In short, they are far more deserving to be in America and to call themselves Americans than he, and all of the people like him combined are.
I quite liked that bit.
I wonder if, when the constitution was written, the authors intended to include slaves. We could refer to them as impelled refugees. I'm sure they must have thought about slaves since these men were so insightful that they could write a document which would encompass every single possible challenge the country is/was likely to face.
However, considering slaves are actually people who were forced to move against their will, it would seem that they are not covered in any way under the constitution, unless of course you don't consider them to be people to begin with.
I hope so too. Alcatraz is no longer a working prison. I'd be able to get out.
The wording dealing with direct taxes was removed in the 14th amendment:
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Hey, it's a game of constitution tag. You're it!!!
I don't see anything in there about taxes. The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution. Again, this isn't merely my opinion, it's a fact.
Philander Knox was the guy who did it. He slipped it by on Christmas Eve at midnight and he claimed it was ratified, but the papers were not ratified, and were changed by the states prior to signing them.
You may want to read "The law that never was" by Bill Benson. He traveled to each of the states and got original copies of the papers that were signed and he proves that the 16th was not legitimately ratified.
Even if it were ratified, it would become void because it violates several other parts of the Constitution. An amendment may add to the Constitution, or it may repeal part of the Constitution, but it may not contradict another part. The 16th violates many parts.
I wonder if, when the constitution was written, the authors intended to include slaves. We could refer to them as impelled refugees. I'm sure they must have thought about slaves since these men were so insightful that they could write a document which would encompass every single possible challenge the country is/was likely to face.
However, considering slaves are actually people who were forced to move against their will, it would seem that they are not covered in any way under the constitution, unless of course you don't consider them to be people to begin with.
They were persons but were also slaves. They were treated as livestock.
Well if that's true, then every slave trader and user was acting unconstitutionally through their own ignorance and bigotry.
I quite liked that bit.
Why would you like his comments?
You don't really support this wacko do you?
...The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution...
Psssssst! I heard Heywood Jablowmee forged John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independance. Don't tell anybody....
I don't see anything in there about taxes. The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution.
Prove that please. You have stated too many times that nothing other than the constitution matters, then when
verifiably proven wrong REPEATEDLY you try to slip away with another game of round robin duck and switch. :headshake
Now you want us to believe that another part of "the Constitution" that inarguably proves you are insane and completely WRONG is not valid - yeah right. :right: And we're the wacko's uh huh.
suuuuureee we are. :eyebrow:
Philander Knox for President!
Why would you like his comments?
You don't really support this wacko do you?
Correction, I liked that particular comment. I disagree with Radar on most things we've ever discussed...and agree with him on a smattering too.
I find your attitude towards illegal immigrants distasteful. To me it is racist. This is not news to you Merc, we've had this discussion ourselves in the past :P
Prove that please. You have stated too many times that nothing other than the constitution matters, then when verifiably proven wrong REPEATEDLY you try to slip away with another game of round robin duck and switch. :headshake
Now you want us to believe that another part of "the Constitution" that inarguably proves you are insane and completely WRONG is not valid - yeah right. :right: And we're the wacko's uh huh.
suuuuureee we are. :eyebrow:
1. I've
NEVER been proven wrong a single time with the Constitution, though I've proven you wrong
verifiably and repeatedly on many occasions.
2. I don't try to "slip" away ever. I address the issue. Others in this thread have attempted to change the game and discuss the definition of "of" or the use of punctuation marks.
3. I've proven each and every single thing I've said with regard to the Constitution and immigration. No part of it grants the federal government authority over immigration....not the migration and importation of slaves
(which are the only people referred to in that clause), not the power to repel invasions, not the "general welfare" clause, not the power to make laws concerning naturalization, etc.
Many attempts have been made by people in this thread to twist the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, or to misconstrue some part of the Constitution that has nothing to do with the immigration of free people, to mean that it does.
People have danced around and dodged the truth and tried to hit me from every angle with laughably stupid arguments, but in every case they were shut down by the truth, by the facts, by the words of our founders, and by the simple and clear language of U.S. Constitution itself which PROHIBITS the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws.
Many attempts have been made by people in this thread to twist the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, or to misconstrue some part of the Constitution that has nothing to do with the immigration of free people, to mean that it does.
I'll just take this one part - you, Radar, have repeated attempted to tell "us" what a passage or portion of the Constitution refers to or means or is applicable to or directed at or or or or or ad nauseum. Then when it is clearly stated in the Constitution that you are wrong, you claim that part of the Constitution is not valid because it disagrees with your perspective.
Thats fine, I think everyone has got their own perspective and yours is just very different than most well virtually everyone else's. Still thats a good thing to a point, but to claim that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is less of an American. Well thats where you cross a very dangerous line. Add to that your own admission that you would murder a border agent serving his duty and your refusal to pay income taxes.... I'm out - you should spend time with wolfs equivalent in your area.
I would not murder anyone. I would use defensive force against anyone who tried to stop me from bringing over undocumented immigrants because they would be attempting to violate the Constitution and to violate the rights of people legally and peacefully entering the country. It is nobody's duty to prevent people from doing this and being a member of an unconstitutional part of government enforcing unconstitutional laws does not lend them any legitimacy. If a border patrol agent didn't try to stop me or follow me, he wouldn't be harmed by me.
I haven't offered my "view" of what the Constitution means. I've provided the actual text and the true meaning of the words in them in the original context of the founders.
Those who want to violate the Constitution or who support unconstitutional parts of government or unconstitutional laws genuinely are less worthy to call themselves American. I have never said any part of the Constitution is invalid because I disagree with it. I've described how the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified. I've offered facts, not opinion.
How is keeping what I earn considered wrong? How is not allowing myself to be robbed a bad thing? How is complying with the Constitution and acting as an enemy of those who don't make me a monster? How is defending the rights of innocent people a threat? How does standing up to criminals who enforce unconstitutional laws make me anything other than a patriot?
Correction, I liked that particular comment. I disagree with Radar on most things we've ever discussed...and agree with him on a smattering too.
I find your attitude towards illegal immigrants distasteful. To me it is racist. This is not news to you Merc, we've had this discussion ourselves in the past :P
Thank you for the clarification, you are a twit.
I'll repeat myself.
I'm out - you should spend time with wolfs equivalent in your area.
I would not murder anyone. I would use defensive force against anyone who tried to stop me from bringing over undocumented immigrants because they would be attempting to violate the Constitution and to violate the rights of people legally and peacefully entering the country. It is nobody's duty to prevent people from doing this and being a member of an unconstitutional part of government enforcing unconstitutional laws does not lend them any legitimacy. If a border patrol agent didn't try to stop me or follow me, he wouldn't be harmed by me.
I haven't offered my "view" of what the Constitution means. I've provided the actual text and the true meaning of the words in them in the original context of the founders.
Those who want to violate the Constitution or who support unconstitutional parts of government or unconstitutional laws genuinely are less worthy to call themselves American. I have never said any part of the Constitution is invalid because I disagree with it. I've described how the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified. I've offered facts, not opinion.
How is keeping what I earn considered wrong? How is not allowing myself to be robbed a bad thing? How is complying with the Constitution and acting as an enemy of those who don't make me a monster? How is defending the rights of innocent people a threat? How does standing up to criminals who enforce unconstitutional laws make me anything other than a patriot?
To late dude, you have been quoted by saying that you would murder a Border Patrol Agent who was doing his duty to protect our Nation from an invasion of illegal aliens. You are no patriot. You are an E-4 loser who passes himself off as some internet expert on the Constitution but you can produce absolutely no credentials to support that notion. You have admitted to being a Tax Evader and do not pay your Federal income tax, but you suck off the national resources. You are a total loser and a traitor to our nation, who supports the illegal invasion of criminal elements who want to do nothing more than suck off of our lifestyle supported by taxpayers money. You need to move to Canada or move you and your crack whore back to Mexico where you belong. You are no American and have no authority to judge anyone. If you do believe all that you say step up to the plate and challenge your notions in a court of law, but you can’t because you would lose and be exposed in your fantasy world. I have forwarded this thread to the HQ Boarder Patrol, maybe they can subpoena your IP address and find out just who you are… have a great life traitor scum.
:D
Merc...Dana is not a twit mate. Don't put yourself in the same class as others who resort to personal insults.
To late dude, you have been quoted by saying that you would murder a Border Patrol Agent who was doing his duty to protect our Nation from an invasion of illegal aliens. You are no patriot. You are an E-4 loser who passes himself off as some internet expert on the Constitution but you can produce absolutely no credentials to support that notion. You have admitted to being a Tax Evader and do not pay your Federal income tax, but you suck off the national resources. You are a total loser and a traitor to our nation, who supports the illegal invasion of criminal elements who want to do nothing more than suck off of our lifestyle supported by taxpayers money. You need to move to Canada or move you and your crack whore back to Mexico where you belong. You are no American and have no authority to judge anyone. If you do believe all that you say step up to the plate and challenge your notions in a court of law, but you can’t because you would lose and be exposed in your fantasy world. I have forwarded this thread to the HQ Boarder Patrol, maybe they can subpoena your IP address and find out just who you are… have a great life traitor scum.
:D
blah blah blah blah you moronic little pussy. You run your big mouth off about shit you know nothing about. I'm your better in every way. You're just an ignorant punk ass little bitch.
My name and address is posted online. Give it your best shot.
I'm your better in every way.
Not true.
If you were better in
every way, everyone would prefer you to Merc, right?
Geez monster...now you're making it hard.
Not true.
If you were better in every way, everyone would prefer you to Merc, right?
No. People don't always prefer what's better. In fact most times they don't. That's why we have so many fast food places. :)
Fuck those Mexicans, how do we get rid of the damn Irish?
Thank you for the clarification, you are a twit.
*smiles* I think you mispelled that :P
:rolleyes: so prefer and better have different meanings in the Radar dicktionary too! Now I'm starting to see the light. all my life I must've been unknowingly waiting for him to come along and show me the path :lol: No more Oxford and Websters for me....
1. I've NEVER been proven wrong a single time with the Constitution, though I've proven you wrong verifiably and repeatedly on many occasions..
Oh! This is the [SIZE="4"]
Radar [/SIZE]that Classicman has so often accused me of being? I thought he was characterizing me in reference to the Radar from M*A*S*H.
No offense to you Radar but I really don't see how anyone could confused the two of us, though I see we have one thing in common - the exasperation of Classicman's idiocy. :D
lol monster.
I must admit, this thread has confused me somewhat. I find constitutional stuff hard to get my head around at the best of times, but when the very language gets morphed out of all recognition it gets even more confusing. In what way is 'migrate' something that applies to slaves whilst 'immigrate' applies to free peoples?
blah blah blah blah you moronic little pussy. You run your big mouth off about shit you know nothing about. I'm your better in every way. You're just an ignorant punk ass little bitch.
My name and address is posted online. Give it your best shot.
Oh FFS radar, is there any need for that? And there I was thinking you'd mellowed.
blah blah blah blah you moronic little pussy. You run your big mouth off about shit you know nothing about. I'm your better in every way. You're just an ignorant punk ass little bitch.
My name and address is posted online. Give it your best shot.
The best way to slow US immigration would be to require aspiring Americans to read the juvenile musings of their Constitutional scholars. Not an inspiring start for me here......you're quite safe from me Radar I do assure you!!! Have a great life.
lol monster.
I must admit, this thread has confused me somewhat. I find constitutional stuff hard to get my head around at the best of times, but when the very language gets morphed out of all recognition it gets even more confusing. In what way is 'migrate' something that applies to slaves whilst 'immigrate' applies to free peoples?
Oh FFS radar, is there any need for that? And there I was thinking you'd mellowed.
I have. Jerks like him just piss me off. Having a traitor like him question my patriotism makes me want to puke.
Sorry for the outburst.
Fuck those Mexicans, how do we get rid of the damn Irish?
The best way to slow US immigration would be to require aspiring Americans to read the juvenile musings of their Constitutional scholars. Not an inspiring start for me here......you're quite safe from me Radar I do assure you!!! Have a great life.
Ho! :D
I see we have one thing in common - the exasperation of Classicman's idiocy. :D
Well thanks, coming from you I take that as a compliment.
Well thanks, coming from you I take that as a compliment.
Unintentionally, I'm sure.
Oh! This is the [SIZE="4"]Radar [/SIZE]that Classicman has so often accused me of being? I thought he was characterizing me in reference to the Radar from M*A*S*H.
No offense to you Radar but I really don't see how anyone could confused the two of us, though I see we have one thing in common - the exasperation of Classicman's idiocy. :D
Anyone who recognizes the stupidity of that guy can't be half bad.
Although I don't subscribe to the philosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" that George W. Bush is so fond of.
Anyone who recognizes the stupidity of that guy can't be half bad.
Ah! There are
TWO things we have in common.
I find it funny that you neither of you realize the similarity is found in your shared inability to understand that your "knowledge" might not be 100% complete and accurate. You each walk into every discussion only to educate us since you apparently already know everything. Kind of makes spending time in a community like this pretty pointless.
My name and address is posted online. Give it your best shot.
Great, give me the link or post it here. The Patriot Act awaits you...;)
That is not your address.
We trashed punks like you with the UCMJ on a regular basis.
Actually, Radar has never hidden his identity in the cellar. He has freely posted his name numerous times including when he was running for office and when he was arrested for distributing flyers in front of the post office.
I think his statements here are stupid and childish, but he is certainly not hidden.
Anyone who recognizes the stupidity of that guy can't be half bad.
Ah! There are TWO things we have in common.
Lay it out for me - Exactly what is it I've said that makes me "stupid"? I believe I am a rather intelligent, coherent and grounded in reality. Please enlighten me. Part of my life goal is to ever improve. Here is your chance...
Actually, Radar has never hidden his identity in the cellar. He has freely posted his name numerous times including when he was running for office and when he was arrested for distributing flyers in front of the post office.
I think his statements here are stupid and childish, but he is certainly not hidden.
I've always been completely honest (even brutally so) about everything I say. I have nothing to hide.
Lay it out for me - Exactly what is it I've said that makes me "stupid"? I believe I am a rather intelligent, coherent and grounded in reality. Please enlighten me. Part of my life goal is to ever improve. Here is your chance...
I also believe I'm rather intelligent, coherent, and grounded in reality. Clearly only one of us is correct, and it's not looking good for you.
You wanted to argue over the word "of" and you have the nerve to ask what you've said that makes you stupid? You have been presented with indisputable facts, yet you deny them or try to dismiss them as opinion.
I also believe I'm rather intelligent, coherent, and grounded in reality. Clearly only one of us is correct, and it's not looking good for you.
is it ok to sound the logical fallacy alert now?
Person A says they are correct and has the opposite position of Person B. Only one of them is right.
classicman says he is intelligent, coherent, and grounded in reality and that I am not. I say the same thing about him. We can't both be correct.
I see no fallacy.
is it ok to sound the logical fallacy alert now?
I was thinking the full-time siren would be better.
Seriously, cellarites, this thread was a good one for the first three or four hundred posts or so (what amazing stamina it had), but now it seems to have boiled down to name calling and veiled threats and challenges.
Ok, we didn't reach consensus. Can we let it go now please?
As far as I'm concerned this thread can die. I proved everything at the start of the thread and the rest of it is nothing but people making ridiculous and laughable attempts to circumvent the Constitution or to debate the meaning of words while ignoring the big picture and the whole message.
Person A says they are correct and has the opposite position of Person B. Only one of them is right.
classicman says he is intelligent, coherent, and grounded in reality and that I am not. I say the same thing about him. We can't both be correct.
I see no fallacy.
That's your problem Radar - and don't read this as an attack, just an observation. You refuse to acknowledge that two people can sit down look at the same information and come to different conclusions. We're not talking about mathematics. People have different life experiences, different specialized knowledge, and different priorities that they have to sift incoming information through. That makes it very possible for two intelligent, coherent, and grounded individuals to come to different conclusion based on identical input.
IF you will recognize that life isn't as black and white, right and wrong, smart or stupid as you have portrayed it you'll achieve a couple of things, not the least of which is you'll have a better chance of presenting your case in such a way that it might actually teach the other person a thing or two, thus swaying them to your way of thinking.
Radar, first of all, you didn't answer my question and secondly I believe it was you who initially resorted to insults and name calling. Thirdly, I would like to hear from the ArethaDoc exactly what it is that makes me "stupid"? My search for information and/or differing perspectives certainly isn't it, so I'll wait.
Lastly, I believe it was I who suggested we agree to disagree - no?
Silly classicman, wonder no more. It's because you're one of those scumbag Americans, that are ruining the socialist utopia this world could be.
Fuck you Bru - - - oh Ha Ha Ha.....
One of the more popular claims by illegal immigration proponents is that those who enter the U.S. by breaking the law are invariably "hard-working" and "law-abiding" once they get here.
That argument, however, has one major flaw. According to Justice Department statistics and the analysis of immigration experts, the "law-abiding" claim often isn't true.
As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
"The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."
Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: "Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population."
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson places the percentage of illegal aliens in U.S. prisons even higher. In 2001, he told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly:
"We had problems related to the costs of educating children who were acknowledged to be in the country illegally, healthcare costs. One in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally."
The Federation for American Immigration Reform also turned to the Justice Department to get statistics on criminal aliens. They report:
"In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings].
"In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens [who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges]."
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.
As to the "hard-working" claim, CIS notes: "The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households."
Investor's Business Daily concurs: "Once [illegals] get here, they are 50 percent more likely to be on welfare than citizens."
Thats a sobering read. Contradicts whats been purported around her too.
are any of the jailtime hours those illegals are serving directly related to them being illegals?
probably not in the sense you mean, but I have no idea and making a guess around here can be fatal lately.
So Merc, where's the link? Is that really from the Justice Dept., or from one of your "reliable sources?" :rolleyes:
Sobering read, my ass.
what about your ass blue?
I know that whats your point? Earlier this week I was reading posts about how great all these illegal immigrants are for our economy and Merc's post seems to counter that 100% - I find that rather interesting and said so. You you you resolution wrecker you! ;)
That's because, like most of Merc's posts, it was a steaming pile of bullshit.
Every single reputable and credible source of economic facts proves that the undocumented (LEGAL) immigrants contribute BILLIONS more to the economy than they use in services. Also the outright lies in the number of undocumented immigrants idiots like him post have no relation to the truth.
The stats kept by the justice department are for "non-citizens". This includes both documented AND undocumented immigrants. Even if we say half of those are undocumented immigrants which is outrageous, it still means there are a lower percentage of undocumented immigrants in our jails than we have as a percentage of our total population. In other words, undocumented immigrants are much less likely to go to jail than people who are born here.
Kind of makes spending time in a community like this pretty pointless.
The
"log out" button is up there to the right. It's a maroonish colour if that makes it any easier for you to find.
.... Exactly what is it I've said that makes me "stupid"? ...
I'd be hard pressed to find something you've said that
DOES NOT "make you stupid". Oh yes! There was one thing - but I've already paid you the compliment due on that point. Have you already forgotten?
Cost of illegal immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stricter immigration policies.
Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year, according to the report. Medical care for illegal immigrants and incarceration of those who have committed crimes are the next two largest expenses measured in the study, the author said.
Pro-immigrant groups and Latino researchers dispute the federation's findings, calling them biased and incomplete.
Jack Martin, who wrote the report, said Thursday that the $9 billion figure does not include other expenses that are difficult to measure, such as special English instruction, school lunch programs, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal immigrant workers.
"It's a bottom of the range number," Martin said.
The federation is one of the nation's leading lobbying groups aimed at curbing immigration into the country.
Authors of the report say it culls information from the U.S. Census and other studies addressing the cost of illegal immigration into the country to draw its conclusions.
Gerardo Gonzalez, director of Cal State San Marcos' National Latino Research Center, which compiles data on Latinos, criticized the report. He said it does not measure some of the contributions that immigrants make to the state's economy.
"Beyond taxes, these workers' production and spending contribute to California's economy, especially the agricultural sector," Gonzalez said.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the backbone of the state's nearly $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry, Gonzalez and other researchers say.
More than two-thirds of the estimated 340,000 agriculture workers in California are noncitizens, most of whom are believed to be illegal immigrants, according to a 1998 study on farmworkers prepared for the state Legislature.
Local farmers say migrant farmworkers are critical to their businesses, and without them they would have to close their farms or move their operations overseas.
Martin disagrees. He said illegal immigrants displace American workers by taking low-skilled jobs, keep wages low by creating an overabundance of workers and stifle innovation by reducing the need for mechanized labor.
"The product of the illegal immigrant is not included (in the report) because if that is an essential product it will get done one way or another," Martin said. Employers "would have to pay better wages or invest money on mechanization."
Martin's study looks specifically at the costs of educating illegal immigrants' children, providing medical care to illegal immigrants and jailing those convicted of committing crimes. The report estimates the total cost at $10.5 billion each year, but that is offset by about $1.7 billion in taxes that illegal immigrants pay.
The study assumes that there are about 1 million children of illegal immigrant parents in California, or about 15 percent of the state's K-12 school enrolled population. The estimate is based on a 1994 study by the Urban Institute that concluded there were 307,000 illegal immigrant children enrolled in the state's public schools.
Martin also added an estimate of 597,000 U.S.-born children whose parents are illegal immigrants arriving at a total of 1,022,000 children. Multiplying the number of children by the estimated $7,577 the state spends on average per pupil, the study arrived at the $7.7 billion figure.
Including the number of U.S.-born children in the study is one of the reasons pro-immigrant groups said the study is biased.
"I think FAIR is without doubt an extremist organization that tries to portray itself as a mainstream group," said Christian Ramirez, director of the San Diego office of the American Friends Service Committee, an advocate group for legal and illegal immigrants.
The study's author defended the report, saying that the children were born in the United States as a result of their parents' illegal entry into the country.
"In no way does the report identify them as different kinds of citizens, because they would not have been born in the U.S. had their parents not come into the country illegally," Martin said.
To arrive at the cost of providing health care to illegal immigrants, the federation's study used an earlier 2000 analysis of health expenses paid by border counties that concluded the state spent $908 million on medical care for immigrants.
Martin said he adjusted the 2000 figure for increases in the population and inflation on the cost of providing health care and estimated that the state will spend about $1.4 billion in 2004.
The report also estimated that the state will spend another $1.4 billion to jail the 48,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons. California is compensated by the federal government to offset the cost of housing this population, but the federal payments were a fraction, about $111 million, of the total cost, Martin said.
To figure out the contributions that this immigrant population makes in taxes, the federation's study said it adjusted the Urban Institute's study estimates of $732 million for population increases and concluded that they contribute about $1.7 billion in sales, income and property taxes.
A similar study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., and released in August, said that illegal immigrants cost the federal government $10 billion more than they pay in taxes.
The federal government pays about $2.2 billion in medical treatment for uninsured immigrants, according to the report. It pays $1.9 billion in food assistance programs, such as food stamps and school lunches, for low-income families. And it pays $1.4 billion in aid to schools that educate illegal immigrant children.
Martin said states bear most of the cost of illegal immigration.
"State costs are much higher on a per capita basis because of the fact that the largest expenses are medical care and education and those are borne at the local level, not the federal," Martin said.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txtThe "log out" button is up there to the right. It's a maroonish colour if that makes it any easier for you to find.
OK troll. That is the second time I've seen you tell an existing dwellar to leave. Just one question: Why would you come to a community full of people that you look down on (Americans) and post nothing but anti-American drivel? Certainly there are a number of other places for you to enjoy your time, unless your goal is just to piss people off. If that is all you want to do, then fuck off and leave.
Rarely do all of our dwellars agree with each other, but for the most part we snipe and argue in a friendly good natured way. You have been condescending and aggressive since your entrance. Think about it. If you decide you don't have something positive to add to our community, please leave. If you can drop the anti-American bigotry and join the mix here, then pull up a seat, grab a cup of coffee, and LJ will be along to administer the test shortly. Your choice.
...two people can sit down look at the same information and come to different conclusions. ....
Without either of them being stupid, wrong, intellectually dishonest, etc.
Without either of them being stupid, wrong, intellectually dishonest, etc.
Well except for Radar and tw...
[COLOR="Wheat"]Kidding already!!![/COLOR]
AD...A great deal of what you say, I find interesting and well argued. I found our dicussion of democracy intellectually stimulating. That said, I really find your style towards the American contingent (majority) of the Cellar more than a little abrasive, and often unnecessarily so. There is a huge difference, to me, between criticising (even stridently and consistently) the American system, foreign policy, political landscape and even some cultural norms, and being anti-American. To me, you seem to have taken the latter approach.
I don't often wade into this kind of flamefest, but here goes: back off a little; get to know the individuals before you engage in boardwars. If you do that, the boardwar will be taken in good humour (mostly) and be easily put aside when done. To hurl insults (even though some are reactive) at settled members of the community is not the best way to integrate into that community. If of course such integration is your wish (I do hope so, like I say, I find much of what you have to say interesting and intellectually stimulating).
Radar hurls insults at people in his discussions and yet people still want to congratulate him on his recently acquired new job. This is because Radar has won his place in the community and as such there is a degree more leeway afforded him.
I often have very critical things to say about aspects of the American system, and foreign policy, but I am not anti-American. If I was anti-American, I would not seek to spend so much time 'amongst' a primarily American crowd. If you are critical of America, but not anti-American, then you are misrepresenting yourself in your posts and that's a shame. If you are anti-American, then I think you are in the wrong forum.
Well articulated miss D. I would like to add a thought though.
I often have very critical things to say about aspects of the American system, and foreign policy, but I am not anti-American.
I cannot think of any of the American dwellars who isn't critical of some aspects of the American system and policies. But most of us still love the country and want to see it better when we leave than when we entered. Our disagreements revolve around
how to make it better. AD's approach is that America sucks, Americans suck, and if we were smarter we wouldn't be Americans. May be a tad overstated, but that is the general gist of it.
I'd be hard pressed to find something you've said that DOES NOT "make you stupid".
Very mature - If you need to know how to use the ignore button, you'll have to ask someone else - cuz you're on my list :D kthxbye.
immigrants contribute BILLIONS more to the economy than they use in services
I kinda understand who pays for the services. But just who gets all the money from the economy? Oh right, that's part of my $29 buck raise.
Point taken.
So you're not a complete dickhead. Praise ye.
AD...A great deal of what you say, I find interesting and well argued. I found our dicussion of democracy intellectually stimulating. That said, I really find your style towards the American contingent (majority) of the Cellar more than a little abrasive, and often unnecessarily so. There is a huge difference, to me, between criticising (even stridently and consistently) the American system, foreign policy, political landscape and even some cultural norms, and being anti-American. To me, you seem to have taken the latter approach.
I don't often wade into this kind of flamefest, but here goes: back off a little; get to know the individuals before you engage in boardwars. If you do that, the boardwar will be taken in good humour (mostly) and be easily put aside when done. To hurl insults (even though some are reactive) at settled members of the community is not the best way to integrate into that community. If of course such integration is your wish (I do hope so, like I say, I find much of what you have to say interesting and intellectually stimulating).
Radar hurls insults at people in his discussions and yet people still want to congratulate him on his recently acquired new job. This is because Radar has won his place in the community and as such there is a degree more leeway afforded him.
I often have very critical things to say about aspects of the American system, and foreign policy, but I am not anti-American. If I was anti-American, I would not seek to spend so much time 'amongst' a primarily American crowd. If you are critical of America, but not anti-American, then you are misrepresenting yourself in your posts and that's a shame. If you are anti-American, then I think you are in the wrong forum.
I think by now people know I have an Irish temper. I say mean stuff and things I might not mean right now, but I'll be to drunk to remember it later....
I heat up quickly, and I cool down quickly too.
I think by now people know I have an Irish temper. I say mean stuff and things I might not mean right now, but I'll be to drunk to remember it later....
Great now you tell me - You're an Asshole! :rolleyes:
A handsome admission, but your arguments would get a much more considered reception if you could avoid hurling the ordure, expecially among the retiring newcomers like me, who never say boo to a goose......
A handsome admission, but your arguments would get a much more considered reception if you could avoid hurling the ordure, expecially among the retiring newcomers like me, who never say boo to a goose......
Yay, Learner, I went through that phase too.
Just come and hang out in the nice threads, mostly in home base, nothingland, images, that sort of thing.
This one should have been in politics, and of course those tend to get snippy.
But yes, I too don't find name-calling persuasive. Rather the reverse, in fact.
That is the second time I've seen you tell an existing dwellar to leave. .
"Telling to leave"? Who
"told" you to leave? Where is your head? It was
YOU who said that a community like this is pointless. Those are
YOUR words and I quoted them together with my message so there would not be any misunderstanding. I was merely being sypathetic to your suffering and giving you a hand in how to relieve your frustration. But I thihk you've got an enormous chip on your shoulder and there's no cure for that, at least not any that I be of any assistance.
Jesus! You try to help someone out and they get all bent out of shape! :D
AD - why do you visit the cellar?
Now then, there is hope -look at how Merc has blossomed..... :lol:
A handsome admission, but your arguments would get a much more considered reception if you could avoid hurling the ordure, expecially among the retiring newcomers like me, who never say boo to a goose......
Yet the goose told quite a different story.
AD - why do you visit the cellar?
For the same reason you do - don't you enjoy it too?
Last year I wrote an article about how Swedish society is disintegrating and is in danger of collapsing, at least in certain areas and regions. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The “Swedish model” would no longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but to a Eurabian horror story of utopian multiculturalism, socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration. Some thought I was exaggerating, and that talk of the possibility of a future civil war in Sweden was pure paranoia. Was it?
In a new sociological survey (pdf in Swedish, with brief English introduction) entitled “Vi krigar mot svenskarna” (“We’re waging a war against the Swedes”), young immigrants in the troubled city of Malmö have been interviewed about why they are involved in crime. Although it is not stated, most of the immigrant perpetrators are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where the Swedish media actually revealed the truth, the newspaper Aftonbladet reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries. This must be borne in mind whilst reading the following newspaper article:
Immigrants are “waging war” against Swedes through robbery
The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in sociology. “I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they rob other youths. It usually does not involve a lot of money,” she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.
Almost 90% of all robberies reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals. “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young robbers do not plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”
Why do they hate the Swedes so much? “Well, they hate us,” Petra Åkesson reports them as answering. “When a Swede goes shopping, the lady behind the counter gives him the money back into his hand, looks into his eyes and laughs. When we go shopping, she puts the money on the counter and looks the other way.” Åkesson, who is adopted from Sri Lanka and hence does not look like a native Swede, says it was not difficult to get the boys to talk about their crimes. Rather they were bragging about who had committed the most robberies. Malin Åkerström,a professor in sociology, sees only one solution to the problem: “Jobs for everybody. If this entails a deregulation of the labor market to create more jobs, then we should do so.”
moreThe conclusion of that same article - a very thought provoking read.
This is a situation in some ways similar to the Great Depression that led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. Is this where we are heading once again, with fear, rising Fascism and political assassinations? The difference is that the “Jewish threat” in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the “Islamic threat” now is very real. However, it is precisely the trauma caused by the events of 70 years ago that is clouding our judgement this time, since any talk at all about the threat posed by Muslim immigration or about preserving our own culture is being dismissed as “the same rhetoric as the Nazis used against the Jews.” Europeans have been taught to be so scared of our own shadows that we are incapable of seeing that darkness can come from the outside, too. Maybe Europe will burn again, in part as a belated reaction to the horrors of Auschwitz.
38 pages.
38 pages of what? Only 14 in this thread.
Adjust your preferences enough, and it could be all on one page...
Do either of you solve for anything. Just arguments with no solutions.
Can we send that threadbomb to the place where the female in the bath and the gentleman with an extremely flexible orifice were exiled?
