How can one take a stand against illegal immigration or force local politicians to?

[Humorme]

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Damn bud...spare us all the rhetorical, courtroom mumbo-jumbo and spit it the fuck out already...nobody here is impressed with your bullshit. You’re trying way too hard.
You have wrote novels yet you have said very little that matters....Nobody gives two fucks about what laws are on the books and or what precedent has been set....good Americans are finally saying...enough is enough... MAKE AGGRESSIVE FUCKING CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND RUN ALL ILLEGAL WETBACKS OUT TODAY....PERIOD!
What part of that don’t you understand?
What part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from and how long have you been fucking good Americans over?

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing has no solutions.

Seems to be all the left wing can muster.

We should send the Engineers of the Guard, to Puerto Rico to "refurbish" the island.

Maybe Puerto Rico could use their own Engineers of their Guard to do the same job. imjusayn

You simply don't understand the nature of the problem, or the general welfare issues involved.

We should simply dispatch a Corp of Engineers of the Guard, to solve the problems of that island.

 

[Humorme]

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Damn bud...spare us all the rhetorical, courtroom mumbo-jumbo and spit it the fuck out already...nobody here is impressed with your bullshit. You’re trying way too hard.
You have wrote novels yet you have said very little that matters....Nobody gives two fucks about what laws are on the books and or what precedent has been set....good Americans are finally saying...enough is enough... MAKE AGGRESSIVE FUCKING CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND RUN ALL ILLEGAL WETBACKS OUT TODAY....PERIOD!
What part of that don’t you understand?
What part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from and how long have you been fucking good Americans over?

Why don't you mind your own damn business? If I respond to another poster you don't have to read it. He bitched because I didn't throw up walls of text laced with courtroom cases and you are bitching because I gave two links?

Climb back in your cave caveman and if fifth grade civics is above your head, go back to school until you can learn how to communicate.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Damn bud...spare us all the rhetorical, courtroom mumbo-jumbo and spit it the fuck out already...nobody here is impressed with your bullshit. You’re trying way too hard.
You have wrote novels yet you have said very little that matters....Nobody gives two fucks about what laws are on the books and or what precedent has been set....good Americans are finally saying...enough is enough... MAKE AGGRESSIVE FUCKING CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND RUN ALL ILLEGAL WETBACKS OUT TODAY....PERIOD!
What part of that don’t you understand?
What part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from and how long have you been fucking good Americans over?

Why don't you mind your own damn business? If I respond to another poster you don't have to read it. He bitched because I didn't throw up walls of text laced with courtroom cases and you are bitching because I gave two links?

Climb back in your cave caveman and if fifth grade civics is above your head, go back to school until you can learn how to communicate.

Haha...see how easy I made that for you...see how quickly I communicated my point?
This isn’t about all the bullshit...it’s about what good Americans want and the legislative changes needed to give them what they want. Remember, it’s We The People...there’s a revolution taking place, Americas best want their country back and they have a right to that...get onboard with your fellow countrymen or get run over...30 states and 2,623 counties have spoken. Sucks for you and all the wetback lovers huh?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

again, talk to your fellow white people who hire them to pick their lettuce and clean their toilets and watch their kids.

You are talking about the Progressives and Judges.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Maybe you should go back and read the section you are quoting as it refers to legal entrants. SMFH

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

All the feds want is what is required by way of information, they haven't asked the localities to perform any of the feds duties. SHRUG

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Let me quote an article from the LA Times that points out your articles ignorance.

But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.


Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

 

[DOTR]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

Illegal immigration is already illegal. The citizens have spoken and so we have done all we can within and through democratic means. Electing Trump was a good step but I suggest bringing back the concept of "outlawry" for politicians and judges who refuse to follow the law...an extreme punishment which withdraws the protection of law from those who spurn its workings.

"In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" made the pronouncement Caput lupinum...equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law: Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law, being outside the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal."

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

SMFH plagiarizing your work and sentiments? LMFAO

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

SMFH Yet you cite US vs Arizona which says otherwise, that Congress has authority over immigration. gofigur

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

In order to come to the USA they must apply to enter, as your own citation of US vs Arizona states. Surely your not disregarding your own citation, are you?

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Immigration law is pretty much black and white. SHRUG
A person fleeing persecution or war must state such at the time of entering through a check point. A sick or dying relative doesn't constitute a person needing to enter illegally, nor does it grant authorization to enter legally. SCOTUS would say nothing regarding the 8A in regards to what you are ignorantly trying to portray. SMFH

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

That civil misdemeanor is a criminal violation, a second one amounts to a criminal felony. What immigration laws have effected your constitutional protections or your rights in general?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

You've already posted what you think, you have done so by mis-understanding basic law.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

As every economist out their states, unskilled illegal labor costs us money, skilled legal labor doesn't. justhatsimple

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

Following immigration law doesn't equate to citizenship, you repeating this ignorance doesn't make your stupidity true. There are numerous visas that don't allow change of status to LPR. The only idiot claiming stupid things seems to be you, all based on your ignorance of basic law.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Would not those illegals who have children here do the same thing via their children? SMFH

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

Do you really think your "idea" wouldn't do the same thing you are railing about? Really?

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.

Talk about being far too stupid, have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you really think you have any answers? What you have already posted shows your as dumb as you sound.

 

[danielpalos]

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Maybe you should go back and read the section you are quoting as it refers to legal entrants. SMFH

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

All the feds want is what is required by way of information, they haven't asked the localities to perform any of the feds duties. SHRUG

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Let me quote an article from the LA Times that points out your articles ignorance.

But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.


Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state, since 1808?

What is the basis for cutting funding?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Maybe you should go back and read the section you are quoting as it refers to legal entrants. SMFH

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

All the feds want is what is required by way of information, they haven't asked the localities to perform any of the feds duties. SHRUG

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Let me quote an article from the LA Times that points out your articles ignorance.

But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.


Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state, since 1808?

What is the basis for cutting funding?

Why then did states put in their Constitutions to deny entry to vagabonds, paupers, etc, even after 1808?

Denial of the requested information, duh!

 

[Humorme]

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Maybe you should go back and read the section you are quoting as it refers to legal entrants. SMFH

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

All the feds want is what is required by way of information, they haven't asked the localities to perform any of the feds duties. SHRUG

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Let me quote an article from the LA Times that points out your articles ignorance.

But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.


Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state, since 1808?

What is the basis for cutting funding?

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Damn bud...spare us all the rhetorical, courtroom mumbo-jumbo and spit it the fuck out already...nobody here is impressed with your bullshit. You’re trying way too hard.
You have wrote novels yet you have said very little that matters....Nobody gives two fucks about what laws are on the books and or what precedent has been set....good Americans are finally saying...enough is enough... MAKE AGGRESSIVE FUCKING CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND RUN ALL ILLEGAL WETBACKS OUT TODAY....PERIOD!
What part of that don’t you understand?
What part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from and how long have you been fucking good Americans over?

Why don't you mind your own damn business? If I respond to another poster you don't have to read it. He bitched because I didn't throw up walls of text laced with courtroom cases and you are bitching because I gave two links?

Climb back in your cave caveman and if fifth grade civics is above your head, go back to school until you can learn how to communicate.

Haha...see how easy I made that for you...see how quickly I communicated my point?
This isn’t about all the bullshit...it’s about what good Americans want and the legislative changes needed to give them what they want. Remember, it’s We The People...there’s a revolution taking place, Americas best want their country back and they have a right to that...get onboard with your fellow countrymen or get run over...30 states and 2,623 counties have spoken. Sucks for you and all the wetback lovers huh?

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Damn bud...spare us all the rhetorical, courtroom mumbo-jumbo and spit it the fuck out already...nobody here is impressed with your bullshit. You’re trying way too hard.
You have wrote novels yet you have said very little that matters....Nobody gives two fucks about what laws are on the books and or what precedent has been set....good Americans are finally saying...enough is enough... MAKE AGGRESSIVE FUCKING CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND RUN ALL ILLEGAL WETBACKS OUT TODAY....PERIOD!
What part of that don’t you understand?
What part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from and how long have you been fucking good Americans over?

Why don't you mind your own damn business? If I respond to another poster you don't have to read it. He bitched because I didn't throw up walls of text laced with courtroom cases and you are bitching because I gave two links?

Climb back in your cave caveman and if fifth grade civics is above your head, go back to school until you can learn how to communicate.

Haha...see how easy I made that for you...see how quickly I communicated my point?
This isn’t about all the bullshit...it’s about what good Americans want and the legislative changes needed to give them what they want. Remember, it’s We The People...there’s a revolution taking place, Americas best want their country back and they have a right to that...get onboard with your fellow countrymen or get run over...30 states and 2,623 counties have spoken. Sucks for you and all the wetback lovers huh?

Yeah, it's we, the people. And you don't have a damn clue. As one lefty put it, you are causeless and clueless.

If it's "we" the people, then "we" should have a say in it. But, the misguided hatemongers are convinced that theirs is the only voice that should be heard.

Well, champ, every time you roll up into some business that hires, sells to buys from, or otherwise does business with people from south of the border, then they've spoken. AND, adding insult to injury, when your side is being handed one defeat after another in the United States Supreme Court, it should give you a clue... and, BTW, Democrats are polling higher in EVERY state in U.S. Senate polls. I can't imagine why.

Supreme Court Hands Trump Defeat on Deporting Criminal Immigrants – Gorsuch Sides With Liberals on Court

Gorsuch, a conservative / constitutionalist voted against you. You need to focus: There IS an issue, but your interpretation of the law is wrong; your strategies are failing you; you are going to lose unless you decide to pull your head out of your ass.

Note: Have no idea how danielpalos was quoted, but the response is clearly intended for a different poster.

 

[pismoe]

little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague . Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way . Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme . ------------ just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .

 

[Humorme]

little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague . Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way . Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme . ------------ just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .

Just so you know -

I have full time trolls that follow me from board to board trying to undermine everything I say. Yet I've called EVERY Supreme Court immigration decision right over the past decade BEFORE the case was ruled on.

That's something the anti-immigrants cannot accept. And, each time, I tell them while there is an issue, it is the solution (if you can call regression a solution) they are looking in the wrong places for the correct solution.

We can theorize about who does what and why, but nobody out there has a track record of calling it before the court rules like I have. And, following their line of B.S. to its final conclusion, it won't be long before this discussion will be moot. That does not make me a liberal; it only means I've studied the Justices and have a pretty good read on them... AND as that one decision noted, immigration law is complex. If you want to REALLY know what's real and what isn't, work in immigration law. It will open your eyes.

And if these other keyboard commandos were right, they should be able to show one of the many amicus curaie briefs they've submitted to the courts in support of their positions.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Just so you know -

I have full time trolls that follow me from board to board trying to undermine everything I say. Yet I've called EVERY Supreme Court immigration decision right over the past decade BEFORE the case was ruled on.

That's something the anti-immigrants cannot accept. And, each time, I tell them while there is an issue, it is the solution (if you can call regression a solution) they are looking in the wrong places for the correct solution.

We can theorize about who does what and why, but nobody out there has a track record of calling it before the court rules like I have. And, following their line of B.S. to its final conclusion, it won't be long before this discussion will be moot. That does not make me a liberal; it only means I've studied the Justices and have a pretty good read on them... AND as that one decision noted, immigration law is complex. If you want to REALLY know what's real and what isn't, work in immigration law. It will open your eyes.

And if these other keyboard commandos were right, they should be able to show one of the many amicus curaie briefs they've submitted to the courts in support of their positions.

Where is your track record you speak of recorded at? You haven't called anything other than the obvious. You appeal to authority as if you are some sort of psychic with all the knowledge. You have never worked in immigration law. LMFAO

Wow, an amicus curiae brief, oh my (maybe you should learn how to spell it before you claim to have done it, imjusayn). Anybody can write and submit one, it is up to the court to choose to consider it or not. SMFH

 

[BrokeLoser]

little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague . Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way . Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme . ------------ just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .

Just so you know -

I have full time trolls that follow me from board to board trying to undermine everything I say. Yet I've called EVERY Supreme Court immigration decision right over the past decade BEFORE the case was ruled on.

That's something the anti-immigrants cannot accept. And, each time, I tell them while there is an issue, it is the solution (if you can call regression a solution) they are looking in the wrong places for the correct solution.

We can theorize about who does what and why, but nobody out there has a track record of calling it before the court rules like I have. And, following their line of B.S. to its final conclusion, it won't be long before this discussion will be moot. That does not make me a liberal; it only means I've studied the Justices and have a pretty good read on them... AND as that one decision noted, immigration law is complex. If you want to REALLY know what's real and what isn't, work in immigration law. It will open your eyes.

And if these other keyboard commandos were right, they should be able to show one of the many amicus curaie briefs they've submitted to the courts in support of their positions.

We get it bud...you’re super awesome, you’re super amazing, you’re always right...YOU ARE IMMIGRATION LAW....just ask YOU....haha, funny shit.

 

[danielpalos]

Just for chits and giggles, I'm going to explain that Court case you relied on. My comments are in red Here it is:

"Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,

So, there is a procedure to follow if an unauthorized person is in the United States. That procedure must include Due Process


see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, (So the process is not a criminal one) and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. (Removal is solely the federal government's problem) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. (It is not a state's duty to identify, apprehend, nor remove foreigners without papers.) It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7."

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Maybe you should go back and read the section you are quoting as it refers to legal entrants. SMFH

Nobody is telling the federal government that they cannot enforce the law. Nobody is interfering with the government's duties.

All the feds want is what is required by way of information, they haven't asked the localities to perform any of the feds duties. SHRUG

Now, let me quote a 2017 article from the Washington Post that addresses the substantive points I've made:

,
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

Opinion | Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

NOBODY is interfering with the federal government's objectives. The states are simply saying you can't make us help you do it.

Let me quote an article from the LA Times that points out your articles ignorance.

But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.


Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state, since 1808?

What is the basis for cutting funding?

Why then did states put in their Constitutions to deny entry to vagabonds, paupers, etc, even after 1808?

Denial of the requested information, duh!

right wing, "hate on the poor".

 

[Humorme]

little i have heard on the case you reference is that Gorsuch ruled that way because the LAW was too vague . Commentary by others says that Scalia woulda ruled the same way . Soltion is said to be that a new law being specific needs to be written Humorme . ------------ just a comment , maybe others have heard similar .

Just so you know -

I have full time trolls that follow me from board to board trying to undermine everything I say. Yet I've called EVERY Supreme Court immigration decision right over the past decade BEFORE the case was ruled on.

That's something the anti-immigrants cannot accept. And, each time, I tell them while there is an issue, it is the solution (if you can call regression a solution) they are looking in the wrong places for the correct solution.

We can theorize about who does what and why, but nobody out there has a track record of calling it before the court rules like I have. And, following their line of B.S. to its final conclusion, it won't be long before this discussion will be moot. That does not make me a liberal; it only means I've studied the Justices and have a pretty good read on them... AND as that one decision noted, immigration law is complex. If you want to REALLY know what's real and what isn't, work in immigration law. It will open your eyes.

And if these other keyboard commandos were right, they should be able to show one of the many amicus curaie briefs they've submitted to the courts in support of their positions.

We get it bud...you’re super awesome, you’re super amazing, you’re always right...YOU ARE IMMIGRATION LAW....just ask YOU....haha, funny shit.

You're being a smart ass because you don't have a credible reply. The fact is, one court or another - and even Gorsuch has voted down your view of what the law is. Hard for you to admit you're wrong, isn't it?

And you lack credibility because the keyboard commandos you associate with cannot show you where they have submitted any briefs to ANY court in support of your position. Then to try and troll me... Now that IS funny shit.

Maybe you might want to ASK me what the right strategy is once you get your head out of your ass.

 

[deanrd]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

It's the lowest it's been in many decades.

So how about concentrating on poverty in Appalachia?