Should we go back to the early 19th century immigration policy?

Should we go back to the pre 14th amendment immigration policy?

  • Yes, it would eliminate illegal immigration

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Yes, original intent of the constitution

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • No, that policy doesn’t address current isues

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • No, it would be racist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?
most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.
We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
 
There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?
most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.
We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
 
Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?
most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.
We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
 
most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.
We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
 
We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
 
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
 
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Immigrating illegally is against the law.
 
Doesn't have to be. Now you know.
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Naturalization and immigration are completely different.
 
Express powers must be executed at the cost of any implied powers.
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Immigrating illegally is against the law.
this is the law. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

There is no federal "immigration" clause.
 
Border security is good.
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Immigrating illegally is against the law.
this is the law. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

There is no federal "immigration" clause.
The Feds are in charge of our borders being swamped by illiterate beaners. Or any group, really. Like you Messikin Mooselimbs.
 
we don't have a border security problem; we have a refugee problem.
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Immigrating illegally is against the law.
this is the law. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

There is no federal "immigration" clause.
The Feds are in charge of our borders being swamped by illiterate beaners. Or any group, really. Like you Messikin Mooselimbs.
the right wing doesn't care about the law. Express laws have precedence over implied laws. There is no express border security clause or wall clause.
 
That’s why we need a secure border. Thanks for clearing that up. Now go mow a lawn.
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Immigrating illegally is against the law.
this is the law. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

There is no federal "immigration" clause.
The Feds are in charge of our borders being swamped by illiterate beaners. Or any group, really. Like you Messikin Mooselimbs.
the right wing doesn't care about the law. Express laws have precedence over implied laws. There is no express border security clause or wall clause.
Don't need one, just need some guns and a wall.
 
this is an Express power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Don't care about the law, right wingers; why should we take you seriously.
Immigrating illegally is against the law.
this is the law. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

There is no federal "immigration" clause.
The Feds are in charge of our borders being swamped by illiterate beaners. Or any group, really. Like you Messikin Mooselimbs.
the right wing doesn't care about the law. Express laws have precedence over implied laws. There is no express border security clause or wall clause.
Don't need one, just need some guns and a wall.
Our welfare clause is general, not common.
 
Our welfare clause is general, not common.
Can someone please translate this into English for me? Thanks.
not dumb enough for the right wing; why should we take right wingers seriously in Any serious venue.
Because they won the Presidency? (btw, I'm a Libertarian)
thank Goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers. we know right wingers have a First Amendment when it is merely and only politics.
 
Our welfare clause is general, not common.
Can someone please translate this into English for me? Thanks.
not dumb enough for the right wing; why should we take right wingers seriously in Any serious venue.
Because they won the Presidency? (btw, I'm a Libertarian)
thank Goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers. we know right wingers have a First Amendment when it is merely and only politics.
You should seriously think of taking a break from the net, you're incoherent.
 
Our welfare clause is general, not common.
Can someone please translate this into English for me? Thanks.
not dumb enough for the right wing; why should we take right wingers seriously in Any serious venue.
Because they won the Presidency? (btw, I'm a Libertarian)
thank Goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers. we know right wingers have a First Amendment when it is merely and only politics.
You should seriously think of taking a break from the net, you're incoherent.
projecting much? i am not the one who has to make excuses.
 
Can someone please translate this into English for me? Thanks.
not dumb enough for the right wing; why should we take right wingers seriously in Any serious venue.
Because they won the Presidency? (btw, I'm a Libertarian)
thank Goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers. we know right wingers have a First Amendment when it is merely and only politics.
You should seriously think of taking a break from the net, you're incoherent.
projecting much? i am not the one who has to make excuses.
What excuses have I made?
 

Forum List

Back
Top