The Constitution and the authority of the Federal Government over non-citizens

2Parties

Senior Member
Nov 27, 2009
1,048
124
48
Tennis Sea
The Constitution clearly gives the federal government power in creating laws involving citizenship and naturalization.

What I don't see in the US Constitution is that the federal government has a role with non-citizens. I see nothing granting them the authority to deny non-citizens from living in the United States.

If you can clarify this for me please go ahead. I don't care to hear any excuses that logically lead to the same reasoning that liberals use for nationalized health care...
 
The Constitution clearly gives the federal government power in creating laws involving citizenship and naturalization.

What I don't see in the US Constitution is that the federal government has a role with non-citizens. I see nothing granting them the authority to deny non-citizens from living in the United States.

If you can clarify this for me please go ahead. I don't care to hear any excuses that logically lead to the same reasoning that liberals use for nationalized health care...

You can not be serious. A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power over determining whether foreigners can or can not reside within the Boundaries of the Country.
 
A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power over determining whether foreigners can or can not reside within the Boundaries of the Country.

A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power over determining whether bananas can or can not reside within the boundaries of the country.

A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power over determining whether firearms can or can not reside within the boundaries of the country.

A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power over determining whether x-ray machines can or can not reside within the boundaries of the country.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the federal government power in creating laws involving citizenship and naturalization.

What I don't see in the US Constitution is that the federal government has a role with non-citizens. I see nothing granting them the authority to deny non-citizens from living in the United States.

If you can clarify this for me please go ahead. I don't care to hear any excuses that logically lead to the same reasoning that liberals use for nationalized health care...


Immigration is a fundamental part of naturalization. You cannot become a naturalized citizen unless you're a full-time resident of the USA. The uniform rule of naturalization includes every potential step of the process from applying for entry into the US to the final oath taken by a newly naturalized citizen.

Congress's power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is also taken to give them authority over immigration. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that commerce includes the migration of people as well as exchanges of goods.
 
Immigration is a fundamental part of naturalization. You cannot become a naturalized citizen unless you're a full-time resident of the USA. The uniform rule of naturalization includes every potential step of the process from applying for entry into the US to the final oath taken by a newly naturalized citizen.

What if you have no intention of becoming a naturalized citizen? This process has nothing to do with you.

Congress's power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is also taken to give them authority over immigration. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that commerce includes the migration of people as well as exchanges of goods.

So people are nothing more than a "good" of another nation that they had no choice of being born in?
 
Immigration is a fundamental part of naturalization. You cannot become a naturalized citizen unless you're a full-time resident of the USA. The uniform rule of naturalization includes every potential step of the process from applying for entry into the US to the final oath taken by a newly naturalized citizen.

What if you have no intention of becoming a naturalized citizen? This process has nothing to do with you.

Congress's power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is also taken to give them authority over immigration. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that commerce includes the migration of people as well as exchanges of goods.

So people are nothing more than a "good" of another nation that they had no choice of being born in?

Don't ask Questions if you don't want the answers.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the federal government power in creating laws involving citizenship and naturalization.

What I don't see in the US Constitution is that the federal government has a role with non-citizens. I see nothing granting them the authority to deny non-citizens from living in the United States.

If you can clarify this for me please go ahead. I don't care to hear any excuses that logically lead to the same reasoning that liberals use for nationalized health care...

The government is tasked with Protecting the Borders of the US, and its sovereignty. That alone gives them jurisdiction over those not hear legally as the can pose an economic or even National Security threat to the country. A person being here against our laws is a violation of our National sovereignty.
 
Don't ask Questions if you don't want the answers.

I don't want answers that are about as well thought out as:

A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power to ban private health care within the boundaries of the country.


That seems to be the only "answer" you have at the moment. I could have gotten that answer at the Al Franken Fanclub forum. Step your game up...
 
The government is tasked with Protecting the Borders of the US, and its sovereignty. That alone gives them jurisdiction over those not hear legally as the can pose an economic or even National Security threat to the country.

What can't the US government do?
 
Don't ask Questions if you don't want the answers.

I don't want answers that are about as well thought out as:

A sovereign State needs no Constitutional language to give them power to ban private health care within the boundaries of the country.


That seems to be the only "answer" you have at the moment. I could have gotten that answer at the Al Franken Fanclub forum. Step your game up...

That you can not grasp such a simple concept is YOUR problem. A Country has ABSOLUTE jurisdiction over its territory, that would INCLUDE who can and can not be ON said Territory you dumb ass. One need not stipulate this in a Constitution.

Further the Constitution DOES address immigration. One can not have immigration laws if one has no authority over who does or doesn't legally get to be in ones Country.

Are you like 12?
 
The government is tasked with Protecting the Borders of the US, and its sovereignty. That alone gives them jurisdiction over those not hear legally as the can pose an economic or even National Security threat to the country.

What can't the US government do?

The Constitution does not list what can not be done except in the first 10 Amendments. Rather it grants power to the Federal Government. The argument was that one need not list restrictions when the document was a limiting one and only those powers granted were allowed.

Immigration is a power of the Federal Government. As stated in the document.
 
That you can not grasp such a simple concept is YOUR problem. A Country has ABSOLUTE jurisdiction over its territory, that would INCLUDE who can and can not be ON said Territory you dumb ass. One need not stipulate this in a Constitution.

Since they have absolute jurisdiction (according to you) that would include basically anything including mass execution and confiscation of all firearms. Do they (isn't it "we"?) have absolute jurisdiction or not?

One can not have immigration laws if one has no authority over who does or doesn't legally get to be in ones Country.

...which was exactly the point of this thread.
 
What if you have no intention of becoming a naturalized citizen? This process has nothing to do with you.


Immigration is part of the uniform rule of naturalization regardless of any immigrant's intent. That's the way the Constitution has always been applied to the matter, and I mean right from the very beginning.
 
That you can not grasp such a simple concept is YOUR problem. A Country has ABSOLUTE jurisdiction over its territory, that would INCLUDE who can and can not be ON said Territory you dumb ass. One need not stipulate this in a Constitution.

Since they have absolute jurisdiction (according to you) that would include basically anything including mass execution and confiscation of all firearms. Do they (isn't it "we"?) have absolute jurisdiction or not?

One can not have immigration laws if one has no authority over who does or doesn't legally get to be in ones Country.

...which was exactly the point of this thread.

Come on you can admit it, you are about 12 right? Either that or you are so terminally stupid as to be a waste of time to respond to.
 
The Constitution does not list what can not be done except in the first 10 Amendments.

So Article I Section IV should have said: Congress can do whatever except for Amendments 1-10, instead of listening pretty specific powers?

Rather it grants power to the Federal Government.

Correct. :clap2:

The argument was that one need not list restrictions when the document was a limiting one and only those powers granted were allowed.

Wait, what? So which is it? Are only the powers granted allowed or are all powers except those violating Amendments 1-10 allowed?
 
What if you have no intention of becoming a naturalized citizen? This process has nothing to do with you.


Immigration is part of the uniform rule of naturalization regardless of any immigrant's intent. That's the way the Constitution has always been applied to the matter, and I mean right from the very beginning.

Can you link me to some documentation about naturalization, it's history, and it's application please?
 
The Constitution does not list what can not be done except in the first 10 Amendments.

So Article I Section IV should have said: Congress can do whatever except for Amendments 1-10, instead of listening pretty specific powers?

Rather it grants power to the Federal Government.

Correct. :clap2:

The argument was that one need not list restrictions when the document was a limiting one and only those powers granted were allowed.

Wait, what? So which is it? Are only the powers granted allowed or are all powers except those violating Amendments 1-10 allowed?

Yup you prove your abject ignorance with each post, thanks for proving my point. By the way DUMB FUCK, powers granted to the Federal Government are not just in one article and one section.
 

Forum List

Back
Top