Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by Billy_Kinetta, Jul 31, 2019.
Now pay attention.
YIKES! Little Kid Finds Out What It’s Like When A Lion Really Wants To Eat You
What the build the wall people fail to acknowledge:
Their American countrymen are inviting those people here.
That they are American is open to debate.
Stand in front of Walmart and see how many people you know - even you, yourself walking in to buy stuff. Donald Trump has had undocumented workers working for him before he ran for president; he had them working for him on the day he got elected; they will be there when he leaves office.
Most politicians are telling you what you want to hear. There is NO value in a wall except as way to con you out of what last remaining Rights you have (if any.) Anyone who thinks the wall can stop them from coming here is out of touch with reality.
In the end the United States Supreme Court will rule that you cannot separate families so, even those who came in without human registration papers WILL be coming back. Virtually all of them have American relatives and you need to be introduced to the Eighth Amendment.
I don't shop at Walmart.
I never said a wall will stop them. But it will slow them down. There are other, sure methods to stop them.
Separating families? Why not? It happens every day when an American with kids is arrested. Nothing cruel or unusual about it.
That they have American relatives does not make them Americans.
A wall won't necessarily slow people down if the government creates more paths by which people can come here. Speaking of which... Where, in the Constitution, do you think the federal government has the authority to tell the states who they may or may invite in as guests, guest workers, temporary workers or people who simply come to engage in the free market economy?
Yeah, I know the government separates thousands of American families every day. I also know that your odds of being killed by second hand smoke from cigarettes as a nonsmoker is FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm in the United States. But the media sensationalizes gun deaths so people act irrationally over the issue.
Ditto for families. Politicians even split with the Republican Party over the optics of separating families. But, with foreigners, the Eighth Amendment simply will not allow long term or permanent separations just because a foreigner commits a federal civil misdemeanor. That definitely would be cruel and unusual punishment by any standard. Adding insult to injury, if a lib ever studies the history of the laws carefully, they will figure it out: Congress never had the authority to pass those laws in the first place.
Such was reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment until Congress passed the first federal law on the subject in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was exclusively a Federal responsibility.
We ceased being a collection of individual sovereign states and became a homogenized (politically anyway) single sovereign nation under the federal government following the Civil War. The importance of the Constitution was diminished in favor of the victorious and usurping federal government.
And yes, we can blame the Democrats for that. For good or ill, backtracking in this time is most unlikely.
Actually no new legislation was passed. In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v Freeman, the United States Supreme Court granted Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The problem there is that there is not a single sentence in the entire Constitution giving the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon ANY other branch of government any such power.
The farther we've taken government from the states and put it in federal hands, the worse off America has become. As best as I can tell from a close and honest observation, it was never intended for Congress to have the authority to pass those laws. It's a states rights issue. Ultimately, the right will fail because they do not understand this point.
Plenary power grants absolute authority. In application, it had the same effect.
Regardless, such power was granted. Until a case arises and approaches the SCOTUS, it's an operational mandate. Such is the danger of holding case law and precedent over the Constitution.
I agree 100%, but also feel the arrangement has certain advantages in the modern world.
I will let George Washington have the last say there:
"The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern: some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates.—But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.—The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."
Founders Online: Farewell Address, 19 September 1796
Separate names with a comma.