Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

[Humorme]

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

 

[bripat9643]

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

 

[beagle9]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.

Hmm, may have been a better slogan.. Wonder what Vincent Fox would have said about that one ?? Nothing he could have said.

 

[beagle9]

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

. Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.

 

[Humorme]

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

 

[Humorme]

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

. Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.

So if they had been one of those USDA prime Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Card" carrying, National ID Card owning subjects of the NEW WORLD ORDER, those murders would be acceptable?

 

[beagle9]

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

. Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.

So if they had been one of those USDA prime Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Card" carrying, National ID Card owning subjects of the NEW WORLD ORDER, those murders would be acceptable?

. Neither would be exceptable. Still doesn't negate my point made, but nice deflection.

 

[bripat9643]

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

 

[danielpalos]

States have no obligation over immigration since 1808. It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.

 

[Humorme]

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

. Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.

So if they had been one of those USDA prime Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Card" carrying, National ID Card owning subjects of the NEW WORLD ORDER, those murders would be acceptable?

. Neither would be exceptable. Still doesn't negate my point made, but nice deflection.

You made no point except that human registration papers somehow makes a person less likely to commit murder.

 

[Humorme]

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

 

[Humorme]

States have no obligation over immigration since 1808. It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.

I don't think you understand. Let us repeat something we've covered several times before:

Immigration - The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence.

immigration

The United States Constitution limits the federal government's role in this. It is:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

Now, we all realize what ploy you're going to use, but the Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the liberals to say that the United States Supreme Court can do whatever in the Hell it wants subject to the misinterpretation of that part of the Constitution.

The right, on this issue, will gladly agree with you. If it keeps the people from south of the border out, they'd agree with you, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IS THE SAME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION USED TO BAN FIREARMS. By all means, introduce it.

I've said all along that both the left and the right are going to the same place - just by different routes.

The Constitution absolutely does NOT give the federal government any authority over the migration of people (that we erroneously lump into the category of "immigration.) Citizenship and migration / being present in any location are two horses of a different color.

 

[bripat9643]

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

 

[Humorme]

You can't fix stupid. Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today. It's an example. Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the United States Supreme Court that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration. It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over. So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution. It's what you're advocating for immigration.

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law. I just want immigration to be controlled. i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out. If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

We have these things called "tourists visas."

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

Well than its a good thing our laws, SCOTUS, legal scholars, Congress, and the overwhelming majority of US Citizens don't agree with your inability to comprehend the Constitution or the many rulings in using that very document calling you an idiot. SMFH

You like citing Chy Lung claiming that case gave Congress a Plenary Power it didn't have, yet that very ruling used the USC and pointed out in which very section of that document granted Congress the power over foreigners coming here and being here. gofigure

 

[dblack]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

So, you think this wall, will stop all illegal immigration. Wow, you are one dumb fuck.

You must be new here.

 

[dblack]

 

[danielpalos]

States have no obligation over immigration since 1808. It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.

I don't think you understand. Let us repeat something we've covered several times before:

Immigration - The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence.

immigration

The United States Constitution limits the federal government's role in this. It is:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

Now, we all realize what ploy you're going to use, but the Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the liberals to say that the United States Supreme Court can do whatever in the Hell it wants subject to the misinterpretation of that part of the Constitution.

The right, on this issue, will gladly agree with you. If it keeps the people from south of the border out, they'd agree with you, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IS THE SAME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION USED TO BAN FIREARMS. By all means, introduce it.

I've said all along that both the left and the right are going to the same place - just by different routes.

The Constitution absolutely does NOT give the federal government any authority over the migration of people (that we erroneously lump into the category of "immigration.) Citizenship and migration / being present in any location are two horses of a different color.

It is a fallacy of false Cause and false Standing, to assume no Tourism is involved and Only, immigration with our current, "means tested" forms of visa requirements.

 

[Humorme]

That's ALL the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is NOT under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

We have these things called "tourists visas."

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.