Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[danielpalos]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

 

[danielpalos]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

There is no immigration clause in our Constitution; thus, no delegated Power to that, wasteful and useless End.

 

[LilOlLady]

US border crisis: Arizona city denounces Trump administration’s razor wire as ‘inhuman’
The city proclamation would note that concertina is typically seen in battlefields, not in areas of peace, and that the deployment of the wiring is “not only irresponsible but inhuman”.

Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border
Human trafficking and drugs are inhuman and irresponsible.
Are we serious about border security or are we not? Yeah, put down some fucking chicken wire?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border


Are we serious about border security or are we not?

You confuse the militarization of the border with border security. Your reasoning is like banning all firearms simply because a couple get used in crimes.

 

[LilOlLady]

Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border


Are we serious about border security or are we not?

You confuse the militarization of the border with border security. Your reasoning is like banning all firearms simply because a couple get used in crimes.

I am not for banning firearms but gun control and the military is on the border for a reason. And the barbed wire is there for a reason. Stop the inflow of illegal aliens and drugs. I am not confused you radical socialist left wings are and I am a liberal as they come. We are not talking about keeping the fox out of the chicken coup. We are talking about keeping American free and safe for Americans. Open borders do not mean a free society. We would have a total nightmare on our hands. Once we are able to obtain real statistics from cities/counties states, and the federal government about how much recent immigrants and illegal aliens are costing American citizens, we will realize what has already happened to our country. We certainly don’t need to import more people. If our country needs more people, when our immigration laws are actually enforced, when we really secure our borders, when we change the crazy birthright citizenship and family reunification and preferred countries laws, maybe Americans will be able to put more money in their pockets and afford to have more children.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment. There is your FACT.


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States. As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.


Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”

SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787


The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved. Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.”

Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —- If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.

A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right. He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.


During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”

SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445


Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred. He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.




“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

“If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).




Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia. That’s it?

Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts? Do you actually know what real research is? Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.

I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases. Can you? I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding. Can you? I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.

You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.

Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to. This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.

You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business. WTF is wrong with you? Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.

“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“

That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.

Franklin - “Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.

You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
(1) Ben Franklin
(2) George Washington
(3) Alexander Hamilton,
(4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution. More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t. I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours. Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.

Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above. Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through and providing individual views (sources) going back to our nation’s founding.

Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free. If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.

In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc. Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?

You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens. So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.

1) If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself. I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest. So, why aren't you? OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job? I think that maybe you understand that half of the population - at a minimum invited the foreigner here. So, your first paragraph is irrelevant.

2) Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.? OR did he leave well enough alone? Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country? How many people agreed with him?

3) You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, NONE of them done a damn thing about the FACT that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the STATES. The founders did not address it in the Constitution. As a matter of FACT, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration. The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?

Let me repeat what YOU said:

If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals

I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business. It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem. How do you think you got into this situation?

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law. Here is a quote from it:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution of the United States

WHEN the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by that instrument to the citizen?

...
We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 404–05.

Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."

Eleven years later the Republicans ILLEGALLY ratified the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:

* It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens

* The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your unalienable Rights. Do you know what an unalienable Right is?

Let's move on:

"The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."


The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended" (Reposted with permission)

2 Classes of Citizens

I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.

The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing their will and desire to become citizens of the United States. We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force their will to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry. Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens. We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States. None of that is in debate. Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.

So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
Alexander Hamilton

SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)

We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States. While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.

The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.

Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
SOURCE:
Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445

Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling his Vice President: “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
SOURCE:
Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23

When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the WHOLE people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that ALL (without exclusion) shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good.”
SOURCE:
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11

These same laws which govern each state of the “common good” of ALL, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.



With regards to the principles of the American Founding, the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake ... assume ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.

ALL to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good. These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by. You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”

Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted.”
SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.


Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —- If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.


This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.


Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant. All while YOU stated “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research. Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all? The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research. I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”. At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.

If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research. At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.

You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down. You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table. The facts are NOT going to change:

1) The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go. Congress is limited to naturalization. Naturalization is citizenship

2) What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would become citizens. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here? Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things. Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?

3) Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about citizenship. Again, it had NOTHING to do with non-citizens doing business in the United States

4) The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.

NOBODY is doing what you claim. People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY

5) Article I Section 9 has been explained to you. Here is a repeat:

"This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (sic) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years..."

Article 1, Section 9

Section 9 - The Meaning
"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808."

Article I Section 9

• "The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."

https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/

YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.

First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States. According to your statement, foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border. EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.

Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY” is what it is .... DRAMA. That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement. Is that what you are saying? Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.

You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.

Sorry you NEVER proved that.


In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website. Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?

Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.

The Constitution states:
Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states.

• 
  
  
  • June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
  • June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
  • June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
  • July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.

SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)


Those who also supported the ratification included
North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869

The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.

SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

 

[LilOlLady]

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.

Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border


Are we serious about border security or are we not?

You confuse the militarization of the border with border security. Your reasoning is like banning all firearms simply because a couple get used in crimes.

I am not for banning firearms but gun control and the military is on the border for a reason. And the barbed wire is there for a reason. Stop the inflow of illegal aliens and drugs. I am not confused you radical socialist left wings are and I am a liberal as they come. We are not talking about keeping the fox out of the chicken coup. We are talking about keeping American free and safe for Americans. Open borders do not mean a free society. We would have a total nightmare on our hands. Once we are able to obtain real statistics from cities/counties states, and the federal government about how much recent immigrants and illegal aliens are costing American citizens, we will realize what has already happened to our country. We certainly don’t need to import more people. If our country needs more people, when our immigration laws are actually enforced, when we really secure our borders, when we change the crazy birthright citizenship and family reunification and preferred countries laws, maybe Americans will be able to put more money in their pockets and afford to have more children.

YOU self identified as a liberal. I am NOT a liberal. I am a Christian patriot and a constitutionalist.

If you don't want drugs in this country, you have to cut off the steady supply of users. As long as America keeps manufacturing drug addicts, the drugs will come from somewhere.

The solutions you support have their roots in National Socialist proposals and manifesting themselves in Democrat talking points. Donald Trump has said himself stated many times that the Dems were for the wall until he became president.

Did you realize that America became the greatest nation in all of recorded history WITHOUT a wall? How do you suppose that happened?

You do realize that Trump wants to import MORE people into the U.S. not fewer, right? I'm all about putting more people to work. AND, if they would go to work, fewer foreigners would show up. BTW, I have contacts needing workers this season for about four months. The pay is $11 an hour and a place to live. Where I live there are PLENTY of help wanted signs out. It's just damn near impossible to find Americans that want to work. When you do, many corporations turn them away since lazy Americans did not take advantage of that free education we offered them.

When you take the lazy ass white males that live in mommy's basement playing on the computer and getting $600 for food from welfare; when you count up the people with a criminal record and are locked out of the workforce; when you add up the drug addicts; when you figure all those in whose mother does not want their children to have to work; figure those without an education or driver's license and you have 90 percent of the unemployed. What's your plan to deal with them?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.

Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.

When they run out of supportive facts they can provide and go to, they turn to their racism and bigotry comments. I’m not at all surprised by this.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases. Can you? I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding. Can you? I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.

You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.

Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to. This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.

You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business. WTF is wrong with you? Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.

“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“

That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.

Franklin - “Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.

You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
(1) Ben Franklin
(2) George Washington
(3) Alexander Hamilton,
(4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution. More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t. I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours. Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.

Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above. Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through and providing individual views (sources) going back to our nation’s founding.

Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free. If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.

In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc. Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?

You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens. So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.

1) If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself. I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest. So, why aren't you? OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job? I think that maybe you understand that half of the population - at a minimum invited the foreigner here. So, your first paragraph is irrelevant.

2) Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.? OR did he leave well enough alone? Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country? How many people agreed with him?

3) You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, NONE of them done a damn thing about the FACT that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the STATES. The founders did not address it in the Constitution. As a matter of FACT, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration. The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?

Let me repeat what YOU said:

If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals

I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business. It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem. How do you think you got into this situation?

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law. Here is a quote from it:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution of the United States

WHEN the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by that instrument to the citizen?

...
We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 404–05.

Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."

Eleven years later the Republicans ILLEGALLY ratified the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:

* It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens

* The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your unalienable Rights. Do you know what an unalienable Right is?

Let's move on:

"The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."


The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended" (Reposted with permission)

2 Classes of Citizens

I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.

The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing their will and desire to become citizens of the United States. We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force their will to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry. Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens. We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States. None of that is in debate. Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.

So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
Alexander Hamilton

SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)

We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States. While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.

The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.

Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
SOURCE:
Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445

Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling his Vice President: “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
SOURCE:
Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23

When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the WHOLE people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that ALL (without exclusion) shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good.”
SOURCE:
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11

These same laws which govern each state of the “common good” of ALL, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.



With regards to the principles of the American Founding, the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake ... assume ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.

ALL to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good. These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by. You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”

Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted.”
SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.


Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —- If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.


This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.


Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant. All while YOU stated “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research. Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all? The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research. I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”. At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.

If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research. At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.

You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down. You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table. The facts are NOT going to change:

1) The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go. Congress is limited to naturalization. Naturalization is citizenship

2) What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would become citizens. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here? Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things. Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?

3) Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about citizenship. Again, it had NOTHING to do with non-citizens doing business in the United States

4) The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.

NOBODY is doing what you claim. People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY

5) Article I Section 9 has been explained to you. Here is a repeat:

"This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (sic) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years..."

Article 1, Section 9

Section 9 - The Meaning
"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808."

Article I Section 9

• "The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."

https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/

YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.

First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States. According to your statement, foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border. EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.

Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY” is what it is .... DRAMA. That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement. Is that what you are saying? Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.

You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.

Sorry you NEVER proved that.


In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website. Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?

Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.

The Constitution states:
Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states.

• 
  
  
  • June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
  • June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
  • June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
  • July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.

SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)


Those who also supported the ratification included
North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869

The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.

SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

It takes at least two weeks for you to research and cobble together what you think are talking points in favor of hating the little brown people from south of the border. I'll respond to some of your allegations this morning and that's just for chits and giggles.

1) I do NOT disagree with your proposition that we should have entry points. Where I disagree with you is that the federal government puts quotas in place and tries to deny people the ability to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered

2) You have NEVER been able to shoot down any fact that I've brought to the table. You are constantly defending immigration laws that were passed by liberals. Those laws clearly and unequivocally discriminate against white people:

The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S

... Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said,our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset"

However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico"

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

3) The United States is not responsible for the immigration policies of Canada. I don't know what point you made there, but if I wanted to hire a Canadian because they speak French and few Americans do, I would hire them on that basis

4) Insofar as the unconstitutionality of the 14th, I was fighting it in court a decade BEFORE your little anti-immigrant build a wall cult was founded. We were chipping away at its unconstitutional provisions and the MSM helped National Socialists, just like you, turn 25 years of hard ass work by constitutionalists into defeats for the left. What a bunch of morons!!!

5) Here are FIVE sources off the top of my head (and I don't really need a link for some things as I AM the original citing source for much of what I say.) Just use the links to refute (and yes they answer your objections) the walls of irrelevant text that you post that have been disproven three times now in the course of this thread:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

The above link is the only one we really need

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

Freedom School - Texas

Those sites, combined, refute everything you will ever post in support of the Amendment that, if it didn't exist, would give you whiners one less lie to parrot (i.e. the "anchor baby" myth.) Without the 14th those people would not be citizens and you'd have one less reason to exist.

So your actual "facts" (LMFAO) got shot down by judges, historians, legal researchers, lawyers, and citizen activists. It's almost funny. The 14 jeopardizes your Rights, allows millions to become "citizens" that you hate, loathe and despise and yet you STILL support it. How much more screwed up can you be?

6) Your denial of what I can prove or not prove is not left up to you. Your opinion does not constitute fact. My opinion is that you hate the most important foundational principles upon which the Republic rests. You have a problem with unalienable Rights. Maybe it's YOU who needs to be deported.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.

Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.

there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

why not care about that, right wingers?

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.

Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.

When they run out of supportive facts they can provide and go to, they turn to their racism and bigotry comments. I’m not at all surprised by this.

in right wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.

 

[LilOlLady]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.[/QUOT
What are God-given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? To protect you and yours have been the law since the beginning of time. Borders and boundaries were created by GOD. The role of the judges during the settlement period in Canaan is understood into two aspects. ... On the other hand, judges are also considered as military leaders in order to fight the enemy of the Israelites. It is the role of judges to protect the people in Israel from all forms of destruction.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are summarized below. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

 

[danielpalos]

admit it right wingers; only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“

That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.

Franklin - “Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.

You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
(1) Ben Franklin
(2) George Washington
(3) Alexander Hamilton,
(4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution. More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t. I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours. Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.

Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above. Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through and providing individual views (sources) going back to our nation’s founding.

Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free. If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.

In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc. Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?

You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens. So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.

1) If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself. I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest. So, why aren't you? OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job? I think that maybe you understand that half of the population - at a minimum invited the foreigner here. So, your first paragraph is irrelevant.

2) Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.? OR did he leave well enough alone? Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country? How many people agreed with him?

3) You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, NONE of them done a damn thing about the FACT that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the STATES. The founders did not address it in the Constitution. As a matter of FACT, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration. The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?

Let me repeat what YOU said:

If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals

I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business. It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem. How do you think you got into this situation?

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law. Here is a quote from it:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution of the United States

WHEN the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by that instrument to the citizen?

...
We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 404–05.

Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."

Eleven years later the Republicans ILLEGALLY ratified the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:

* It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens

* The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your unalienable Rights. Do you know what an unalienable Right is?

Let's move on:

"The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."


The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended" (Reposted with permission)

2 Classes of Citizens

I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.

The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing their will and desire to become citizens of the United States. We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force their will to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry. Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens. We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States. None of that is in debate. Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.

So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
Alexander Hamilton

SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)

We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States. While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.

The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.

Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
SOURCE:
Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445

Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling his Vice President: “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
SOURCE:
Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23

When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the WHOLE people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that ALL (without exclusion) shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good.”
SOURCE:
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11

These same laws which govern each state of the “common good” of ALL, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.



With regards to the principles of the American Founding, the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake ... assume ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.

ALL to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good. These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by. You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”

Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted.”
SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.


Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —- If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.


This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.


Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant. All while YOU stated “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research. Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all? The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research. I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”. At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.

If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research. At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.

You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down. You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table. The facts are NOT going to change:

1) The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go. Congress is limited to naturalization. Naturalization is citizenship

2) What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would become citizens. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here? Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things. Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?

3) Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about citizenship. Again, it had NOTHING to do with non-citizens doing business in the United States

4) The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.

NOBODY is doing what you claim. People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY

5) Article I Section 9 has been explained to you. Here is a repeat:

"This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (sic) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years..."

Article 1, Section 9

Section 9 - The Meaning
"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808."

Article I Section 9

• "The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."

https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/

YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.

First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States. According to your statement, foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border. EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.

Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY” is what it is .... DRAMA. That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement. Is that what you are saying? Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.

You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.

Sorry you NEVER proved that.


In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website. Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?

Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.

The Constitution states:
Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states.

• 
  
  
  • June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
  • June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
  • June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
  • July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.

SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)


Those who also supported the ratification included
North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869

The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.

SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

It takes at least two weeks for you to research and cobble together what you think are talking points in favor of hating the little brown people from south of the border. I'll respond to some of your allegations this morning and that's just for chits and giggles.

1) I do NOT disagree with your proposition that we should have entry points. Where I disagree with you is that the federal government puts quotas in place and tries to deny people the ability to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered

2) You have NEVER been able to shoot down any fact that I've brought to the table. You are constantly defending immigration laws that were passed by liberals. Those laws clearly and unequivocally discriminate against white people:

The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S

... Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said,our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset"

However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico"

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

3) The United States is not responsible for the immigration policies of Canada. I don't know what point you made there, but if I wanted to hire a Canadian because they speak French and few Americans do, I would hire them on that basis

4) Insofar as the unconstitutionality of the 14th, I was fighting it in court a decade BEFORE your little anti-immigrant build a wall cult was founded. We were chipping away at its unconstitutional provisions and the MSM helped National Socialists, just like you, turn 25 years of hard ass work by constitutionalists into defeats for the left. What a bunch of morons!!!

5) Here are FIVE sources off the top of my head (and I don't really need a link for some things as I AM the original citing source for much of what I say.) Just use the links to refute (and yes they answer your objections) the walls of irrelevant text that you post that have been disproven three times now in the course of this thread:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

The above link is the only one we really need

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

Freedom School - Texas

Those sites, combined, refute everything you will ever post in support of the Amendment that, if it didn't exist, would give you whiners one less lie to parrot (i.e. the "anchor baby" myth.) Without the 14th those people would not be citizens and you'd have one less reason to exist.

So your actual "facts" (LMFAO) got shot down by judges, historians, legal researchers, lawyers, and citizen activists. It's almost funny. The 14 jeopardizes your Rights, allows millions to become "citizens" that you hate, loathe and despise and yet you STILL support it. How much more screwed up can you be?

6) Your denial of what I can prove or not prove is not left up to you. Your opinion does not constitute fact. My opinion is that you hate the most important foundational principles upon which the Republic rests. You have a problem with unalienable Rights. Maybe it's YOU who needs to be deported.

Turning to racist statements like “hating brown people” does not AID in your position. IN FACT those who make judgment views using racially charged sentiments (such as yourself) DO SO because they can no longer defend their argument with any amount of provided research that backs their case.

Remember you are making racial suggestions and statements... not I. My previous responses included evidence where one group of foreign illegal immigrants are accepted and treated differently from foreign immigrants overseas, creating two classes of immigrants that is contrary to the view of “all men created equal” that you claim under our Constitution.


(1) One group obtaining citizenship through the legal process of our immigration LAW,
(2) Second seperate group to make allowances for those who break the law.

This is not “all men created equal” as our Constitution supports

With regard to your reference of “quotas”, that’s where the quotes of Washington’s, Hamilton’s Franklin’s come in. What was the view of Founders surrounding UNLIMITED foreign immigrants entering the United States with the desire to later become United States citizens.

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our LIBERTY and SOVEREIGHNTY.”
— Alexander Hamilton
SOURCE: “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904

This quote by Hamilton DOES NOT support unlimited foreign immigration into this country.

Benjamin Franklin also expressed reservations and concerns with very large numbers of foreign immigrants settling in our country.
Regarding the rather large number of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin says Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”

Did that statement support large numbers of foreign immigrants freely flowing in the United States?
Yes ... or not ? YES their opinions DO matter, as they were involved in our nation’s Constitution.

With regards to your responses:
1) You provided no quotes from our Founders supporting unlimited immigration.
2) You provided nothing from the Continental Congress supporting unlimited immigration.


The difference is ... that I turn to the opinion of the Founders, a state Constitution during the period of the colonies, Federalist Papers, MYSELF in researching early United States views on the subject to foreign immigrants entering into this country. I don’t see “evidence” of unlimited numbers without concerns of keeping such amount in check.

You turn to a 20th century opinion piece link or “Cliff Notes” quick reference sheet in an attempt to try and support your view.. and call that research.

Throwing up a 20th century link of an opinion piece is not research ... it’s someone else’s opinion piece.

BIG DIFFERENCE

Have you SERIOUSLY, in complete honesty... EVER put together a research paper that does not involve Wikipedia, or three or four links of “opinion pieces” as your complete answer ?

Research my ass!! I doubt you actually took a class and ever written one.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.

You are an absolute dumb ass. You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you. I've not said anything regarding every form of "border enhancement." That is total bullshit you just made up.

IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall. A wall must transverse across PRIVATE property lines wherein people do not want it. The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of enforcement of the wall. Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people? Your side pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc. THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS.

IF your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is. You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument. So, let me get you caught up to speed:

You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:

"the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."

This statement is absolutely true. That is two points you have gotten right this week. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized 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."

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

Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:

The 14th Amendment created TWO separate and distinct classes of citizens. You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links. Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen. Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty. The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. Initially when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship. HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought everybody under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights. If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of life, liberty and property - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States. These are government granted rights, but it is what it is. There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint. Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor. That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment. In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion. Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

The Two United States

 

[Porter Rockwell]

In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc. Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?

You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens. So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.

1) If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself. I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest. So, why aren't you? OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job? I think that maybe you understand that half of the population - at a minimum invited the foreigner here. So, your first paragraph is irrelevant.

2) Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.? OR did he leave well enough alone? Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country? How many people agreed with him?

3) You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, NONE of them done a damn thing about the FACT that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the STATES. The founders did not address it in the Constitution. As a matter of FACT, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration. The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?

Let me repeat what YOU said:

If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals

I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business. It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem. How do you think you got into this situation?

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law. Here is a quote from it:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution of the United States

WHEN the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by that instrument to the citizen?

...
We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 404–05.

Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."

Eleven years later the Republicans ILLEGALLY ratified the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:

* It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens

* The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your unalienable Rights. Do you know what an unalienable Right is?

Let's move on:

"The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."


The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended" (Reposted with permission)

2 Classes of Citizens

I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.

The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing their will and desire to become citizens of the United States. We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force their will to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry. Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens. We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States. None of that is in debate. Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.

So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
Alexander Hamilton

SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)

We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States. While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.

The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.

Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
SOURCE:
Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445

Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling his Vice President: “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
SOURCE:
Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23

When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the WHOLE people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that ALL (without exclusion) shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good.”
SOURCE:
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11

These same laws which govern each state of the “common good” of ALL, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.



With regards to the principles of the American Founding, the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake ... assume ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.

ALL to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good. These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by. You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”

Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted.”
SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.


Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —- If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.


This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.


Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant. All while YOU stated “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research. Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all? The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research. I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”. At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.

If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research. At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.

You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down. You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table. The facts are NOT going to change:

1) The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go. Congress is limited to naturalization. Naturalization is citizenship

2) What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would become citizens. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here? Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things. Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?

3) Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about citizenship. Again, it had NOTHING to do with non-citizens doing business in the United States

4) The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.

NOBODY is doing what you claim. People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY

5) Article I Section 9 has been explained to you. Here is a repeat:

"This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (sic) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years..."

Article 1, Section 9

Section 9 - The Meaning
"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808."

Article I Section 9

• "The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."

https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/

YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.

First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States. According to your statement, foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border. EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.

Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable Rights... ESPECIALLY LIBERTY” is what it is .... DRAMA. That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement. Is that what you are saying? Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.

You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.

Sorry you NEVER proved that.


In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website. Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?

Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.

The Constitution states:
Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states.

• 
  
  
  • June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
  • June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
  • June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
  • July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.

SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)


Those who also supported the ratification included
North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869

The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.

SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

It takes at least two weeks for you to research and cobble together what you think are talking points in favor of hating the little brown people from south of the border. I'll respond to some of your allegations this morning and that's just for chits and giggles.

1) I do NOT disagree with your proposition that we should have entry points. Where I disagree with you is that the federal government puts quotas in place and tries to deny people the ability to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered

2) You have NEVER been able to shoot down any fact that I've brought to the table. You are constantly defending immigration laws that were passed by liberals. Those laws clearly and unequivocally discriminate against white people:

The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S

... Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said,our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset"

However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico"

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

3) The United States is not responsible for the immigration policies of Canada. I don't know what point you made there, but if I wanted to hire a Canadian because they speak French and few Americans do, I would hire them on that basis

4) Insofar as the unconstitutionality of the 14th, I was fighting it in court a decade BEFORE your little anti-immigrant build a wall cult was founded. We were chipping away at its unconstitutional provisions and the MSM helped National Socialists, just like you, turn 25 years of hard ass work by constitutionalists into defeats for the left. What a bunch of morons!!!

5) Here are FIVE sources off the top of my head (and I don't really need a link for some things as I AM the original citing source for much of what I say.) Just use the links to refute (and yes they answer your objections) the walls of irrelevant text that you post that have been disproven three times now in the course of this thread:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

The above link is the only one we really need

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

Freedom School - Texas

Those sites, combined, refute everything you will ever post in support of the Amendment that, if it didn't exist, would give you whiners one less lie to parrot (i.e. the "anchor baby" myth.) Without the 14th those people would not be citizens and you'd have one less reason to exist.

So your actual "facts" (LMFAO) got shot down by judges, historians, legal researchers, lawyers, and citizen activists. It's almost funny. The 14 jeopardizes your Rights, allows millions to become "citizens" that you hate, loathe and despise and yet you STILL support it. How much more screwed up can you be?

6) Your denial of what I can prove or not prove is not left up to you. Your opinion does not constitute fact. My opinion is that you hate the most important foundational principles upon which the Republic rests. You have a problem with unalienable Rights. Maybe it's YOU who needs to be deported.

Turning to racist statements like “hating brown people” does not AID in your position. IN FACT those who make judgment views using racially charged sentiments (such as yourself) DO SO because they can no longer defend their argument with any amount of provided research that backs their case.

Remember you are making racial suggestions and statements... not I. My previous responses included evidence where one group of foreign illegal immigrants are accepted and treated differently from foreign immigrants overseas, creating two classes of immigrants that is contrary to the view of “all men created equal” that you claim under our Constitution.


(1) One group obtaining citizenship through the legal process of our immigration LAW,
(2) Second seperate group to make allowances for those who break the law.

This is not “all men created equal” as our Constitution supports

With regard to your reference of “quotas”, that’s where the quotes of Washington’s, Hamilton’s Franklin’s come in. What was the view of Founders surrounding UNLIMITED foreign immigrants entering the United States with the desire to later become United States citizens.

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our LIBERTY and SOVEREIGHNTY.”
— Alexander Hamilton
SOURCE: “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904

This quote by Hamilton DOES NOT support unlimited foreign immigration into this country.

Benjamin Franklin also expressed reservations and concerns with very large numbers of foreign immigrants settling in our country.
Regarding the rather large number of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin says Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”

Did that statement support large numbers of foreign immigrants freely flowing in the United States?
Yes ... or not ? YES their opinions DO matter, as they were involved in our nation’s Constitution.

With regards to your responses:
1) You provided no quotes from our Founders supporting unlimited immigration.
2) You provided nothing from the Continental Congress supporting unlimited immigration.


The difference is ... that I turn to the opinion of the Founders, a state Constitution during the period of the colonies, Federalist Papers, MYSELF in researching early United States views on the subject to foreign immigrants entering into this country. I don’t see “evidence” of unlimited numbers without concerns of keeping such amount in check.

You turn to a 20th century opinion piece link or “Cliff Notes” quick reference sheet in an attempt to try and support your view.. and call that research.

Throwing up a 20th century link of an opinion piece is not research ... it’s someone else’s opinion piece.

BIG DIFFERENCE

Have you SERIOUSLY, in complete honesty... EVER put together a research paper that does not involve Wikipedia, or three or four links of “opinion pieces” as your complete answer ?

Research my ass!! I doubt you actually took a class and ever written one.

More walls of text because you don't READ the provided links.

1) When you don't have anything, throw in the race card. Hey dumbass, YOUR side keeps telling me that the little brown people from across the southern border do not constitute a race. You're now changing the goalposts because you don't have anything factual?

2) You are the one supporting the two classes of citizenship with your support of the 14th Amendment

3) The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about all men being created equal. That is the Declaration of Independence. There is yet more proof that you ask for links to documentation that you don't bother reading; you just excel at creating strawman arguments

4) Don't screw with me. If you're not bothering to read the responses, don't bother to ask me to respond to that when did you quit beating your wife variety of questions

5) You keep supporting the 14th Amendment then quoting the founders that make MY point. You are all over the map. Immigration is people coming into the United States for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. What is so hard to understand about that? What in the Hell short circuits in your brain that you cannot tell the difference between people doing business and people becoming part of the body politic as permanent residents?

6) You accuse me of not providing quotes from the founders. WTH? Have you actually READ anything I've written? Try this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-" Thomas Jefferson writing in the Declaration of Independence

Either all men have the Rights you find so offensive or they don't. Which is it? Jefferson IS a founding father; the Declaration of Independence trumps all other anecdotal quotes you can post

7) You make an accusation that your pea brain cannot sustain. If ANYONE on this board looks at the time period between when you posted and supposedly went to the links provided will see that you are lying. Period. If you check the links I left in the last three posts I've done, you will find:

* References to the Constitution
* References to the Declaration of Independence
* Over 100 court cases cited
* Opinions from all three branches of the government
* The research from world class historians
* Over 50 major court cases cited and analyzed

Your dumb ass didn't even bother to access them. Anyone looking at the time frame between your last few posts can see that. Don't accuse me of Cliff's Notes... and NOTHING you've posted refutes anything I've posted.

You can "doubt" all you want, but my home is open and you can not only see the cases I've researched, but those I've won. You can see the many tv, radio and newspaper interviews I've done over the years. Check out the diplomas and degrees - we'll even invite some of the local political leaders over and you can weigh that for yourself... OR YOU CAN CONTINUE TO TRY AND BULLSHIT YOUR WAY THROUGH THIS THREAD WHILE TAKING THE ASS WHIPPING OF A LIFE TIME.

People who want the facts will, sooner or later, access the links provided and figure out, you tell more lies than any politician on Capitol Hill.