Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[danielpalos]

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

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.

There is no express immigration clause in our supreme law of the land.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.

Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have. While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point. You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said. Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response. It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.

Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS # 4581, 4585, AND 4597

"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." Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

The Blessings of Liberty were intended only for the whites. They did not belong to the blacks; they were slaves; it wasn't intended for the Chinese who lived here permanently, but were never citizens. The Native Americans were uprooted and placed on reservations. The Native Americans were not considered as citizens of the United States.

When critics are challenging me and postulating a "Preamble" argument as to who is and is not covered in the Constitution, they need to be mindful of exactly what that language is about. It is about the preservation, protection and advancement of the white race of people.

As can be seen by the constant posting by critics they cannot differentiate between immigration / naturalization / citizenship versus people entering the United States in the normal course of business. It's strange. The founders never defined immigration in their terms even once. The founders didn't even put the word immigration into the Constitution. But, we do know, exactly as to WHO that language about posterity belongs to. In order to make the build the wall argument look palatable; to give it legitimacy, the build the wall people they endorse the 14th Amendment on one hand and then attempt to discredit it on the other. Though I've answered the liars who pretend to be critics (ignoring the fact that we've discussed this aspect of the issue), here are some links to explain to you WHY the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified:

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

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

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

14th amendment ... illegally passed and ratified?

BTW, for those who presume the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment, here is a mainstream view regarding the strategies you are seeing people try to beat me over the head with:

Birthright citizenship, explained

For any honest researcher out there, those links take over two hours to fully read and understand. But, even using the words of those who passed the 14th Amendment, they questioned its legitimacy.

IS IT WRONG TO BUILD A WALL? That depends upon how you look at it. And so, we have a couple more inroads to make so that you will be fully informed.

 

[LilOlLady]

SLYHUNTER>>>
MATTHEW 25:31-40
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (NIV)

 

[Porter Rockwell]

SLYHUNTER>>>
MATTHEW 25:31-40
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (NIV)

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

Sometimes you find Christians who are on the cusp of understanding what the immigration debacle is all about and how to best resolve it. For those into wall worship, all they understand is that you enter the United States through some "right" way that exists only marginally, and then, the wall worshipers demand we follow draconian laws to force people to become citizens.

In order to understand the immigration debacle, you have to understand America's history. Early Americans saw themselves as Christians who were in a covenant with the Lord / Yahweh and that America represented the New Jerusalem.

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf



New Jerusalem

Our Father's Kingdom of America: America the New Jerusalem

"...various Protestant denominations, modernist branches of Christianity, Mormonism and Reform Judaism, view the New Jerusalem as figurative, or believe that such a renewal may have already taken place, or that it will take place at some other location besides the Temple Mount."

New Jerusalem - Wikipedia

This basic presupposition is what led to John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity in 1630 all the way to the first Naturalization Law of 1790 wherein only whites were allowed to become citizens.

Although the whites did not invent slavery, because America became the most powerful nation in history, every other race thinks the United States screwed them out of it. We can trace slavery back to about 1860 B.C, as an established institution according to the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi.

Today, few countries exist that practice slavery, the most notable are Islamic countries. And while the non-whites are having their culture attacked: the removal of statutes, monuments, statues, and plaques; the censure of anyone who uses a non - PC term; the assaults on religion to force everyone to adopt a one race / globalist culture, etc. we are being saddled with religious extremists who believe they must convert or kill Christians. Those people are citizens and they are political leaders... makes you wonder what all that "legal immigration" mumbo jumbo really consists of.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing doesn't Care about the Law, only their bigotry without a Cause.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.

Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have. While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point. You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said. Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response. It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.

Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603

The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas. You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security. Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.

I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens. If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”. In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Not strawman but undeniable FACT. You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.

You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.

I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment? I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required by the Constitution. In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.

So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited? Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause. There is an express general welfare clause and a commerce clause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.

Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have. While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point. You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said. Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response. It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.

Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603

The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas. You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security. Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.

I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens. If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”. In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Not strawman but undeniable FACT. You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.

You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.

I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment? I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required by the Constitution. In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.

So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited? Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603 AND 4605

We have to interrupt the flow of this thread to respond to SHACKLES OFBIGGOV WHO IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT HIS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. LET US LEAD HIM BY THE HAND.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: "The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States"

RESPONSE: On at least six occasions we have PROVEN you wrong on this thread on this issue. The current laws were passed by liberals and do not contemplate the way employers access labor. As a result, we have an antiquated system with unconstitutional quotas. You continue to bitch and moan, but the bottom line is, you cannot tell an employer who they can and cannot hire. The employer owns the freaking job. You are advocating SOCIALISM.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

RESPONSE: For the sixth time you haven't shown us shit. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Courts any authority to grant to anyone or any other branch of government any power. It's not their job.

Secondly, Immigration is defined as people coming to another country for the purpose of permanent residence. What part of the English language goes over your head? Foreign workers ARE NOT SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE. CONSEQUENTLY YOUR LITTLE CASE DOESN'T APPLY. The case only applies to those who want to be permanent residents.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: "I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights..

RESPONSE: ."This is a load of horseshit because it has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the southern border AND immigration attorneys have addressed this - AND we've discussed it on numerous occasions. Article I Section 9 DOES NOT DEAL with the issues you bring to the table. Our focus here is SOUTHERN BORDER. You deflect because you're getting your ass kicked. AND you are making straw man arguments in order to confuse the issue.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

RESPONSE: And you failed to show me the word immigration in the Constitution; you failed to show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to grant to any state or branch of government any power. Show it to me in the Constitution or STFU and let's move forward.

Finally, with respect to the 14th Amendment, you are LYING. Period. You haven't shown us shit and I've posted cases, the positions of judges, historians, and attorneys while you LIE to the posters.

Your bullshit has no credibility because you are lying. I gave you more than half a dozen links, citing over a hundred court cases and explaining the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment - AND THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT. You need the deflection to keep people from being able to see the ass whipping you are taking. EVERY statement you've made has been legitimately refuted. So we're moving forward. Lick your wounds and keep telling those repetitive lies. If you tell the lie a thousand times, maybe someone will believe that this is not been addressed - if they're as big a dumb ass as you and afraid to READ THE LINKS in response to your desperate attempt at relevancy in this discussion.

 

[LilOlLady]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

 

[LilOlLady]

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.

Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have. While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point. You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said. Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response. It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.

Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603

The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas. You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security. Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.

I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens. If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”. In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Not strawman but undeniable FACT. You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.

You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.

I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment? I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required by the Constitution. In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.

So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited? Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603 AND 4605

We have to interrupt the flow of this thread to respond to SHACKLES OFBIGGOV WHO IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT HIS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. LET US LEAD HIM BY THE HAND.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: "The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States"

RESPONSE: On at least six occasions we have PROVEN you wrong on this thread on this issue. The current laws were passed by liberals and do not contemplate the way employers access labor. As a result, we have an antiquated system with unconstitutional quotas. You continue to bitch and moan, but the bottom line is, you cannot tell an employer who they can and cannot hire. The employer owns the freaking job. You are advocating SOCIALISM.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

RESPONSE: For the sixth time you haven't shown us shit. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Courts any authority to grant to anyone or any other branch of government any power. It's not their job.

Secondly, Immigration is defined as people coming to another country for the purpose of permanent residence. What part of the English language goes over your head? Foreign workers ARE NOT SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE. CONSEQUENTLY YOUR LITTLE CASE DOESN'T APPLY. The case only applies to those who want to be permanent residents.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: "I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights..

RESPONSE: ."This is a load of horseshit because it has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the southern border AND immigration attorneys have addressed this - AND we've discussed it on numerous occasions. Article I Section 9 DOES NOT DEAL with the issues you bring to the table. Our focus here is SOUTHERN BORDER. You deflect because you're getting your ass kicked. AND you are making straw man arguments in order to confuse the issue.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

RESPONSE: And you failed to show me the word immigration in the Constitution; you failed to show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to grant to any state or branch of government any power. Show it to me in the Constitution or STFU and let's move forward.

Finally, with respect to the 14th Amendment, you are LYING. Period. You haven't shown us shit and I've posted cases, the positions of judges, historians, and attorneys while you LIE to the posters.

Your bullshit has no credibility because you are lying. I gave you more than half a dozen links, citing over a hundred court cases and explaining the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment - AND THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT. You need the deflection to keep people from being able to see the ass whipping you are taking. EVERY statement you've made has been legitimately refuted. So we're moving forward. Lick your wounds and keep telling those repetitive lies. If you tell the lie a thousand times, maybe someone will believe that this is not been addressed - if they're as big a dumb ass as you and afraid to READ THE LINKS in response to your desperate attempt at relevancy in this discussion.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or other entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, as defined in subsection 1324a(h)(3).
Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is or has become an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.
Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a "pattern or practice" of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both. The legislative history indicates that "a pattern or practice" of violations is to be given a commonsense rather than overly technical meaning, and must evidence regular, repeated and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic or accidental acts. H.R.Rep. No. 99-682, Part 3, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), p. 59. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(k).A scheme for civil enforcement of the requirements of § 1324a through injunctions and monetary penalties is set forth in § 1324a(e) and § 1324a(f)(2).

In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) makes it a felony offense to use a false identification document or misuse a real one, for the purpose of satisfying the employment verification provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b).

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603

I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc. Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control. Yet, unless you run into a constitutionalist, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.

IN 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court. It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case. It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been. But, here is the $64,000 question: Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners? To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government any power over non-citizens. The Tenth Amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa. Wait. The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority??? WHERE, in the Constitution does the build the wall advocates find such a power? It is not there. See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a constitutionalist point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration. If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the RULING Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope? Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not? Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution? You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it. There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state. There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "exclusive" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration. Look closely at Heller. They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.

Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have. While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point. You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said. Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response. It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.

Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603

The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas. You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security. Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.

I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens. If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”. In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Not strawman but undeniable FACT. You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.

You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.

I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment? I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required by the Constitution. In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.

So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited? Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603 AND 4605

We have to interrupt the flow of this thread to respond to SHACKLES OFBIGGOV WHO IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT HIS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. LET US LEAD HIM BY THE HAND.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: "The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States"

RESPONSE: On at least six occasions we have PROVEN you wrong on this thread on this issue. The current laws were passed by liberals and do not contemplate the way employers access labor. As a result, we have an antiquated system with unconstitutional quotas. You continue to bitch and moan, but the bottom line is, you cannot tell an employer who they can and cannot hire. The employer owns the freaking job. You are advocating SOCIALISM.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

RESPONSE: For the sixth time you haven't shown us shit. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Courts any authority to grant to anyone or any other branch of government any power. It's not their job.

Secondly, Immigration is defined as people coming to another country for the purpose of permanent residence. What part of the English language goes over your head? Foreign workers ARE NOT SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE. CONSEQUENTLY YOUR LITTLE CASE DOESN'T APPLY. The case only applies to those who want to be permanent residents.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: "I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights..

RESPONSE: ."This is a load of horseshit because it has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the southern border AND immigration attorneys have addressed this - AND we've discussed it on numerous occasions. Article I Section 9 DOES NOT DEAL with the issues you bring to the table. Our focus here is SOUTHERN BORDER. You deflect because you're getting your ass kicked. AND you are making straw man arguments in order to confuse the issue.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

RESPONSE: And you failed to show me the word immigration in the Constitution; you failed to show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to grant to any state or branch of government any power. Show it to me in the Constitution or STFU and let's move forward.

Finally, with respect to the 14th Amendment, you are LYING. Period. You haven't shown us shit and I've posted cases, the positions of judges, historians, and attorneys while you LIE to the posters.

Your bullshit has no credibility because you are lying. I gave you more than half a dozen links, citing over a hundred court cases and explaining the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment - AND THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT. You need the deflection to keep people from being able to see the ass whipping you are taking. EVERY statement you've made has been legitimately refuted. So we're moving forward. Lick your wounds and keep telling those repetitive lies. If you tell the lie a thousand times, maybe someone will believe that this is not been addressed - if they're as big a dumb ass as you and afraid to READ THE LINKS in response to your desperate attempt at relevancy in this discussion.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or other entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, as defined in subsection 1324a(h)(3).
Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is or has become an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.
Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a "pattern or practice" of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both. The legislative history indicates that "a pattern or practice" of violations is to be given a commonsense rather than overly technical meaning, and must evidence regular, repeated and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic or accidental acts. H.R.Rep. No. 99-682, Part 3, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), p. 59. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(k).A scheme for civil enforcement of the requirements of § 1324a through injunctions and monetary penalties is set forth in § 1324a(e) and § 1324a(f)(2).

In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) makes it a felony offense to use a false identification document or misuse a real one, for the purpose of satisfying the employment verification provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b).

What's your point? If you read posts 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, 4605 and 4609 we've carefully shown that these statutes, for the most part are blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I hire whomever I like. If you don't like it, go pound sand

If someone uses fake ID, lies to authorities, etc., there are legitimate laws in Title 18 of which they can be tried on. That has NO bearing on this discussion.

The United States Supreme Court itself has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. Does that mean I can ignore laws I don't like? Hell NO. But, if you cannot show me, in the Constitution where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant powers to another branch of government, then you can kiss my white ass. Your positions have been asked and answered.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

What is your point?

 

[LilOlLady]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

What is your point?

The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603, 4609, and 4612

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

I've come a long way in the last seven posts, challenging the notion that the United States Supreme Court EVER had the authority to give Congress a power over non-citizens that enter the United States to work jobs willingly offered.

The one thing that is insulting, reprehensible, and shows the lack of a moral compass among the Tea Party Republicans - or anyone else that would suggest a wall is the disdain it shows for Liberty. I cannot believe that any segment of my own brethren would stoop so low as to suggest we criminalize Liberty. At the same time, one has to almost admire a people willing to brave death and the prospect of being raped, beaten, robbed, and / or used as prostitutes or maybe drug mules to come into the United States and get a minimum wage job in order to feed their family.

The Constitution only gives the Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." Naturalization is about citizenship - and citizenship is about becoming a part of the body politic. I'm sure that the founders could not fathom free men and machines working the fields and producing millions of tons of food that feeds the world. They could not have predicted warehouses bigger than their largest cities.

The narrow view of those wanting a wall shows that they have no real end game in their thinking process. The only "in" they see is people coming in the "legal" way as they love to call it which is code for citizenship. After the right has called these people rapists, robbers, drug dealers, thieves, murderers, etc. they think they can make citizens out of them with no repercussions. Are they nuts? They are insuring that those people will become Democrats, vote the right into oblivion and make this entire discussion moot. What a Hell of an end game!

Congress could regulate the flow of foreigners who come here to work without expecting to apply for citizenship. That is an Interstate Commerce issue. Still, there would not be an excuse for quotas, long waiting periods, and these feeble attempts to prohibit foreigners from coming into the United States to work. Those people would show up at entry points, be issued a temporary ID and then get a tax ID which would be valid for two years. After that, they go home for two years OR, if they want to become U.S. citizens, they apply for it. If they don't want to become citizens, they can work in the U.S. for two years and go home for two years before reapplying for Guest Worker status. Problem solved.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

What is your point?

The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.

What a pant load! Did you ever think to yourself that the people from south of the border must be part Neanderthal? What kind of people would wait until Obama was out of office before arranging a caravan to come here with an anti-immigrant president at the helm? Why not come here when you encounter the least resistance?

Are you not smart enough to understand you're being played?

 

[danielpalos]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

Repubacks are worse than less fortunate illegals; there is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in our Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the 330 Central Americans were apprehended early Monday at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of El Paso, Texas.

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested 290 Central Americans who entered the country illegally. CBP said 28 groups of more than 100 people have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.

What is your point?

The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.

we have a refugee problem.

 

[Geaux4it]

Indeed. We need to shut immigration down completely until we get a hold on things

-Geaux