Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[NYcarbineer]

LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.

And yet I am not.

If you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.

I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality

"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.

It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.

Yea, you're a fucking moron.

You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

Okay, now that you've flip flopped to the position that the federal government has no constitutional authority to even bar entry to foreigners known to be afflicted with Ebola,

what's your argument that that is not a national security issue?

And while we're at it, what about people on terrorist watch lists? What's the rationale for having no authority to stop them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

An "open border" is essentially NO border! If we don't have a border, we're not a sovereign nation and the Constitution is pointless.

See? Even the certified madmen around here know better than you, Rab.

 

[The Rabbi]

That was my impression as well.

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.

You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.

True. Having a sovereign, in this case the president, means inherently, there are borders over which the President presides.

So the President has authority to make immigration laws? Is that your final answer?

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.

And yet I am not.

If you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.

I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality

"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.

It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.

Yea, you're a fucking moron.

You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.

LMFAO The shear fucking stupidity you exuberate is hilarious. watafuknmoron

Yawn.
When you have nothing you resort to insults.
The Constitution nowhere authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. That is simply the fact an no amount of pretending can change it.

The simple fact is you are attempting to imply "strict constructionist" theory as being the only theory regarding the constitution, funny thing is that "strict constructionist" theory isn't recognized by anybody but fringe extremists and is "judicial activism" at the highest level. The last SCOTUS to attempt to use "strict constructionist" theory was Hugo Black, appointed by FDR. SMFH

You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.

And yet I am not.

If you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.

I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality

"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.

It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.

Yea, you're a fucking moron.

You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.
/fail.

Again, naturalization is the process by which governments handle immigration. I've never argued they were the same thing. Immigration is the act of coming to a country with intentions of staying permanently.

That is simply untrue. People immigrate for all sorts of reasons. Tourists, temp workers, etc. All of them are covered under immigration law but that is nowhere a power given in the Constutution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.

You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.

True. Having a sovereign, in this case the president, means inherently, there are borders over which the President presides.

So the President has authority to make immigration laws? Is that your final answer?

lol, twisting in the wind. Congress passes laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yet I am not.
I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality
It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.

Yea, you're a fucking moron.

You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH

I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.

The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.

You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.

True. Having a sovereign, in this case the president, means inherently, there are borders over which the President presides.

So the President has authority to make immigration laws? Is that your final answer?

lol, twisting in the wind. Congress passes laws.

I know, moron. But Dot Bomb seems t think the president has this authority. You explain it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.

Coming from you this is fucking hilarious. The To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization means exactly what it states, to establish uniform Rules to Naturalization. The first Rule is1) to be allowed to enter or not and 2) if allowed entry, under what condition, and then 3) length of time; temporary or permanently, and last but not least to 4) Naturalize or not.

You're right, this isn't an argument, it's a clarification as to Congress having full authority over Naturalization and its process.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.

You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.

Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.

Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.
/fail.

Again, naturalization is the process by which governments handle immigration. I've never argued they were the same thing. Immigration is the act of coming to a country with intentions of staying permanently.

That is simply untrue. People immigrate for all sorts of reasons. Tourists, temp workers, etc. All of them are covered under immigration law but that is nowhere a power given in the Constutution.

When did you flip flop?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

They are trespassers if they don't have permission to set foot in this country.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.

Coming from you this is fucking hilarious. The To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization means exactly what it states, to establish uniform Rules to Naturalization. The first Rule is1) to be allowed to enter or not and 2) if allowed entry, under what condition, and then 3) length of time; temporary or permanently, and last but not least to 4) Naturalize or not.

You're right, this isn't an argument, it's a clarification as to Congress having full authority over Naturalization and its process.

Naturalization means becoming a citizen. What if someone has no intention of becoming a citizen? Your argument fails.
Naturalization is not immigration.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

 

[The Rabbi]

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

They are trespassers if they don't have permission to set foot in this country.

Who is authorized to give them permission to set foot in this country?
Your statement is absurd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.

You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

By definition they are. Anyone who crosses the border into the US without permission is invading the US.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.

The basis has been provided, post after post.

No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

The federal government has the constitutional right to repel invasion, and 'invasion' is nowhere limited in definition.

Every immigrant coming in without permission is an invader.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are

Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

They are trespassers if they don't have permission to set foot in this country.

Who is authorized to give them permission to set foot in this country?
Your statement is absurd.

The federal government in its power to repel invaders.

Just use the definition:

in·vad·er
inˈvādər/
noun

1. a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.