Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[Liquid Reigns]

immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The idea? or quite simply reality you choose to deny? Are you doing like the rabbi? watfuknmorons

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

You have it backwards, the regulation of Naturalization is Immigration control.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,

then the government can't do it.

That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.

He is correct , 1000%

He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.

Nope. That is the entire basis of the federal government: Limited powers. Delegated powers. Otherwise the federal gov't could simply do anything and ipso facto it is constututional.

Congress can pass anything it wants, it then becomes law provided the President signs said bill, that law then stands until it is challenged by someone with standing and declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Please for fuck sakes go take a basic civics course. watafuknmoron

 

[The Rabbi]

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

What the fuck is wrong with you, can't you read and comprehend plain English?

The regulation of immigration is naturalization!
Not "immigration = naturalization."
Not "regulation = naturalization."

Stop acting like a fucking retard.

Im not the one making up shit.
Regulation of anything is not naturalization. Naturalization is naturalzation. Immigration is immigration The two are not interchangeable terms.

Why do you continue trying to twist the words around? Regulation of immigration is naturalization... that's the word we use to define the regulating of immigration. I'm not interchanging the words. You continue to claim that I am and I continue to tell you that I'm not.

A mechanic is not an auto repair. A mechanic is someone who does auto repairs. A mechanic and an auto repair are not interchangeable. A football is not a football game. A football is used to play football. A football and a football game are not interchangeable.

Right. So regulation of immigration is not naturalization. Regulation is regulation, it is not something else. Why you seem incapable of understanding this I do not know.

 

[The Rabbi]

immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The idea? or quite simply reality you choose to deny? Are you doing like the rabbi? watfuknmorons

Immigration is confiscation. Immigration is documentation. Immigration is refutation.
Of course it isnt any of thsoe things, nor is is naturalization. They refer to two distinct ideasa.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The idea? or quite simply reality you choose to deny? Are you doing like the rabbi? watfuknmorons

Immigration is confiscation. Immigration is documentation. Immigration is refutation.
Of course it isnt any of thsoe things, nor is is naturalization. They refer to two distinct ideasa.

They are not part of 2 distinct ideas. In order to be considered to naturalize one must first be allowed to immigrate, immigration is part of the process of Naturalization and can be regulated by either the person requesting entry into the country (non-immigrant work visa, student visa, vacation entry, etc) or by the country to which they are requesting to immigrate to (K-visa, U visa, GC, etc).

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!

Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is not naturalization. Get the idea?

The REGULATION of immigration is Naturalization.

WTF?
Regulation is naturalization? Maybe regulation is copulation. Maybe regulation is initiation. Maybe regulation is segregation.
BUt it damn sure isnt naturalization.

While you keep pretending you believe the federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION,

let's look at what you said not very long ago:

"On immigration I favor a system where someone wanting to work here can get a biometric ID with a laissez=passer back to the country where he crossed over that allows him to work anywhere here for a specific period. The card should be issued within a week and cost about $100.
Anyone not doing that should be presumed to be a violent criminal and treated appropriately."

Now see if you can explain the constitutionality of that regulation of immigration -

the kind you approve of.

The SAVE Act

Its nice that you thnk so much of my posts that you research them for me.
Now go and fuck yourself.

Nice meltdown. Hurts to be shown that you're a phoney eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

Check the phrase "foregoing powers", killroy. Necessary and proper does not convey any special new power. Certainly not unlimited power.

National defense is a 'foregoing power'. Let me walk you through it. You wouldn't answer my question about Syrian refugees,
probably because you realized you were stuck for a good answer.

You believe we can't even screen Syrian refugees, can't refuse any of them entry, because you say the federal government doesn't have that power constitutionally.

Well...

1. National defense is clearly a power the federal government holds

2. The argument for strict screening of Syrian refugees is national defense based.

3. The power to screen the Syrian immigrants is therefore a legitimate implied power, sanctioned by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to execute the explicit power of Congress to defend the country.

No one is talking about screening Syrian refugees, fucktard.

That's exactly what you're talking about. You're saying Syrian immigrants cannot be screened, cannot be prevented from entering this country,

because the federal government has no such constitutional power.

You are wrong, comically and pathetically wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, the power given explicitly to Congress to do what it takes to carry out the other powers.

If you need to know where the power to regulate immigration comes from, you can start there.

Check the phrase "foregoing powers", killroy. Necessary and proper does not convey any special new power. Certainly not unlimited power.

National defense is a 'foregoing power'. Let me walk you through it. You wouldn't answer my question about Syrian refugees,
probably because you realized you were stuck for a good answer.

You believe we can't even screen Syrian refugees, can't refuse any of them entry, because you say the federal government doesn't have that power constitutionally.

Well...

1. National defense is clearly a power the federal government holds

2. The argument for strict screening of Syrian refugees is national defense based.

3. The power to screen the Syrian immigrants is therefore a legitimate implied power, sanctioned by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to execute the explicit power of Congress to defend the country.

No one is talking about screening Syrian refugees, fucktard.

Anyone besides Rabbi think that Rabbi isn't talking about Syrian immigrants?

 

[bripat9643]

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 when they are illegal.

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

 

[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.

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

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

They are when they are illegal.

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

They are when they are illegal.

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.

They are when they are illegal.

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

And yet no one can meet the standard to say what authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. AMazing.

 

[bripat9643]

They are when they are illegal.

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

And yet no one can meet the standard to say what authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. AMazing.

It's already been said dozens of times. Stamping your foot and shouting "nuh uhn!" doesn't negate what someone posted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are when they are illegal.

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

And yet no one can meet the standard to say what authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. AMazing.

It's already been posted. Your response was to quietly shit yourself and then yell something incoherent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong.
An invasion is a planned event centrally orchestrated carried out by armed people with the intention of overthrowing or replacing the government. Literally none of that applies to people coming here illegally.

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

And yet no one can meet the standard to say what authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. AMazing.

It's already been said dozens of times. Stamping your foot and shouting "nuh uhn!" doesn't negate what someone posted.

Repeating wrong information over and over doesnt make it true either.
Commerce is not war. Coining money is not insurance. Immigration is not naturalization.

 

[bripat9643]

Horseshit.

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

And yet no one can meet the standard to say what authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. AMazing.

It's already been said dozens of times. Stamping your foot and shouting "nuh uhn!" doesn't negate what someone posted.

Repeating wrong information over and over doesnt make it true either.
Commerce is not war. Coining money is not insurance. Immigration is not naturalization.

"Repeating wrong information over and over doesnt make it true either."

Right, so why are you doing that?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

You haven't done shit other than when people show/explain to you that your OP is incorrect, all you do is claim otherwise.

Regulation of entry has been around since the colonies, it was written into the Articles of Confederation, and was carried over under numerous Plenary Powers of the US.

You're exclaiming "strict constructionist" theory and projecting it onto Constitutional Conservatives without knowing what a Constitutional Conservative actually is.

Please cite the clause in teh Constitution that delegates power over immigration to Congress.
Yoy make claims without evidence. It has nothing to do with "strict constructionism". It is the very basis of this government: a government of limited enumerated powers.
Oh and btw please cite the language in the Articles of Confederation that authorizes them to regulate immigration.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.

Defense of the country is the enumerated power. Border integrity and control are obvious components of national defense.

Fake Rabbi lost this thread pages ago. Now he wants to act like he's ignoring your posts. He's pathetic.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your standard response when you have no answer.

It's as good as anything you have posted in this thread.

And yet no one can meet the standard to say what authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. AMazing.

It's already been said dozens of times. Stamping your foot and shouting "nuh uhn!" doesn't negate what someone posted.

Repeating wrong information over and over doesnt make it true either.
Commerce is not war. Coining money is not insurance. Immigration is not naturalization.

"Repeating wrong information over and over doesnt make it true either."

Right, so why are you doing that?

Which information that I am repeating is wrong? Where does the word "immigration" appear in the Constitution?

 

[The Rabbi]

You haven't done shit other than when people show/explain to you that your OP is incorrect, all you do is claim otherwise.

Regulation of entry has been around since the colonies, it was written into the Articles of Confederation, and was carried over under numerous Plenary Powers of the US.

You're exclaiming "strict constructionist" theory and projecting it onto Constitutional Conservatives without knowing what a Constitutional Conservative actually is.

Please cite the clause in teh Constitution that delegates power over immigration to Congress.
Yoy make claims without evidence. It has nothing to do with "strict constructionism". It is the very basis of this government: a government of limited enumerated powers.
Oh and btw please cite the language in the Articles of Confederation that authorizes them to regulate immigration.

The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.

Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.

Defense of the country is the enumerated power. Border integrity and control are obvious components of national defense.

Fake Rabbi lost this thread pages ago. Now he wants to act like he's ignoring your posts. He's pathetic.

No pathetic is an asshole like you dropping in to contribute nothing but gratuitous insults.