Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[bripat9643]

where in the constitution says we shouldn't have borders? We simply don't have a country without control over our own borders and I seriously doubt one could make a serious case that otherwise is somehow constitutional.

Where in the COnstitution does it say you are allowed to breath? Quit it now.

All that shows is the stupidity of your claim that we can't control the entry if aliens.

 

[The Rabbi]

Manifest of Immigrants Act (1819)

The Manifest of Immigrants Act was the first piece of U.S. legislation regulating the transportation of migrants to and from America and the first measure requiring that immigration statistics be kept. The United States maintained uninterrupted data on individuals coming into the country from the time this act was passed.

Yeah it regulated transportation of immigrants, not who could come here.
So that'[s a fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

where in the constitution says we shouldn't have borders? We simply don't have a country without control over our own borders and I seriously doubt one could make a serious case that otherwise is somehow constitutional.

Where in the COnstitution does it say you are allowed to breath? Quit it now.

All that shows is the stupidity of your claim that we can control the entry if aliens.

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

 

[bripat9643]

where in the constitution says we shouldn't have borders? We simply don't have a country without control over our own borders and I seriously doubt one could make a serious case that otherwise is somehow constitutional.

Where in the COnstitution does it say you are allowed to breath? Quit it now.

All that shows is the stupidity of your claim that we can control the entry if aliens.

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

That should have been "can't," but you knew that. You're just pretending to be stupid, as usual.

 

[g5000]

Manifest of Immigrants Act (1819)

The Manifest of Immigrants Act was the first piece of U.S. legislation regulating the transportation of migrants to and from America and the first measure requiring that immigration statistics be kept. The United States maintained uninterrupted data on individuals coming into the country from the time this act was passed.

Yeah it regulated transportation of immigrants, not who could come here.

Which clearly demonstrates they believed the federal government had the authority to regulation immigration.

So that'[s a fail.

The only failure here is in your critical thinking skills.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutional conservative? Open borders?

I think the word you are looking for is "Libertarian".

It i a libertarian idea, no question. But even narco-libertarians come up with good ideas. Here the question is where the fed gov derives it's authority to regulate immigration to this country.

Since one of the first Acts of our Founding Fathers was to regulate immigration (Naturalization Act of 1790), it is pretty obvious it was their original intent for the federal government to have this authority.

See also: Naturalization Act of 1798.

Negatory on that, good buddy. Natutalization is not immigration, as I've written many times already here. Catch you on the downhill, ten-four.

Naturalization is the regulation of immigration. How you cannot see that is beyond me. It is federal legislation which determines when an immigrant can apply for citizenship, so our Founders clearly felt the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration.

Naturalization is not immigration. People immigrate here all the time and are never naturalized. I've had many green card aliens as customers, some of whom have lived here 20 years.

Naturalization is not immigration. I've mentioned this several times.

The idea that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control our borders is too absurd for words.

Then please cite the authority under the Constitution.
You know, up until 1870 there was no immigration control. You wanted to come here, you booked passage on a ship and came.

in 1870 the country was sparsely populated and it was several orders of magnitude more difficult to get here. Thanks have changed.

If the government as the authority to blow ships out of the water for intruding into our territory waters, then it has authority to control immigration.

The Constitution hasnt changed since 1870, excepting amendments. So the size of the country, etc is irrelevant.
The gov't has the authority to defend this country. That is explicit. Immigration is not.

Where did I mention the size of the country? If the authority to defend this country is explicit, then you should be able to quote where the Constitution grants that authority?

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to raise an army.
“United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”

 

[The Rabbi]

where in the constitution says we shouldn't have borders? We simply don't have a country without control over our own borders and I seriously doubt one could make a serious case that otherwise is somehow constitutional.

Where in the COnstitution does it say you are allowed to breath? Quit it now.

All that shows is the stupidity of your claim that we can control the entry if aliens.

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

That should have been "can't," but you knew that. You're just pretending to be stupid, as usual.

Your inability to spell is not my problem

 

[The Rabbi]

Manifest of Immigrants Act (1819)

The Manifest of Immigrants Act was the first piece of U.S. legislation regulating the transportation of migrants to and from America and the first measure requiring that immigration statistics be kept. The United States maintained uninterrupted data on individuals coming into the country from the time this act was passed.

Yeah it regulated transportation of immigrants, not who could come here.

Which clearly demonstrates they believed the federal government had the authority to regulation immigration.

So that'[s a fail.

The only failure here is in your critical thinking skills.

It clearly does not. In fact the opposite. All it regulated was the way transportation was effected not who and who couldn't come here. Because they lacked the authority under the Constitution to do that.

 

[80zephyr]

My B/U

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

That means after 1808 congress determines who may migrate to the US. So simple a third grader could understand.

That clause refers to the slave trade. Thus the term "importation."

Actually it deals with both migration and importation, but importation was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, leaving only migration and naturalization under the purview of congress.

It dealt with slavery, which was outlawd by the 13thA.
There were no immigration laws in this country prior to about 1870, btw. So your theory is bunk.
Wanna try again?

The Migration or Importation

Is that big word "or" tripping you up?

Did my explanation somehow escape you? The clause deals with slavery, the importation of slaves or their migration across borders. Thus the whole clause is moot owing to the 13thA.
Congress has no power over immigration, you big government guy.

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

That clause refers to the slave trade. Thus the term "importation."

Actually it deals with both migration and importation, but importation was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, leaving only migration and naturalization under the purview of congress.

It dealt with slavery, which was outlawd by the 13thA.
There were no immigration laws in this country prior to about 1870, btw. So your theory is bunk.
Wanna try again?

The Migration or Importation

Is that big word "or" tripping you up?

Did my explanation somehow escape you? The clause deals with slavery, the importation of slaves or their migration across borders. Thus the whole clause is moot owing to the 13thA.
Congress has no power over immigration, you big government guy.

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

 

[80zephyr]

Actually it deals with both migration and importation, but importation was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, leaving only migration and naturalization under the purview of congress.

It dealt with slavery, which was outlawd by the 13thA.
There were no immigration laws in this country prior to about 1870, btw. So your theory is bunk.
Wanna try again?

The Migration or Importation

Is that big word "or" tripping you up?

Did my explanation somehow escape you? The clause deals with slavery, the importation of slaves or their migration across borders. Thus the whole clause is moot owing to the 13thA.
Congress has no power over immigration, you big government guy.

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

It dealt with slavery, which was outlawd by the 13thA.
There were no immigration laws in this country prior to about 1870, btw. So your theory is bunk.
Wanna try again?

The Migration or Importation

Is that big word "or" tripping you up?

Did my explanation somehow escape you? The clause deals with slavery, the importation of slaves or their migration across borders. Thus the whole clause is moot owing to the 13thA.
Congress has no power over immigration, you big government guy.

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

 

[OKTexas]

You don't have to come to a country to be naturalized.

Really, how do they meet the residency requirements? Also they have to have been legally in the country to even apply.

How to Apply for Naturalization

In any case plenty of people come here with no intention of becoming citizens. They are tourists, students, and temporary workers.

They're not considered immigrants, or migrants if you will, they are temp visa holders.

People who come here as tourists arent considered immigrants? Then what are they? What authority does the fedgov have to pass laws covering them?

You have done what I predicted and deflected to another topic rather than admit your own failure.

People who come here as tourists arent considered immigrants? Then what are they? What authority does the fedgov have to pass laws covering them?

They're freaking visitors dumb ass. They are handled by diplomatic agreements, through the feds power to conduct foreign affairs.

You have done what I predicted and deflected to another topic rather than admit your own failure.

Also I'm not the one that brought this subject up, you did, so stop deflecting in your own goddamned thread. You FAIL and I'm done with your dumb ass.

 

[Wildman]

promote the general welfare

take a good long look at this libertards, that word "promote" does NOT mean "PROVIDE" !!!

 

[Contumacious]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

That is 100% correct.

The Founding Fathers did NOT grant fedgov the authority to interdict detain and deport

The SCOTUS USURPED the authority in the 1890's in order to deal with the "Chinese menace".

.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Migration or Importation

Is that big word "or" tripping you up?

Did my explanation somehow escape you? The clause deals with slavery, the importation of slaves or their migration across borders. Thus the whole clause is moot owing to the 13thA.
Congress has no power over immigration, you big government guy.

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

 

[Contumacious]

Did my explanation somehow escape you? The clause deals with slavery, the importation of slaves or their migration across borders. Thus the whole clause is moot owing to the 13thA.
Congress has no power over immigration, you big government guy.

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

 

[Contumacious]

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

You didn't really just say that, right?...LMAO!!!

Stupid retard

Search and find out if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed that "naturalization" and "immigration" were the same thing.

have some pride, use your fucking brain for a change


.

 

[OKTexas]

You claim its only dealing with slavery, yet I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why do you try to hold people to a higher standard then you hold yourself?

Mark

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, even though it is clearly there. The census requirement does not mention slaves although that is clearly whom they have in mind. It is a basic principle of the Constitution so your objection is unfounded.

So slavery is "clearly"(though not written) in the Constitution, yet the ability to limit immigration(which is written in the Constitution) is not.

Thats some logic you ave going on there.

Mark

Please quote the passage that allows the federal government the ability to limit immigration.

Article 1, Section 8,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

He is NOT talking about naturalization he is talking about IMMIGRATION

Immigration matters remain within each state jurisdiction. In 1787 the states were SOVEREIGN.


.

It remained in States hands only till 1808. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1