Federal Government Has NO AUTHORITY To Detain and Deport Aliens. NONE.

[Contumacious]

BTW, where are you pulling this from that you seem to think has the force of law?

Well, I believe that the US Constitution (1787) , is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I don't think that the Neonazi platform , the KKK by laws, or the Aryan Manifesto have been enacted into law. I could be wrong.

.

Gotcha, the 14th amendment has no meaning. Good to know.

Where does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Section 1 Article 8 again.

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.

Since section 8 and 9 CLEARLY give the Federal Government the power to control immigration and Naturalization then the power to arrest illegals and deport them also is a power granted to "execute the forgoing powers".

Article I | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, I believe that the US Constitution (1787) , is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I don't think that the Neonazi platform , the KKK by laws, or the Aryan Manifesto have been enacted into law. I could be wrong.

.

Gotcha, the 14th amendment has no meaning. Good to know.

Where does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Article 1 section 8 and 9 provide the Federal Government with the Authority and the power to regulate immigration and to pass such laws as are needed to enforce such power, INCLUDING laws to detain and deport illegal aliens.

 

[Contumacious]

The Kentucky resolution was not a bill it was a critique.

Okay then. So this just in from our "Whattever/Pointless" department...

Wrong department.

Your philosophy originates in "whogivesafuckaboutbrownskinnedbastards" department.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Kentucky resolution was not a bill it was a critique.

Okay then. So this just in from our "Whattever/Pointless" department...

Wrong department.

Your philosophy originates in "whogivesafuckaboutbrownskinnedbastards" department.

.

You still have time to admit you are wrong. Though something tells me you will not avail yourself of that option.

 

[Big Fitz]

Gotcha, the 14th amendment has no meaning. Good to know.

Where does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Article 1 section 8 and 9 provide the Federal Government with the Authority and the power to regulate immigration and to pass such laws as are needed to enforce such power, INCLUDING laws to detain and deport illegal aliens.

Beat me to it.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Kentucky resolution was not a bill it was a critique.

Okay then. So this just in from our "Whattever/Pointless" department...

Wrong department.

Your philosophy originates in "whogivesafuckaboutbrownskinnedbastards" department.

.

So... you're admitting you hate white people? I haven't talked about race once. You've brought it up twice.

 

[Liability]

Okay then. So this just in from our "Whattever/Pointless" department...

Wrong department.

Your philosophy originates in "whogivesafuckaboutbrownskinnedbastards" department.

.

So... you're admitting you hate white people? I haven't talked about race once. You've brought it up twice.

Confusedatious is porobably twisting his tiny mind into a knot because he seems to think that deportation = "bad" since his hero, a child rapist, Roman Polanski, is gonna get tossed the **** outta a two bit European nation and extradited back to serve his time HERE in America.

And besides, there are probably some other child rapists here who, having been convicted, are gonna get deported to their own lands, diminishing his list of available friends and pen-pals.

Confuseadtious is a sick **** as well as a stupid douchebag.

 

[Contumacious]

Gotcha, the 14th amendment has no meaning. Good to know.

Where does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Article 1 section 8 and 9 provide the Federal Government with the Authority and the power to regulate immigration and to pass such laws as are needed to enforce such power, INCLUDING laws to detain and deport illegal aliens.

Quit guessing , the authority does not exist.

A Racist SCOTUS usurped the power in an 1860 ruling in order to stick it to the Chinese. They admitted in their ruling that the authority was not specifically granted but the situation was an emergency - and the federal government has the authority to usurp powers during emergencies. That 's the reason we always have emergencies.

.

 

[Angelhair]

Does Sovereignty mean anything to you???? Sovereign nations have the right and the authority to deport and detain ANYBODY who enters a country without permission! Heeeeeeeello.

 

[Liability]

Where does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Article 1 section 8 and 9 provide the Federal Government with the Authority and the power to regulate immigration and to pass such laws as are needed to enforce such power, INCLUDING laws to detain and deport illegal aliens.

Quit guessing , the authority does not exit.

A Racist SCOTUS usurped the power in an 1860 ruling in order to stick it to the Chinese. They admitted in their ruling that the authority was not specifically granted but the situation was an emergency - and the federal government has the authority to usurp powers during emergencies. That 's the reason we always have emergencies.

.

So the power does exist as the SCOTUS itself has held.

The balance of your shit POV is just your own biased, constricted, ignorant, petty and useless opinion lacking any basis in proper Constitutional analysis.

 

[Contumacious]

Okay then. So this just in from our "Whattever/Pointless" department...

Wrong department.

Your philosophy originates in "whogivesafuckaboutbrownskinnedbastards" department.

.

So... you're admitting you hate white people? I haven't talked about race once. You've brought it up twice.

No, you are admitting that you hate non-whites.

You have not, and can not, show where the federal government has the actual authority to detain and deport, yet you want them to continue the criminal policy anyway.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The Federal Government has not authority to usurp. So an edit authorizing usurpation is a criminal act.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Article 1 section 8 and 9 provide the Federal Government with the Authority and the power to regulate immigration and to pass such laws as are needed to enforce such power, INCLUDING laws to detain and deport illegal aliens.

Quit guessing , the authority does not exist.

A Racist SCOTUS usurped the power in an 1860 ruling in order to stick it to the Chinese. They admitted in their ruling that the authority was not specifically granted but the situation was an emergency - and the federal government has the authority to usurp powers during emergencies. That 's the reason we always have emergencies.

.

Wrong dumb ass. I cited the 3 relevant sections. The Congress is GIVEN the authority to regulate immigration and naturalization. That ensures that they can create the laws to do so, INCLUDING laws to detain and deport aliens. The ONLY restriction was they could do nothing until 1808. IT is way past 1808.

Article 1 is the power that Congress has. Section 8 states exactly what those powers are. section 9 further delegates when that specific power can be used.

I have provided absolute proof that Congress is granted via the Constitution the power to regulate immigration. It does not require an emergency at all.

 

[Angelhair]

'The Federal Government has not authority to usurp. So an edit authorizing usurpation is a criminal act.'

LOL! What came first - the chicken or the egg????

 

[Contumacious]

The Congress is GIVEN the authority to regulate immigration and naturalization. .

NO AUTHORITY HAS EVER BEEN GRANTED.

Here read the first ever immigration case. Knock yourself out finding CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to detain and deport:


CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE.
CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES., 9 S. Ct. 623, 130 U.S. 581 (U.S. 05/13/1889)


.

 

[Angelhair]

Every case is based on its own merits as was this case. Stop with the nonsense.

 

[Liability]

The Congress is GIVEN the authority to regulate immigration and naturalization. .

NO AUTHORITY HAS EVER BEEN GRANTED.

Here read the first ever immigration case. Knock yourself out finding CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to detain and deport:


CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE.
CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES., 9 S. Ct. 623, 130 U.S. 581 (U.S. 05/13/1889)


.

Moron. The challenge brought before the Court was as to whether (or not) the actions were violative of TREATY obligations.

Here the objection made is that the act of 1888 impairs a right vested under the treaty of 1880, as a law of the United States, and the statutes of 1882 and of 1884 passed in execution of it. It must be conceded that the act of 1888 is in contravention of express stipulations of the treaty of 1868, and of the supplemental treaty of 1880, but it is not on that account invalid, or to be restricted in its enforcement. The treaties were of no greater legal obligation than the act of congress. By the constitution, laws made in pursuance thereof, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, are both declared to be the supreme law of the land, and no paramount authority is given to one over the other. A treaty, it is true, is in its nature a contract between nations, and is often merely promissory in its character, requiring legislation to carry its stipulations into effect. Such legislation will be open to future repeal or amendment. If the treaty operates by its own force, and relates to a subject within the power of congress, it can be deemed in that particular only the equivalent of a legislative act, to be repealed or modified at the pleasure of congress. In either case the last expression of the sovereign will must control.

-- Excerpted from the Decision in CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES., 9 S. Ct. 623, 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

Interestingly and significantly, Confusedatious APPEARS to have ignored or missed the following tidbit of information contained within that same Decision:

That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its in- [130 U.S. 581, 604] dependence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. As said by this court in the case of The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 136, speaking by Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute.

Id.

AND there was THIS in that VERY same Decision:

The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, [130 U.S. 581, 607] and never denied by the executive or legislative departments.

Id.

AND, FURTHERMORE, there was THIS in that VERY SAME Decision:

The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or contract. Whatever license, therefore, Chinese laborers may have obtained, previous to the act of October 1, 1888, to return to the United States after their departure, is held at the will of the government, revocable at any time, at its bleasure. Whether a proper consideration by our government of its previous laws, or a proper respect for the nation whose subjects are affected by its action, ought to have qualified its inhibition, and made it applicable only to persons departing from the country after the passage of the act, are not questions for judicial determination.

Id.

So, really, Confuseadtious; thanks for confirming that your position has been entirely wrong!

 

[BolshevikHunter]

The Congress is GIVEN the authority to regulate immigration and naturalization. .

NO AUTHORITY HAS EVER BEEN GRANTED.

Here read the first ever immigration case. Knock yourself out finding CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to detain and deport:


CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE.
CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES., 9 S. Ct. 623, 130 U.S. 581 (U.S. 05/13/1889)


.

Non citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba by The Federal Government you mentally disturbed lawless maggot! Did you have a problem with that then when Clinton's administration ordered it? You're such a dumb ass! ~BH

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You ask where in the Constitution the power was granted. I cited it for you. It resides in section 8 of Article 1 with restrictions in section 9 of Article 1. Those restrictions are long past, ending at the conclusion of the year 1808.

It is further supported by Supreme Court decisions. None of which require an EMERGENCY to exist.