How can one take a stand against illegal immigration or force local politicians to?

[JoeB131]

Like Arizona the Attorney General can sue states fthat do not comply with Federal Law, to include prosecution of those state officials who compel or encourage officers to take action contrary to Federal Law. States will not be able to win judicially against the supremacy argument, the law is on the federal side to include enforcement against the states.

"Congrats on your win in Federal court. We still don't have the resources to do your job for you."

We don’t even need to go that far with the flooding of ICE agents in the face of the states’ jurisdiction, no state officer is going to put their careers up in a legal battle with the resources of the Federal Government.

Okay, you tell yourself that... you tell yourself that in a legal battle, you are going to get racially mixed juries that see our immigration laws as cruel...

 

[JoeB131]

Your point is off topic; I said I would debate such diversions in a separate thread, but bottom line:

The anti-immigrant lobby is responsible for the perpetuation of Socialist Security AND the continued use of the Socialist Surveillance Number .... my bad, "Social Security Number."

And you went into the crazy weeds here...

 

[danielpalos]

are you a foreign national in the US? if not, don't whine about it, be Patriotic.

"No man can put a chain about the ankleof his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglas, former slave

"...in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

—Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Doesn't seem relevant. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

 

[Humorme]

Your point is off topic; I said I would debate such diversions in a separate thread, but bottom line:

The anti-immigrant lobby is responsible for the perpetuation of Socialist Security AND the continued use of the Socialist Surveillance Number .... my bad, "Social Security Number."

And you went into the crazy weeds here...

You need to study some history and law. I am 100 percent RIGHT and the anti-immigrant lobby seems to try and sweep their bad strategies under the rug. But it is what it is. THEY and they alone brought down the constitutionalist / patriot movement that preceded them. They and they alone did what the left could not do. They and they alone helped prop up a plank from the Communist Manifesto because they don't have a clue when it comes to legal matters and political strategies.

 

[Humorme]

"No man can put a chain about the ankleof his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglas, former slave

"...in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

—Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Doesn't seem relevant. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

How are your personal attacks relevant to this subject? Do you have any new material?

 

[Humorme]

"No man can put a chain about the ankleof his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglas, former slave

"...in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

—Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Doesn't seem relevant. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

Dost thou speak any English or do you just string words together hoping someone can make sense out of gibberish? I know you mean to insult me, but you're simply going to have to try harder.

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't seem relevant. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

How are your personal attacks relevant to this subject? Do you have any new material?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated. Why does the right Always seem to prefer their socialism on a national basis over applied Capitalism, every time this issue comes up?

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple and applied capital fee for fine, can solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis and generate revenue at the same time.

The right wing never likes it.

not enough socialism on a national basis for y'all?

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't seem relevant. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen via capitalism.

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

Dost thou speak any English or do you just string words together hoping someone can make sense out of gibberish? I know you mean to insult me, but you're simply going to have to try harder.

don't worry, i am a guy; i know, practice makes perfect.

 

[Humorme]

No constitutional precedent for such an idea. Bottom line: you think if someone wants to come here, they can buy their way in?

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

Dost thou speak any English or do you just string words together hoping someone can make sense out of gibberish? I know you mean to insult me, but you're simply going to have to try harder.

don't worry, i am a guy; i know, practice makes perfect.

I'm convinced that other posters telling me you are not a guy might be more accurate. I don't think you can come up with anything negative to say about me with regards to immigration, but you seem to need my attention. So, if you want some kind of discourse, why not get off that kick of trying to be cryptic and posting stuff that makes NO SENSE????

 

[danielpalos]

Tourism is a form of Commerce, well regulated.

That is why, nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, apparently, unless it is specifically about guns.

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

Dost thou speak any English or do you just string words together hoping someone can make sense out of gibberish? I know you mean to insult me, but you're simply going to have to try harder.

don't worry, i am a guy; i know, practice makes perfect.

I'm convinced that other posters telling me you are not a guy might be more accurate. I don't think you can come up with anything negative to say about me with regards to immigration, but you seem to need my attention. So, if you want some kind of discourse, why not get off that kick of trying to be cryptic and posting stuff that makes NO SENSE????

dude; what do you believe my arguments have been about?

why so much socialism on a national basis over applied capitalism, right wingers.

let's come up with capital opportunities, for the People.

 

[Humorme]

You know full well, I'm on neither side. I can only quote for you what the law AND the founders intent was. And for whatever reason, you cannot understand (or maybe simply admit) that you don't know enough about the subject to post something productive.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric instead of a valid argument.

how much confidence in your sincerity, should that inspire?

Dost thou speak any English or do you just string words together hoping someone can make sense out of gibberish? I know you mean to insult me, but you're simply going to have to try harder.

don't worry, i am a guy; i know, practice makes perfect.

I'm convinced that other posters telling me you are not a guy might be more accurate. I don't think you can come up with anything negative to say about me with regards to immigration, but you seem to need my attention. So, if you want some kind of discourse, why not get off that kick of trying to be cryptic and posting stuff that makes NO SENSE????

dude; what do you believe my arguments have been about?

why so much socialism on a national basis over applied capitalism, right wingers.

let's come up with capital opportunities, for the People.

For real, all I ever see you do is string words together that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you have a point, it's hidden under the worst grammar I've ever been subjected to and you seem to want to insult me, but aren't able.

I have no idea what your argument is about since you fail to articulate it. It might make sense in your mind. To the rest of the people who bother to even reply to your desperate attempts to have never ending pissing matches, they are just as baffled as I am.

I don't have any idea what your argument is; you haven't made one. Let's face it, if you're calling me a socialist, that would prove, unequivocally that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. and wtf kind of "insult" is capitalist right winger? What in the Hell are you even talking about?

I believe in the free market. Don't care about capitalism per se one way or another... and everything you don't like is NOT right wing fantasy. I'm not on the right. I'm a constitutionalist, so you parroting cheap insults have no meaning. Repeating it over and over like a parrot won't make it come true. So, did you have something you wanted to discuss? Or do you just need some attention?

 

[danielpalos]

it is about applied capitalism versus applied socialism.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The problem with your argument is the United States has always had laws concerning Citizenship, it’s what defines a nation. Every country has some form of laws with interests in defending their own borders. Without a clear defined enforced border there is no national sovereignty.

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

 

[danielpalos]

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

apples and oranges.

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808.

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine can make that happen.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

apples and oranges.

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808.

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine can make that happen.

Immigrant entry (if that’s what your inferring in your response) is not an obligation of the United States. As just two examples: in 1917 Congress approved a measure stating people who wished to settle in the United States had to pass a literacy test. There is also the Immigration Act of 1924, that measure limited the overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality. There is nothing written in the Constitution whereby this nation is obligated to accept a certain quota of immigrants or refugees into this country. If they decide to close it’s doors to further immigration for a period of time, where in the Constitution does it state the federal government can’t and MUST accept a certain figure of immigrants? Can you state the Article and section?

 

[danielpalos]

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

apples and oranges.

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808.

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine can make that happen.

Immigrant entry (if that’s what your inferring in your response) is not an obligation of the United States. As just two examples: in 1917 Congress approved a measure stating people who wished to settle in the United States had to pass a literacy test. There is also the Immigration Act of 1924, that measure limited the overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality. There is nothing written in the Constitution whereby this nation is obligated to accept a certain quota of immigrants or refugees into this country. If they decide to close it’s doors to further immigration for a period of time, where in the Constitution does it state the federal government can’t and MUST accept a certain figure of immigrants? Can you state the Article and section?

you are still confusing the issue. tourism is not immigration. they have to apply for citizenship and get in line with everyone else.

 

[miketx]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

I went through all this years ago. I was very active in trying to get local politicians to do their jobs. I was overwhelmed with bullshit, page after page after page of documents that explained why they couldn't help me blah blah blah. They never would return calls, and I was respectful. This is a major reason why I am so disrespectful of these thugs today. It does no good to be nice to your enemy.I would have needed a full time staff to keep up with these bastards. Simple answer is they don't want to get rid of the illegals.

 

[Humorme]

There is no problem with my argument. You said it yourself. The United States has always had laws regarding citizenship. I've quoted the first immigration statute many times. Hell, let's do it again:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Here's the point:

Despite that a year into our Constitution, people came here from every non-white country that a boat could make it here from. Yet only whites could become citizens.

What would it take to get it through your head that one need NOT be a citizen in order to be in the United States and conducting legal activities?

Regarding Nationalization and Citizenship

That statement you cited surrounding citizenship says if you have been within the jourisdiction of the United States for a two year period you then qualify to APPLY for the process to become a United States citizen. Citizenship also applies to children under 21 who are naturalized, meaning one of the parents has already been deemed and recognized as a United States citizen. There is nothing written that states a couple who are not from this country, who has children, that those children are deemed US citizens under the clause that defines “naturalization”, which is why we have this DACA issue. DACA being an order signed under the executive branch, circumventing the Constitutional process of involving Congress, to stop children who came with the parents of illegals from being deported. An unconstitutional process and a power not allotted to the executive branch as written under Article 2 section 2.

Also note ”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled” as it applies to the governing FEDERAL branch who has the autgirity to legislate naturalization. Nowhere does it state that this authority has been relinquished to the individual states, nor any other branch of government.

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.

 

[Humorme]

Son, why are you quoting me? What I've said on this thread don't have squat to do with whatever in the Hell it is you're arguing. Read this really slow. Maybe it might come together for you

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

2) Not all people who come into the United States want to become citizens

3) You should NOT have to become a citizen just to conduct business in the United States

4) Congress has no constitutional authority to tell any state who they may or may not invite into their state

5) The fact that some states are Sanctuary States or have Sanctuary Cities means that the undocumented among them are invitees.

As long as the states do not enact laws and policies that go against the authority of established law under the Federal Government. NO WHERE does it state under the Constitution that the states have the power to legislate immigration, that power is strictly reserved to the state.

Show me clearly where the individual states have the power to legislate and control immigration contrary and over the Federal Government’s Congressional authority. The Federal Government, not the state, has the power to control immigrants and refugees that enter this country through the legislative process enacted by Congress. Clearly Congress not the state has the authority regarding nationalization and immigration. your own resource on nationalization even states that. Wake up.

I went really slow for you and you are still arguing. WTF, dude? Let's try again:

1) "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Why are you trying to argue with me?

Okay, let me show you WHY you're wrong:

PRIOR to 1875, and while ALL the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, the STATES decided who came and went into the United States. The federal government, pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution had exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship.

Son, read this carefully:

There are TWO (2) separate and distinct acts that happen here:

1) Coming into the United States and

2) Becoming a citizen

In 1790 only whites could become citizens. Yet people came from every country in the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. So, either the federal government NEVER did their job in the first place (thereby negating the law) Or YOU ARE WRONG.

In 1875, in a very unfair and illegal action, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all immigration matters to Congress. Let me explain what is wrong with what they did:

1) Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT ANY POWER TO ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Maybe that's why they didn't do that power grab until after the original signatories were dead and gone

2) The Court itself, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

The Commissioner of Immigration was a STATE official

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

apples and oranges.

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808.

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine can make that happen.

Immigrant entry (if that’s what your inferring in your response) is not an obligation of the United States. As just two examples: in 1917 Congress approved a measure stating people who wished to settle in the United States had to pass a literacy test. There is also the Immigration Act of 1924, that measure limited the overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality. There is nothing written in the Constitution whereby this nation is obligated to accept a certain quota of immigrants or refugees into this country. If they decide to close it’s doors to further immigration for a period of time, where in the Constitution does it state the federal government can’t and MUST accept a certain figure of immigrants? Can you state the Article and section?

Congress can only legislate relative to naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship.

How in the Hell can this be so hard to understand? Let's do an analogy:

The right likes to say this immigration stuff is like a house. You play daddy. The left wing plays mommy. In this analogy your "house" is the United States. Do you get to tell your wife who she may and may not invite in to the house? And if a guy comes in your door to court your daughter, do you demand he marry her right then and there?

 

[Humorme]

Anybody have any good ideas? A certain letter that you sent to a politician that’s worded just right? Share it here.

I went through all this years ago. I was very active in trying to get local politicians to do their jobs. I was overwhelmed with bullshit, page after page after page of documents that explained why they couldn't help me blah blah blah. They never would return calls, and I was respectful. This is a major reason why I am so disrespectful of these thugs today. It does no good to be nice to your enemy.I would have needed a full time staff to keep up with these bastards. Simple answer is they don't want to get rid of the illegals.

They have to be nasty to because you don't take the time to read and understand the intricacies involved.

Bottom line here: I manned the border in a civilian border patrol effort before most of my critics were a gleam in their daddy's eye. And I went from doing research to actually getting involved in immigration law full time for six years. I've been on EVERY side of the coin. Here are some truisms for you:

1) For everything you gain, there is something lost. And the reality is, the anti-immigrant lobby pissed away more Rights, Liberties and Freedoms in twenty years than the left could have taken away from them in over 100 years due to stupid strategies the anti-immigrant lobby employs

2) You are not the numerical majority in this country

3) If you go any further with these POLICE STATE strategies, the Republic is FINISHED

4) Even those in the system cannot work with people like you because your strategies don't work and they can't make them work... and there are those of us who would rather have foreigners than live in a dictatorship due to asinine strategies that will not work.

You are not going to win with simple minded ideas and when the United States Supreme Court is forced to weigh in, you will lose. Be careful of who you're picking for enemies.