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

[danielpalos]

So, you're projecting. Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.

So, you're saying that the anti-immigrant lobby were dumb asses from the start? I agree, but learned that from working with them. When you keep employing the same strategies over and over thinking you're going to get a different result, it makes one ...... well, I won't be mean to them.

i'm sure you can kind of benefit from drugs.

But to the point, the anti-immigration movement is about bigotry. You didn't need to "work" with them to figure that out.

Of course, they are dumb-asses, because they want to go after the immigrants doing the jobs they don't want to do rather than the rich people who refuse to pay decent wages for them.

Perhaps the left fails miserable to make a point because they think drugs are the cure-all for the ills of America.

If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.

At least both sides are equally misguided. I will concede, however, that if Shackles is a representative example of those who have made a few, select immigration cases their religion, they will lose to potheads.

It is the right wing who keep insisting on being legal to our laws. All talk and no action, is all the right wing has.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

When the Sanctuary City supporters went to court and won, they relied on a case for their precedent that I was active in supporting both with financial donations and donated legal research. Here is the applicable ruling from the United States Court:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.[6]

Justices O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate..."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Add to that:

1) Early in this country's history, state immigration officials decided who came and went to do business - which don't have spit to do with citizenship.

2) The only thing that changed there was that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of "immigration" to Congress

3) Passing through a state, doing business in a state, or visiting / touring is the state's prerogative no matter what any statute to the contrary says. It's simple reality. Passing through a state or being a guest there is not related to the type of "immigration" that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is referring to

4) There is NO provision for the United States Supreme Court to grant any power to any other branch of government; therefore, not only was the Court's ruling judicial activism, it is totally unenforceable. And the current ruling is the feds cannot force states to enforce federal statutory laws.

In short - the public cannot force states to do anything when the majority have declared their state to be a sanctuary. They don't have to arrest undocumented foreigners as it not a crime to be in the U.S. and the states don't have to enforce improper entry statutes in the USC. You should thank God we have a separation of powers - even when you don't feel like you benefited off it.

The ironic thing is, that guy calls himself shackles of big Government... He's calling for the ultimate POLICE STATE so hes' advocating for bigger government; I'm urging people to support a smaller government.

We have immigrants from Europe and Asia that don’t get preferential treatment, they go through the LEGAL process because they RESPECT our nation’s laws. Equal Protection means treating ALL immigrants that come here to aquire citizenship, no matter their nation of origin the same, without preferential treatment just because they happen to be here as a result of crossing the border Illegally.

I don’t need your crying bloviated drama, because you are too thickheaded to undewrestand the view and interpretation of Supreme Courts ruling, or perhaps the fact you can’t comprehend looking at ALL immigrants that come here being treated the same in obtaining citizenship.

You have the unmitigated gall to call me thickheaded? Why in the Hell can you not understand that NOT EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO BE OR WANTS TO BECOME A CITIZEN?

Is there some reason you don't have enough common sense to figure it out? I don't think that everybody who comes to the United States needs to become a citizen. Everybody who comes here does not want to become a citizen. There is no law on in the United States that demands a person become a citizen just because they enter the United States. How in the Hell is it that you cannot understand that?

You're in a Hell of a bad position to be criticizing me... except, as your board name states, ShacklesofBigGov, you're obsessed with human slavery and bondage.

Dude, when I was younger, I went to Mexico several times. Not one, single, solitary times did they or I think that citizenship was in the cards. How it is that we have an entire generation of people that cannot get it through their pea brains that not everybody who enters the United States does so with the intent to become a United States citizen.

You keep begging for it and and one day, everybody that enters here WILL become a citizen. Then they will outnumber people that think like you and we will all learn how to speak Spanish and you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.

I’m speaking on the issue of illegal immigrants and our nation’s laws of immigration , not documented workers carrying work visas. Do you understand the difference? Do you actually need a definition to provide some clarity as to where my posts are directed? Apparently you have trouble following along.


The opinion of the United States Supreme Court States:

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

States (like California) have no authority to enact laws to promote their own views of immigration when they conflict with Federal Law. That’s not just my “opinion”, that’s the interpretation from the highest quote above.

What you don’t consider is that we have immigrants overseas that desire and seek citizenship, they endure the process, they work hard to even undergo classes to learn about our country with its rules and Constituional founding, they learn the language in order to participate in pursuing their goals (possibly even pursuing their own business) among the citizens of this country. They endure the process because they have respect for our nation’s and it’s laws.

Now we have an effort in this country , with proponents such as yourself, to instill another set of rules for those who circumvent the system, sneak across our borders, but demand we respect THEIR RIGHTS to be here when they have no respect for our nation nor it’s laws. We want to REWARD these illegal aliens (undocumented workers) whatever you choose to call them, while also enabling their behavior. You don’t want to address the issue of what made them illegal in the FIRST place, you only want another special set of circumstances that allows THEM citizenship. Yet no one wants to address or see the inequality of how we treat two different groups of immigrants. We want to give illegals rights to be citizens, while undermining and not respecting the rights of those LEGAL immigrants who choose to undergo the long enduring process twith heir hard efforts to become citizens. Interesting how that is.

 

[Humorme]

[

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

When the Sanctuary City supporters went to court and won, they relied on a case for their precedent that I was active in supporting both with financial donations and donated legal research. Here is the applicable ruling from the United States Court:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.[6]

Justices O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate..."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Add to that:

1) Early in this country's history, state immigration officials decided who came and went to do business - which don't have spit to do with citizenship.

2) The only thing that changed there was that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of "immigration" to Congress

3) Passing through a state, doing business in a state, or visiting / touring is the state's prerogative no matter what any statute to the contrary says. It's simple reality. Passing through a state or being a guest there is not related to the type of "immigration" that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is referring to

4) There is NO provision for the United States Supreme Court to grant any power to any other branch of government; therefore, not only was the Court's ruling judicial activism, it is totally unenforceable. And the current ruling is the feds cannot force states to enforce federal statutory laws.

In short - the public cannot force states to do anything when the majority have declared their state to be a sanctuary. They don't have to arrest undocumented foreigners as it not a crime to be in the U.S. and the states don't have to enforce improper entry statutes in the USC. You should thank God we have a separation of powers - even when you don't feel like you benefited off it.

The ironic thing is, that guy calls himself shackles of big Government... He's calling for the ultimate POLICE STATE so hes' advocating for bigger government; I'm urging people to support a smaller government.

We have immigrants from Europe and Asia that don’t get preferential treatment, they go through the LEGAL process because they RESPECT our nation’s laws. Equal Protection means treating ALL immigrants that come here to aquire citizenship, no matter their nation of origin the same, without preferential treatment just because they happen to be here as a result of crossing the border Illegally.

I don’t need your crying bloviated drama, because you are too thickheaded to undewrestand the view and interpretation of Supreme Courts ruling, or perhaps the fact you can’t comprehend looking at ALL immigrants that come here being treated the same in obtaining citizenship.

You have the unmitigated gall to call me thickheaded? Why in the Hell can you not understand that NOT EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO BE OR WANTS TO BECOME A CITIZEN?

Is there some reason you don't have enough common sense to figure it out? I don't think that everybody who comes to the United States needs to become a citizen. Everybody who comes here does not want to become a citizen. There is no law on in the United States that demands a person become a citizen just because they enter the United States. How in the Hell is it that you cannot understand that?

You're in a Hell of a bad position to be criticizing me... except, as your board name states, ShacklesofBigGov, you're obsessed with human slavery and bondage.

Dude, when I was younger, I went to Mexico several times. Not one, single, solitary times did they or I think that citizenship was in the cards. How it is that we have an entire generation of people that cannot get it through their pea brains that not everybody who enters the United States does so with the intent to become a United States citizen.

You keep begging for it and and one day, everybody that enters here WILL become a citizen. Then they will outnumber people that think like you and we will all learn how to speak Spanish and you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.

I’m speaking on the issue of illegal immigrants and our nation’s laws of immigration , not documented workers carrying work visas. Do you understand the difference? Do you actually need a definition to provide some clarity as to where my posts are directed? Apparently you have trouble following along.


The opinion of the United States Supreme Court States:

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

States (like California) have no authority to enact laws to promote their own views of immigration when they conflict with Federal Law. That’s not just my “opinion”, that’s the interpretation from the highest quote above.

What you don’t consider is that we have immigrants overseas that desire and seek citizenship, they endure the process, they work hard to even undergo classes to learn about our country with its rules and Constituional founding, they learn the language in order to participate in pursuing their goals (possibly even pursuing their own business) among the citizens of this country. They endure the process because they have respect for our nation’s and it’s laws.

Now we have an effort in this country , with proponents such as yourself, to instill another set of rules for those who circumvent the system, sneak across our borders, but demand we respect THEIR RIGHTS to be here when they have no respect for our nation nor it’s laws. We want to REWARD these illegal aliens (undocumented workers) whatever you choose to call them, while also enabling their behavior. You don’t want to address the issue of what made them illegal in the FIRST place, you only want another special set of circumstances that allows THEM citizenship. Yet no one wants to address or see the inequality of how we treat two different groups of immigrants. We want to give illegals rights to be citizens, while undermining and not respecting the rights of those LEGAL immigrants who choose to undergo the long enduring process twith heir hard efforts to become citizens. Interesting how that is.

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

 

[danielpalos]

Means nothing; States have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.

All foreign nationals in the US, should only be released after they have been federally id-ed.

 

[Humorme]

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

What the Supreme Court has stated via other cases is:

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

A number of funds related to law enforcement the states receive can be with held if they do not provide the required information to the feds as per US law.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

 

[Humorme]

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

What the Supreme Court has stated via other cases is:

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

A number of funds related to law enforcement the states receive can be with held if they do not provide the required information to the feds as per US law.

we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.

And, the Guard should be in Puerto Rico manufacturing solutions, instead of on the Border, making excuses.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.

And, the Guard should be in Puerto Rico manufacturing solutions, instead of on the Border, making excuses.

California state law will not save you from federal law.

The Guard doesn't manufacture solutions, they simply follow orders.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

So you create your own dumb ass straw man claim? SMFH

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

It's not hard to forget things when you never knew them to begin with. What immigration law effects your unalienable rights? HINT: not a single one. watadumass

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Providing the required information is not enforcing federal law, Reno v Condon.

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

Nobody but you has stated anything about immigrants becoming citizens. All illegals are subject to deportation, even legal immigrants are subject to deportation. Legal/illegal immigrants have limited protections via the Constitution. There is only a need for the presumption of innocence if they are charged with an infamous crime, otherwise all they are entitled to is a hearing via a BP agent (Expedited Removal if here less than 2 years) or an IJ if legally entered or more than 2 years here).

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

What immigration laws have effected your rights? The answer is, not a damn one.

 

[danielpalos]

we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.

And, the Guard should be in Puerto Rico manufacturing solutions, instead of on the Border, making excuses.

California state law will not save you from federal law.

The Guard doesn't manufacture solutions, they simply follow orders.

the right wing has no solutions.

We should send the Engineers of the Guard, to Puerto Rico to "refurbish" the island.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

At what point do you stop this idiotic nonsense and give up the straw man B.S.? It is really beginning to become a nuisance. Your walls of text that don't apply to me are wasted. I got to that point about citizenship and quit reading.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. I'D SUPPORT AN ACROSS THE BOARD BAN ON ANY NEW CITIZENS BEING SWORN IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE WE SORT THIS OUT.

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

The federal government, under the Constitution of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to tell any state who they may invite in as a NON-CITIZEN GUEST, TEMPORARY WORKER, AND / OR VISITOR. It is not in the Constitution, sir.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

The federal government is in no position to tell the states how many workers they need nor what jobs that can fill. Here in Georgia, crops rot in the field because Americans won't work and they cannot get enough workers due to silly picked from thin air "quotas" for workers. Farmers cannot tell you the size of the crop nor how long it will take to get everything - unless you can guarantee the weather and how much the ground will yield in a given season.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

Then, you cannot tell a NON-AGRICULTURAL employer that he cannot avail himself of foreign labor without violating his 14th Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. What you want is for the farmer to be able to hire foreign labor, but deny another employer that same advantage so that non-agricultural employers have to pay more for their labor than farmers do... unconstitutional as all Hell.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You can quote all the laws you like, but the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law." NATURALIZATION = CITIZENSHIP. Immigration is when a person comes to the United States to seek permanent residence. If they do not come here seeking permanent residence and the state invites them in, you are shit out of luck, constitutionally speaking.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

the right wing has no solutions.

Seems to be all the left wing can muster.

We should send the Engineers of the Guard, to Puerto Rico to "refurbish" the island.

Maybe Puerto Rico could use their own Engineers of their Guard to do the same job. imjusayn

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

What the Supreme Court has stated via other cases is:

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

A number of funds related to law enforcement the states receive can be with held if they do not provide the required information to the feds as per US law.

we legalized pot in California, and expect more revenue, anyway.

And, the Guard should be in Puerto Rico manufacturing solutions, instead of on the Border, making excuses.

After Closing of Navy Base, Hard Times in Puerto Rico

Roosevelt Roads was a support base for American invasions of the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983 and Haiti in 1994. But its main purpose in recent years was to oversee bombing exercises on nearby Vieques island. The exercises provoked protests that contributed to the American decision to end maneuvers on Vieques in 2003 and close Roosevelt Roads a year later.

An ambitious plan to turn the empty base into a cruise ship dock, commercial airport, tourist resort and light industrial park cannot get under way until an environmental study is completed.

SOURCE: After Closing of Navy Base, Hard Times in Puerto Rico



Puerto Rico is the reason why there is no system in place to adequately allow supplies to get in, and (with the last base closing in 2003) our troops have no base to which to operate from. Talk to Government and people of Puerto Rico about that problem.

 

[pismoe]

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

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

 

[Humorme]

Nobody but you was talking about doling out citizenship.

States do not have the authority to invite people from out of the country into the US. It's a Foreign Relations thing limited only to the Federal Government via the US Constitution.

Its not the states position to tell the federal government how many workers are needed either, it is the employers responsibility to obtain their own workers, if they can not find the workers locally, then they must apply for the proper visas to bring in foreign workers as a last resort. Farmers can get all the workers they need, there is no "quota" on H2A visas.

The non-agriculture employer has the ability to apply for the visas they may need to bring in foreign labor, just like the farmer might, if they fail to apply or do not get the visa they need, tough luck. Nothing is unconstitutional as all hell, labor costs are different in each category.

You don't get to choose what laws are constitutional or not, you are to obey the laws or challenge them in court. So far you haven't challenged them in court and our laws are what they are whether you like them or not. You ranting they are unconstitutional as hell doesn't change them, nor will you change them, so you are relegated to pissing and moaning on a internet board.

Yes Naturalization does equal citizenship, immigration is simply when a foreigner enters the US, the state has no authority to invite anybody here. You're not as knowledgeable about what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional as you think you are, and since you are not a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge of any sort, your words are about as useful as a frog with tits.

Humorme is clearly mixing apples to oranges, when the issue is California opposing the Federal Immigration Law which is upheld by the United States Supreme Court (as I have clearly outlined through their interpretive ruling on the subject) ... and “naturalized citizens”.

I'm not mixing ANYTHING. You need to examine the facts. If you do not understand the concept of precedents, then you should wait until you have done some research, maybe taken some courses in civics, history, law, and legal research.

Bottom line here:

It was decided by the United States Supreme Court that states do not have to enforce federal law. And much to my own dismay, now the Court says the feds cannot withhold federal funds when the states don't comply.

States have the authority under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to open their doors to anybody they care to. Being IN the United States is not a crime; coming into the U.S. without papers (if they catch you when you do it is illegal and the government can pursue that IF THEY see it happening at the time.

The moment a person sets foot on American soil, they automatically have certain Rights. No amount of filibustering will ever alter that fact.

Regarding your naturalized = citizenship argument.

If in fact you ACTUALLY did ANY research you would know that

(1) you are only “naturalized” through actual birth in this country.

(2) if this does not apply then you must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

(3) you can be a citizen through the “naturalization process”, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test.

(4) Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. (See condition 1. ) This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

Those conditions above, are the ONLY means you have to be classified as a citizen of the United States of America.

If you came here by any other means without attaining some form of legal entry (workers Visa, or other form of documented paperwork) ... guess what? .. you are not a US Citizen and you are damn sure are not a naturalized citizen. In fact, you are what our nation’s immigration law calls an “illegal immigrant”.

Second, the United States Supreme Court in a case decision clearly did not agree to your view of “state authority over Federal Law”.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

What I just listed under the subject of citizenship, and Supreme Court Judicial interpretive decision is actual presented “research”. All the while, you have never provided one United States Supreme Court argument that superceeds 567 U.S. 387 (2012). If you are the slightest bit unclear on the legal hierarchy aspect, the United States Supreme Court is the final judicial authority in any Constitutional matter. Also, if you THINK the state determines citizenship on some other grounds all on its own? If you think the state can go through some other route, outside those legal boundaries of naturalization and citizenship I listed under the opening paragraph? You could not be more incorrect. Also, you haven’t really been doing any “research”. Now in legal Constitutional matters, “opinions” without the backing of proven case law does not carry the weight of legal authority.

I suggest you start with understanding WHO the final judicial authority is, regarding Constitutional law in the matter of state vs federal law. Then when you think you have THAT figured out, do some actual research regarding citizenship and naturalization. I could not have explained this any more simple and clear for you.

Of course I’m sure you’ll only just rehash the same old recycled points, without any regard to who the United States Supreme Court is.

I am not going to respond to that kind of dumb ass strawman argument.

If you live to be 150 you will not log as many hours as I have in research on immigration law. There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning... mostly because you are emotion driven. I have no dog in the fight except my own unalienable Rights.

If California (or any other state) has undocumented foreigners there, then California does not have to enforce federal laws.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Just because some places have Sanctuary Cities or Sanctuary States does not mean that a person has to become a United States citizen in order to be here. Many times while a foreigner is here illegally, they may not be subject to deportation. AND having the same basic Rights (presumption of innocence) as you, WTF are you going to do except take a giant shit on the Constitution to remove them?

That's where you have a problem with me. You screw with their Rights, then you have screwed with mine. My Rights are more important than a low wage foreigners that wouldn't be here if it were not for Americans WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

Police your damn selves and they will leave... no legislation necessary.

First, we don’t need “low wage foreigners” to work here, the economy will not collapse simply because some believe we depend on their cheap labor. I’m quite sure we can find plenty of able bodied individuals, fully capable of doing work, that are otherwise living on welfare. Isn’t personally reward coming from the fruits of your own labor, so much better than living a life depending on the government? So there is one solution that deflates your argument for this “need for cheap foreign labor”. Now lowering welfare dependency also means less government spending, because we have less capable workers sitting and receiving taxpayer dollars. It’s a win - win that puts this nation in a better direction!


Then you get all emotional, throwing your little tantrum about “There is NO law on the books that require anybody become a citizen in order to do business in the United States.”, when I very clearly stated if you have a worker’s Visa or some other legal document that allows you to be here you are NOT an illegal immigrant. Now I know you are emotionally driven if you couldn’t even see that has already been addressed.


Next you rage about “unalienable Rights” when I clearly never denied an individual’s right to due process. Anyone found guilty of a crime has the right of representation under the constitution, we can’t simply lock people up and have unreasonable search and seizure without due process. I NEVER denied that right in any of my posts on this thread. So now we have a rather emotional argument that has nothing to do with what I clearly outlined.


Now if you think naming ONE case law, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), that’s clearly dated prior to a Supreme Court decision in 2012 regarding a States authority over Federal Immigration Law, somehow makes you more “knowledgeable”? I could not find a more laughable statement. You don’t even know what “when they conflict with federal law” means in regard to a state’s legal authority of law. They even make it any more basic for you to understand: “including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”. SCOTUS laid a very clear boundary between the state and Federal Government regarding the rule of law surrounding immigration.


So presenting one case law does not make you more knowledgeable than I on the subject. On the contrary you are emotional strung, to the point of being blatantly stubbor that you can’t see beyond the same dated 1997 case law. There has been a very clear boundary presented in an oral argument by the highest court in the land dated not in 1997 but in 2012. Now their case knowledge you will never be able to match. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I’m not going to educate someone who is only capable of presenting their ONE case law in an effort to demonstrate their VAST knowledge. An indivisible who can’t understand plain English from a 2012 high court decision, who is too emotionally strung to have a rational discussion about immigration and case law precedent.


Your vast knowledge is highly in question here. Do better. By that I mean, by presenting more than just one case from 1997 as it relates to federal immigration laws.

Thank you, but I already answer to one troll that takes as much of my time as he possibly can.

You need to try and cease from the practice of plagiarizing my work and my sentiments in order to make your argument look palatable.

Here it is for you:

According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

That power consists of seven little words. Naturalization = citizenship. That is the sum total of the power Congress has over immigration. That is it. Anything that conflicts with those seven words relating to foreigners is unconstitutional when applied against the states.

When people come to the United States and they take advantage of an opportunity willingly offered inside a state AND the state has no problem with it the federal government has no constitutional remedy except that IF that foreigner ever aspires to become a United States citizen, Congress is free to deny citizenship, provided Congress has a uniform rule that would deny foreigners the privilege of citizenship... in this case, citizenship is denied because the foreigner did not enter legally.

Even then, the law cannot be black and white. Someone fleeing persecution or war may not have time to stand in an imaginary line (one that does not exist, BTW) and wait for admittance. Nor can a person who may have a sick or dying relative... they're coming and the Courts would over-rule any law that is in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Then, back to that "illegal" B.S. If you think I'm buying that crap that you got your boxers in a bunch that bad over a civil misdemeanor that you made a religion out of it AND would screw the rest of the Constitution in order to go after people you suspect came in without papers, then you have me confused with someone else.

 

[Humorme]

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

--------------------------------------------- i think its way , way to late , immigration of all type shoulda be controlled [stopped imo] right before 'republican r.reagan' gave amnesty out to , what was it , 3 million or was it 6 million . [IMO] BrokeLoser .

You know, maybe I should have started my posts out telling people what I think rather than pointing out that the current strategies aren't working, have never worked, and never will work.

What I find amazing about the entire discussion is that the right hates the little brown people from across the border so much that their PR strategy is to tell us they want to deport all those little brown people adn then replace them with those with skills, a "love" of our laws and people...

In their stead, they will allow those with money and skills and will "do it the right way" (code for following immigration laws and that means citizenship) to come to America. We cannot talk idiots out doing stupid things.

So, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. Kicking out poor people who are not citizens and don't want to be in favor of foreigners with money and skills will mean, at some point, those foreigners will have enough clout to over-take the right and vote them into oblivion.

Can't you hear the death rattle? There is a better way to the promised land than following a Jim Jones type cult leader, drinking the Kool Aid laced with poison and committing suicide. That is a good summation of the right's current "solution" (if you can call regression a solution.)

The current crop of anti-immigration activists are far too stupid to understand that are those who agree an issue exists, but realize that there are far better solutions that can be put on the table. So engrossed are those anti-immigrant types with a unworkable solution, they are too stupid to ask what the other options are.