Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

[Humorme]

If you will take the time to read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, it makes ALL the points you make relative to your immigration argument. Click the link and check it out.

Scott v. Sandford

The Republicans illegally ratified the 14th Amendment eleven years after the Dred Scott decision and repealed the laws as you want them enforced today. Trying to make this an argument over human registration papers that, without such, amount to the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn is disingenuous at best.

So, today, IF there is to be no discrimination, then telling one employer he / she can avail themselves of cheap foreign labor while denying it to someone else clearly violates the Constitution. If you tell one family member of a citizen – you’re welcome to come, but not the other family member, that is a clear violation. Clearly we CAN limit the number of people we allow to become citizens; however, thinking you can separate families over a piece of human registration paper issued by a corrupt government is a freaking joke.

Furthermore, for you to think the Courts will not over-turn new laws that separate families means that you need to read this response at least twice. Building walls, turning us into a POLICE STATE and making all this noise over so – called “illegal immigration” when the only people lobbying for mandatory citizenship is your side negates your whole argument. As Johnny Cash sang in The Farmer’s Almanac, “If a man had half his wishes, he would just double his trouble.”

Donald Trump is going to cut a deal to let two million or more “Dreamers” become citizens in exchange for a silly wall. That wall will not affect 77 percent of the people you want to keep out… over 45 percent of undocumented foreigners come in via proper means and the Dreamers represent over a third of the people without papers in this country. You will waste money on a nutty wall and the courts will then declare that you cannot separate families as it would be cruel and unusual punishment as per our Constitution. Again, improper entry is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. Separating families over that is cruel and inhumane by anybody’s standards.

So, by slowly making America a third world cesspool with a wall that is meaningless, you will then have all that manpower from the wall being used against the citizenry of the United States. It will become the most oppressive government in the annals of history. And yet there is a solution where everybody gets most of what they want WITHOUT walls, human registration papers, and more importantly without making citizens out of people that will one day outvote you and demand YOUR removal from society.

 

[danielpalos]

So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

We have these things called "tourists visas."

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

This was a legal error after 1808.

 

[Humorme]

I don't think that the government should interfere with anyone's Right to travel.

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

We have these things called "tourists visas."

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

This was a legal error after 1808.

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

 

[danielpalos]

So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

We have these things called "tourists visas."

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

This was a legal error after 1808.

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

 

[Humorme]

Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of permanent residence. What do you not understand about that? The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as NON-CITIZENS? Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to legally get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen. Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens. States fully had that right until 1876 when the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant plenary powers over immigration to Congress. Until then, who came and went in a state was the state's authority. The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.

We have these things called "tourists visas."

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

This was a legal error after 1808.

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

 

[danielpalos]

We have these things called "tourists visas."

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

This was a legal error after 1808.

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

America was not founded as a homeland for white people simply because Federal Naturalization limited it to free whites of good character. There were free blacks that were allowed the same privileges in the individual states in which they lived. There were even blacks that were recognized as US Citizens. Samuel Fox in 1854. http://memory.loc.gov:8081/ammem/aaohtml/OLD/archive/2-06r.jpg

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

I wonder why there were black congressman during the time of the colonies and up through the Articles of Confederation.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

Explain the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If you will take the time to read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, it makes ALL the points you make relative to your immigration argument. Click the link and check it out.

Scott v. Sandford

The Republicans illegally ratified the 14th Amendment eleven years after the Dred Scott decision and repealed the laws as you want them enforced today. Trying to make this an argument over human registration papers that, without such, amount to the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn is disingenuous at best.

If it was illegally ratified don't you think the SCOTUS would have refused to hear cases regarding it. The theory that it was illegally ratified came about in 1954, almost 100 years after it was recognized as being a part of the USC. What are you going to do about the 1866 CRA that the 14th is declaratory of? How is improper entry equivalent to a u-turn? Improper Entry (an actual criminal violation) is a Federal Misdemeanor, an improper u-turn (a state infraction similar to overstaying a visa which is an Administrative infraction) is a state vehicle infraction, two very different things. The only one being disingenuous is you.

So, today, IF there is to be no discrimination, then telling one employer he / she can avail themselves of cheap foreign labor while denying it to someone else clearly violates the Constitution. If you tell one family member of a citizen – you’re welcome to come, but not the other family member, that is a clear violation. Clearly we CAN limit the number of people we allow to become citizens; however, thinking you can separate families over a piece of human registration paper issued by a corrupt government is a freaking joke.

Both employers have the right to apply for foreign workers, if one gets the foreign worker and the other doesn't, then to bad. You claiming things violate the USC doesn't make any difference as your claims are worthless. One family member but not the other? LMFAO Foreigners don't have rights to come here, we can deny entry to whomever we so choose.

Furthermore, for you to think the Courts will not over-turn new laws that separate families means that you need to read this response at least twice. Building walls, turning us into a POLICE STATE and making all this noise over so – called “illegal immigration” when the only people lobbying for mandatory citizenship is your side negates your whole argument. As Johnny Cash sang in The Farmer’s Almanac, “If a man had half his wishes, he would just double his trouble.”

SCOTUS will have no opinion on the separation of families. If that were really the case then a single parent going to jail would be denied jail time due to having a child. Your entire perception shows just how ignorant you truly are in regards to the law and the USC itself.

Donald Trump is going to cut a deal to let two million or more “Dreamers” become citizens in exchange for a silly wall. That wall will not affect 77 percent of the people you want to keep out… over 45 percent of undocumented foreigners come in via proper means and the Dreamers represent over a third of the people without papers in this country. You will waste money on a nutty wall and the courts will then declare that you cannot separate families as it would be cruel and unusual punishment as per our Constitution. Again, improper entry is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. Separating families over that is cruel and inhumane by anybody’s standards.

The courts won't declare anything regarding separating families. It is not cruel and unusual punishment. The courts have already ruled on this. SMFH

So, by slowly making America a third world cesspool with a wall that is meaningless, you will then have all that manpower from the wall being used against the citizenry of the United States. It will become the most oppressive government in the annals of history. And yet there is a solution where everybody gets most of what they want WITHOUT walls, human registration papers, and more importantly without making citizens out of people that will one day outvote you and demand YOUR removal from society.

Idiotic hyperbole. SMFH

 

[Humorme]

How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas. We also have arbitrary caps on visas. Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides? Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives? Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people. As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character."

In addition, virtually every state's first constitution limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people. For example, in my own home state of Georgia,

"ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally..." Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the United States Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here are a couple of important things to note Taney wrote:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.

This was a legal error after 1808.

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

 

[beagle9]

States have no obligation over immigration since 1808. It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.

. Not if it's gonna force Americans to have to have an ID that is more than what we have now or that changes what we have now. If it's gonna cause these kinds of troubles, then send them back home.

 

[danielpalos]

This was a legal error after 1808.

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

Just right wing propaganda.

• Article 1, Section 9
• Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

 

[Humorme]

Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

Just right wing propaganda.

• Article 1, Section 9
• Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

More B.S. from the bot. I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult. Do it again and I'll report it. You7 may as well be calling people the N word. Stick to the topic. No more personal insults.

HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (SLAVES) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of SLAVES), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.

 

[danielpalos]

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

Just right wing propaganda.

• Article 1, Section 9
• Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

More B.S. from the bot. I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult. Do it again and I'll report it. You7 may as well be calling people the N word. Stick to the topic. No more personal insults.

HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.

Just clueless and Causeless? It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.

 

[danielpalos]

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (SLAVES) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of SLAVES), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.

It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (SLAVES) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of SLAVES), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.

It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.

Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH

 

[Humorme]

You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

Just right wing propaganda.

• Article 1, Section 9
• Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

More B.S. from the bot. I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult. Do it again and I'll report it. You7 may as well be calling people the N word. Stick to the topic. No more personal insults.

HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.

Just clueless and Causeless? It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.

What do you think IMMIGRATION is? Are you that clueless? Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times? Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?

 

[danielpalos]

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (SLAVES) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of SLAVES), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.

It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.

Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH

It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.

It is Article 1, Section 9.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

Just right wing propaganda.

• Article 1, Section 9
• Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

More B.S. from the bot. I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult. Do it again and I'll report it. You7 may as well be calling people the N word. Stick to the topic. No more personal insults.

HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.

Just clueless and Causeless? It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.

What do you think IMMIGRATION is? Are you that clueless? Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times? Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?

from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.

 

[Humorme]

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (SLAVES) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of SLAVES), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.

It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.

Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH

It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.

Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well. Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down? Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the United States Supreme Court ruled NOR what reality was up through 1876.

Just right wing propaganda.

• Article 1, Section 9
• Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

More B.S. from the bot. I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult. Do it again and I'll report it. You7 may as well be calling people the N word. Stick to the topic. No more personal insults.

HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.

Just clueless and Causeless? It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.

What do you think IMMIGRATION is? Are you that clueless? Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times? Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?

from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.

danielpalos,

I sometimes don't understand your posts because I get alerts that you are responding to me when it appears you are responding to someone else. I suspect it has something to do with people who the mods had me put on ignore. Nevertheless, Let's dispel this 1808 nonsense once and for all.

One attorney put it like this:

"In addition, the Migration or Importation Clause provides Congress with the authority to prohibit migration and importation after 1808.(2) However, historical sources agree that this provision was to address the slave trade and not the migration of free persons."

What entity has authority in U.S. immigration law? - Kind

A copy of what danielpalos babbles on about can be found at:

The Avalon Project : Statutes of the United States Concerning Slavery

As per your arguments regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means to deny people entry into the United States to take advantage of job opportunities, as opposed to becoming citizens - I suppose you "could" argue that. But, you should be forewarned that there are truisms that history has provided us. Frederic Bastiat, who wrote the popular book "The Law" observed:

"When goods don't cross borders, armies will."

If foreign workers are "goods" (I'm not criticizing your point on that) then common sense dictates that if it takes armies to put them on U.S. soil, then that is the destiny you are lobbying for on this board.

A wall in our era is not a deterrent to the free market. In the past, people put up walls in order to preserve, protect, and defend a nation - and those nations generally had a degree of homogeneity holding them together.

What we have today is a proposal to make a full third of the undocumented foreigners into citizens, throw up a wall and declare victory. The reality is, those Dreamers are going to become citizens; they will have families; ultimately they will gain power, vote and put a liberal in office that will dismantle the wall, leaving the technology and the manpower to be used against the very people that lobbied for the wall. As for me, I'm just not dumb enough to buy the bullets that someone else will shoot me with. I'm about a permanent and mutually beneficial solution for all sides.