U.S. Latino Activist Group Says States Sending Law Enforcement To The Border To Help USBP Are Committing 'Insurrection'

[Harry Dresden]

easyt65
I walk around here in Vegas and I don’t even know if I am on US soil
Spanish is a gutter rat, peasant language

would you quit embellishing your tales of horror about Vegas....geezus....lol...

 

[Decus]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

Immigration law consists of rules and procedures to be enforced by the federal government. That is no longer happening.

Ergo, what we have now is not immigration, but a criminal exercise. If the feds won't enforce the law to the detriment of the states, then it falls to the states to deal with the resulting situation.

Just because the Fed isn't doing what you want that does nothing to negate the Constitution.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution?/ The Federal government gave immigration powers to the Federal government, not the Constitution:

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”."

"The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the

States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924."

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration? Answer – The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of...

theamericanview.com

.

Why? Multiple court rulings and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio was arrested and found guilty because he thought he could enforce immigration laws.

You are using the same argument that those who argue that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean the people but rather only militia's.

You won't be able to show where state officials are actually doing anything.

Again - it's NOT a Constitutional power given to the Federal government. The Federal government enacted a law to assume that power.

.

After 1808 the constitution clearly gives the fed the power.

What Article or Amendment of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power over immigration? Be specific.

.

 

[Harry Dresden]

This is really just another political stunt by the Repubs.

Tell that to the personnel putting their lives on the line to enforce the law. Seriously.

Who is dying to enforce immigration laws which allow people to claim asylum?

Retard Thousands a month illegally cross that are criminals and have no intention of asking for asylum. In both Arizona and Texas border patrol and cops have been fired on and just the other day 3 illegals broke into a house in Texas and stole two loaded weapons and more ammo.

How many criminals are going back south over the border daily? There is free flow of commerce at the border which means occupants of each nation are free to cross the border? Just like vehicles...Extra NG units will not stop commerce from occurring.

How many criminals are going back south over the border daily?
ill take a guess.....the ones who have just killed someone......

 

[Decus]

People illegally entering our country are breaking the law and are akin to drug smugglers or human traffickers. They should be thrown in jail and deported to their country of origin.

.

deportation is up to the feds not the states.

So the Federal government decides what laws to enforce? Why have laws at all?

.

 

[Harry Dresden]

When the Jews and Italians came in 1900: they came to work and help America and work they did

i just seen a documentary on early 1900's immigration......it said the Sicilians were treated a little bit better than the blacks were....

 

[pknopp]

pknopp I have found that no amount of links knowledge or facts have ever convinced those that make the claim the Constitution does not cover this. The people that make that claim willfully ignore what is written,

No amount = zero? I posted exactly what happens.

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia

 

[Quasar44]

Harry Dresden
My ancestors came to America around 1900 or so

 

[pknopp]

pknopp Then how come MFer States are having to control their own border and suffer/pay the consequences of a pussified Demonicrat border?

Let's not pretend the Federal govt. is competent or reasonable in any way. If you haven't noticed a puppet with dementia and his lowest of character side-kick are "in-charge".

Why? Because the GOP ran someone the country didn't support. All the same, Trump was mostly smoke also.

 

[Quasar44]

Harry Dresden
Jews tend to hyperbolize a tad lol

 

[pknopp]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

this is what happens when the feds aint doing their job.....sooner or later the peons are going to start doing it themselves....they have been talking about immigration for at least 30 years.....now its either help or get the fuck out of the way.....

The courts will end up dealing with it. Just like they did with Sheriff Arpaio. If you are willing to risk that, go for it.

 

[pknopp]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

Immigration law consists of rules and procedures to be enforced by the federal government. That is no longer happening.

Ergo, what we have now is not immigration, but a criminal exercise. If the feds won't enforce the law to the detriment of the states, then it falls to the states to deal with the resulting situation.

Just because the Fed isn't doing what you want that does nothing to negate the Constitution.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution?/ The Federal government gave immigration powers to the Federal government, not the Constitution:

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”."

"The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the

States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924."

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration? Answer – The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of...

theamericanview.com

.

Why? Multiple court rulings and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio was arrested and found guilty because he thought he could enforce immigration laws.

You are using the same argument that those who argue that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean the people but rather only militia's.

You won't be able to show where state officials are actually doing anything.

Again - it's NOT a Constitutional power given to the Federal government. The Federal government enacted a law to assume that power.

.

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

From your own link:

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

.

And yet it does.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

pknopp Then how come MFer States are having to control their own border and suffer/pay the consequences of a pussified Demonicrat border?

Let's not pretend the Federal govt. is competent or reasonable in any way. If you haven't noticed a puppet with dementia and his lowest of character side-kick are "in-charge".

Why? Because the GOP ran someone the country didn't support. All the same, Trump was mostly smoke also.

You're like a young child with absolutely no fucking clue what's going on around you.

 

[pknopp]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

Immigration law consists of rules and procedures to be enforced by the federal government. That is no longer happening.

Ergo, what we have now is not immigration, but a criminal exercise. If the feds won't enforce the law to the detriment of the states, then it falls to the states to deal with the resulting situation.

Just because the Fed isn't doing what you want that does nothing to negate the Constitution.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution?/ The Federal government gave immigration powers to the Federal government, not the Constitution:

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”."

"The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the

States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924."

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration? Answer – The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of...

theamericanview.com

.

Why? Multiple court rulings and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio was arrested and found guilty because he thought he could enforce immigration laws.

You are using the same argument that those who argue that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean the people but rather only militia's.

You won't be able to show where state officials are actually doing anything.

Again - it's NOT a Constitutional power given to the Federal government. The Federal government enacted a law to assume that power.

.

After 1808 the constitution clearly gives the fed the power.

What Article or Amendment of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power over immigration? Be specific.

.

It's already been posted. You can disagree all you want just like those who say the 2nd only applies to militia's but spin your wheels all you like.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)

There are plenty of Latino U.S. citizens who were born in the U.S. or immigrated lawfully, have their home or property, and they don't want Latin American Communism taking over the country by force or hostility, either.

That group appears to represent citizens of Mexico, and Central and South American countries, not U.S. citizens in any respect.

their HQ is in Wash.DC.....

 

[pknopp]

pknopp Then how come MFer States are having to control their own border and suffer/pay the consequences of a pussified Demonicrat border?

Let's not pretend the Federal govt. is competent or reasonable in any way. If you haven't noticed a puppet with dementia and his lowest of character side-kick are "in-charge".

Why? Because the GOP ran someone the country didn't support. All the same, Trump was mostly smoke also.

You're like a young child with absolutely no fucking clue what's going on around you.

If you wish to reply to what I post like an adult, that would be great. You asked a question. I directly answered.

 

[otto105]

The Law isn't the issue, its how the Xiden admin is ignoring the Law.
I hope in 2023 Xiden gets impeached for ignoring the Law.

What law is President Biden ignoring?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry Dresden
My ancestors came to America around 1900 or so

same here.....hey your not my long lost 10th cousin are you?......... is your name Serachi?......

 

[Decus]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

Immigration law consists of rules and procedures to be enforced by the federal government. That is no longer happening.

Ergo, what we have now is not immigration, but a criminal exercise. If the feds won't enforce the law to the detriment of the states, then it falls to the states to deal with the resulting situation.

Just because the Fed isn't doing what you want that does nothing to negate the Constitution.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution?/ The Federal government gave immigration powers to the Federal government, not the Constitution:

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”."

"The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the

States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924."

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration? Answer – The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of...

theamericanview.com

.

Why? Multiple court rulings and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio was arrested and found guilty because he thought he could enforce immigration laws.

You are using the same argument that those who argue that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean the people but rather only militia's.

You won't be able to show where state officials are actually doing anything.

Again - it's NOT a Constitutional power given to the Federal government. The Federal government enacted a law to assume that power.

.

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

From your own link:

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

.

And yet it does.

No it doesn't. Federal law gives the Federal government that power and those laws have been ruled to be Constitutional. The Constitution however does not enumerate those powers.

Maybe you should find a different link that agrees with you?

Too fking funny.

.

.

 

[pknopp]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

Immigration law consists of rules and procedures to be enforced by the federal government. That is no longer happening.

Ergo, what we have now is not immigration, but a criminal exercise. If the feds won't enforce the law to the detriment of the states, then it falls to the states to deal with the resulting situation.

Just because the Fed isn't doing what you want that does nothing to negate the Constitution.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution?/ The Federal government gave immigration powers to the Federal government, not the Constitution:

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”."

"The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the

States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924."

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration? Answer – The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of...

theamericanview.com

.

Why? Multiple court rulings and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio was arrested and found guilty because he thought he could enforce immigration laws.

You are using the same argument that those who argue that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean the people but rather only militia's.

You won't be able to show where state officials are actually doing anything.

Again - it's NOT a Constitutional power given to the Federal government. The Federal government enacted a law to assume that power.

.

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

From your own link:

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

.

And yet it does.

No it doesn't. Federal law gives the Federal government that power and those laws have been ruled to be Constitutional. The Constitution however does not enumerate those powers.

Maybe you should find a different link that agrees with you?

Too fking funny.

.

.

Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution

 

[Decus]

Immigration law? I have no idea but it's definitely a possible violation of the Constitution depending on what they are doing. The Constitution clearly makes immigration solely a Federal Issue.

Immigration law consists of rules and procedures to be enforced by the federal government. That is no longer happening.

Ergo, what we have now is not immigration, but a criminal exercise. If the feds won't enforce the law to the detriment of the states, then it falls to the states to deal with the resulting situation.

Just because the Fed isn't doing what you want that does nothing to negate the Constitution.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution?/ The Federal government gave immigration powers to the Federal government, not the Constitution:

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”."

"The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the

States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924."

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration? Answer – The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of...

theamericanview.com

.

Why? Multiple court rulings and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio was arrested and found guilty because he thought he could enforce immigration laws.

You are using the same argument that those who argue that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean the people but rather only militia's.

You won't be able to show where state officials are actually doing anything.

Again - it's NOT a Constitutional power given to the Federal government. The Federal government enacted a law to assume that power.

.

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

From your own link:

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

.

And yet it does.

No it doesn't. Federal law gives the Federal government that power and those laws have been ruled to be Constitutional. The Constitution however does not enumerate those powers.

Maybe you should find a different link that agrees with you?

Too fking funny.

.

.

Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution

That speaks to naturalization not immigration.

Too fking funny.