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

[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

That speaks to naturalization not immigration.

Too fking funny.

If you say so. Just like the 2nd only speaks about militia's right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 section 8
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[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.

If you say so. Just like the 2nd only speaks about militia's right?

You might want to read the scope of Article 1 that you cited:

Congressional Power Over Naturalization - FindLaw

Naturalization is the process to become a United States citizen for individuals born outside of the United States. It is up to Congress to establish a uniform rule for all individuals wishing to become U.S. citizens through naturalization.

constitution.findlaw.com

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

What do you think Immigration is dumb ass. If you want to immigrate you need to be able to be naturalized. The constitution allowed the states full rights until 1808 after which it resolved to the Federal Government

 

[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 section 8
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

Article 1 pertains to citizenship NOT immigration.

Too fking funny.

.

 

[Decus]

If you want to immigrate you need to be able to be naturalized.

Have you ever heard of a residency permit or Green Card?

You are just too 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

That speaks to naturalization not immigration.

Too fking funny.

If you say so. Just like the 2nd only speaks about militia's right?

You might want to read the scope of Article 1 that you cited:

Congressional Power Over Naturalization - FindLaw

Naturalization is the process to become a United States citizen for individuals born outside of the United States. It is up to Congress to establish a uniform rule for all individuals wishing to become U.S. citizens through naturalization.

constitution.findlaw.com

.

I don't have to read anything. This has long been settled in the courts.

 

[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.

If you say so. Just like the 2nd only speaks about militia's right?

You might want to read the scope of Article 1 that you cited:

Congressional Power Over Naturalization - FindLaw

Naturalization is the process to become a United States citizen for individuals born outside of the United States. It is up to Congress to establish a uniform rule for all individuals wishing to become U.S. citizens through naturalization.

constitution.findlaw.com

.

I don't have to read anything. This has long been settled in the courts.

When did the courts add a Constitutional Amendment??? Federal law yes - written in the Constitution - No - Immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution.

.

 

[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

That speaks to naturalization not immigration.

Too fking funny.

If you say so. Just like the 2nd only speaks about militia's right?

You might want to read the scope of Article 1 that you cited:

Congressional Power Over Naturalization - FindLaw

Naturalization is the process to become a United States citizen for individuals born outside of the United States. It is up to Congress to establish a uniform rule for all individuals wishing to become U.S. citizens through naturalization.

constitution.findlaw.com

.

I don't have to read anything. This has long been settled in the courts.

When did the courts add a Constitutional Amendment??? Federal law yes - written in the Constitution - No - Immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution.

.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

The right of "citizens" to own guns is not in the Constitution either.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Race based organizations are racist.
The League of United Latin American Citizens is one of many racist Latino nationalist groups that want to change the US into a Latino country.

Southwestern U.S. has been Latino country since before the Mexican-American War.

You're not going to change people's race, but technically Latinos are of the same Caucasian race as white people, Indians, and Native Americans.

Interesting, technically only how many races, three? Just to throw a curb, some people have Neanderthal DNA. My friend does, helped explain his big head

Perhaps there's just one race?? A new study overturns that notion, revealing an unexpectedly large amount of Neanderthal ancestry in modern populations across Africa. It suggests much of that DNA came from Europeans migrating back into Africa over the past 20,000 years.

Two independent teams of researchers investigating why East Asian people have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans have reached the same conclusion. They say the ancestors of Asians interbred with Neanderthals for a second time, and at a later date, giving them an extra dose of Neanderthal DNA.

Interesting how scientists seem to believe Neanderthal was a different species than Europeans, Asians and Africans.

 

[justinacolmena]

The right of "citizens" to own guns is not in the Constitution either.

Sure it is. Citizens are people, and people have the right to keep and bear Arms, that is, to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons, under the Second Amendment.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The right of "citizens" to own guns is not in the Constitution either.

Sure it is. Citizens are people, and people have the right to keep and bear Arms, that is, to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons, under the Second Amendment.

Ha ha, I can't believe he wrote that.........Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa!. WTF they teaching in school today? I think that's the problem, I finished the 4th grade and was done with it until some college. Enough college to see HS was unnecessary, and there were some professors blowing Marixm up our asses even in the early 80s. I was a dumb kid thinking "yeah man, that sounds fair to me too" all while "something is suspect" but didn't know why. Wasn't too many years later border California turned blue, and then what happened?

Yeah, Nevada and entire west, the big fucking bang. Coming to some chaos near you unless we wise up or no longer sustainable. Then we get communism, should be a blast.

 

[pknopp]

The right of "citizens" to own guns is not in the Constitution either.

Sure it is. Citizens are people, and people have the right to keep and bear Arms, that is, to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons, under the Second Amendment.

Of course they do despite the 2nd not saying that in those exact words.

 

[pknopp]

The right of "citizens" to own guns is not in the Constitution either.

Sure it is. Citizens are people, and people have the right to keep and bear Arms, that is, to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons, under the Second Amendment.

Ha ha, I can't believe he wrote that.........Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa!. WTF they teaching in school today? I think that's the problem, I finished the 4th grade and was done with it until some college. Enough college to see HS was unnecessary, and there were some professors blowing Marixm up our asses even in the early 80s. I was a dumb kid thinking "yeah man, that sounds fair to me too" all while "something is suspect" but didn't know why. Wasn't too many years later border California turned blue, and then what happened?

Yeah, Nevada and entire west, the big fucking bang. Coming to some chaos near you unless we wise up or no longer sustainable. Then we get communism, should be a blast.

Sorry the point went over your head. I'd guess you came in late and read one reply without reading everything in context. Not a smart thing to do.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

It is Republicans who have been ignoring the laws regarding employing illegal immigrants. Every time a Republican is in the White House, all prosecution of big money donors who hire illegal immigrants ceases and these corporations put out the help wanted sign to illegals.

Republicans round up the illegals, but they don’t deport them and they don’t prosecute the employers. So the problem continues.

Democrats don’t waste time chasing illegals through the desert, they shut down the employers and their pipeline to jobs. Once the jobs dry up the illegals stop coming.

Illegal immigration drops under every Democratic president and climbs to record levels under every Republican. It’s a shell game and Republican voters fall for it every time.

Every time a Democrat gets into the White House, Republicans start trotting out the usual lies about a Democratic administration. And just like Pavlov’s dogs conservative voters start howling their outrage.

 

[pknopp]

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.

It is Republicans who have been ignoring the laws regarding employing illegal immigrants. Every time a Republican is in the White House, all prosecution of big money donors who hire illegal immigrants ceases and these corporations put out the help wanted sign to illegals.

Republicans round up the illegals, but they don’t deport them and they don’t prosecute the employers. So the problem continues.

Democrats don’t waste time chasing illegals through the desert, they shut down the employers and their pipeline to jobs. Once the jobs dry up the illegals stop coming.

Illegal immigration drops under every Democratic president and climbs to record levels under every Republican. It’s a shell game and Republican voters fall for it every time.

Every time a Democrat gets into the White House, Republicans start trotting out the usual lies about a Democratic administration. And just like Pavlov’s dogs conservative voters start howling their outrage.

Democrats haven't done squat either.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

It is Republicans who have been ignoring the laws regarding employing illegal immigrants. Every time a Republican is in the White House, all prosecution of big money donors who hire illegal immigrants ceases and these corporations put out the help wanted sign to illegals.

Republicans round up the illegals, but they don’t deport them and they don’t prosecute the employers. So the problem continues.

Democrats don’t waste time chasing illegals through the desert, they shut down the employers and their pipeline to jobs. Once the jobs dry up the illegals stop coming.

Illegal immigration drops under every Democratic president and climbs to record levels under every Republican. It’s a shell game and Republican voters fall for it every time.

Every time a Democrat gets into the White House, Republicans start trotting out the usual lies about a Democratic administration. And just like Pavlov’s dogs conservative voters start howling their outrage.

it is Republicans who have been ignoring the laws regarding employing illegal immigrants.
apparently you never have been to S.California.....

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

That’s the problem for Republicans. The law is never the issue. They think that any illegal thing they do it’s OK, as long as they’re doing it for the right reasons.

Iran Contra is a prime example of Republicans going around the constitution, around the law, and claiming to be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

That’s also a full on description of the January 6 insurrection. Trump has lost all of his court challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court, but refused to except the verdict of the American people, the verdict of the states and the verdict of the courts. They insisted they had the right to attack the capital because the election was stolen.

But the election was not stolen. They attacked the capital on a proven lie.

 

[Dragonlady]

Democrats haven't done squat either.

That’s not true either. Bill Clinton prosecuted employers and obtained over 1000 court orders against employers of illegal immigrants.

Clinton also leads in deportations. The real reason why Hispanics didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 is not that Hispanics vote Republican for economic reasons, it’s because Hispanics vote Republicans because up until Trump, Republicans didn’t deport illegals.

Hispanics don’t vote Democrat because the Democrats have the highest numbers deportations of illegal immigrants and prosecution of their employers.

Republicans are the real “open borders” guys. Trump didn’t deport people. He just rounded them up and stuck into for for profit prisons to enrich his donors at taxpayers expense.

Democrats don’t have to spend billions of dollars policing the southern border, because they prosecute the employers. Under Obama 300,000 Mexicans self deported back to Mexico because they couldn’t find work.

Democratic administrations have charged employers, levied fines, and court costs, and effectively closed the border.

It’s not hard to cross the border illegally either on the north or the south and it happens all the time. But if people can’t find work they don’t stay.

We have thousands of Americans sneaking into Canada every year across the border to hide out from charges or ex-wives. But we don’t have an illegal immigrant problem of any size whatsoever, because once you get here it’s almost impossible to find work.

Canadians won’t work under the table the way Americans will. Unless your employment is on the books and withholding is remitted, you don’t qualify for any of the generous benefits, like Employment Insurance, retraining grants, new business startup training and support, Child Tax Benefits, etc.

Rev Canada scrutinizes every social insurance number they receive withholding for. If the names or the numbers or both don’t match with their records, rev Canada follows up with employers to ensure that all of their employees are legal. Employers are required to see your original social insurance card, and to make a photocopy from the original and placed it in your file. Audit of employers, include audits of their employees’ paperwork.

Failure to have a copy of the social insurance card in your employees files is punishable by a $10,000 fine on the first offense.

Canada has around 30,000 illegals. You have 11 million. If they can’t get a job or benefits, they don’t stay, and it costs you us nothing to chase them around or send them home.

By the prosecuting employers, you discourage anyone from hiring and only cool without proper paperwork, and you recover the cost of prosecuting them in fines and enforcement going forward.

But as with most things, Republicans lie to you because they want to continue with the status quo.

They want their big donors to continue to have access to a cheap pool of illegal immigrants, to help suppress wages.

They want you to think that they’re doing some thing about illegal immigrants by chasing people around and holding them in custody great cost to the government. It cost a whole lot more money to keep these people in custody, then it does to let them loose in the general public.

Holding 40,000 people in custody at a cost of $700 per day per prisoner, is enriching the for-profit prison corporations who are also big Republican donors.

And then Tucker Carlson can go on Fox News and rant and rave about open borders and how Republicans are going to stop illegal immigration and other bullshit to gin up outrage in gullible people like you.

 

[pknopp]

That’s not true either. Bill Clinton prosecuted employers and obtained over 1000 court orders against employers of illegal immigrants.

Clinton also leads in deportations. The real reason why Hispanics didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 is not that Hispanics vote Republican for economic reasons, it’s because Hispanics vote Republicans because up until Trump, Republicans didn’t deport illegals.

Hispanics don’t vote Democrat because the Democrats have the highest numbers deportations of illegal immigrants and prosecution of their employers.

Republicans are the real “open borders” guys. Trump didn’t deport people. He just rounded them up and stuck into for for profit prisons to enrich his donors at taxpayers expense.

Democrats don’t have to spend billions of dollars policing the southern border, because they prosecute the employers. Under Obama 300,000 Mexicans self deported back to Mexico because they couldn’t find work.

Democratic administrations have charged employers, levied fines, and court costs, and effectively closed the border.

It’s not hard to cross the border illegally either on the north or the south and it happens all the time. But if people can’t find work they don’t stay.

We have thousands of Americans sneaking into Canada every year across the border to hide out from charges or ex-wives. But we don’t have an illegal immigrant problem of any size whatsoever, because once you get here it’s almost impossible to find work.

Canadians won’t work under the table the way Americans will. Unless your employment is on the books and withholding is remitted, you don’t qualify for any of the generous benefits, like Employment Insurance, retraining grants, new business startup training and support, Child Tax Benefits, etc.

Rev Canada scrutinizes every social insurance number they receive withholding for. If the names or the numbers or both don’t match with their records, rev Canada follows up with employers to ensure that all of their employees are legal. Employers are required to see your original social insurance card, and to make a photocopy from the original and placed it in your file. Audit of employers, include audits of their employees’ paperwork.

Failure to have a copy of the social insurance card in your employees files is punishable by a $10,000 fine on the first offense.

Canada has around 30,000 illegals. You have 11 million. If they can’t get a job or benefits, they don’t stay, and it costs you us nothing to chase them around or send them home.

By the prosecuting employers, you discourage anyone from hiring and only cool without proper paperwork, and you recover the cost of prosecuting them in fines and enforcement going forward.

But as with most things, Republicans lie to you because they want to continue with the status quo.

They want their big donors to continue to have access to a cheap pool of illegal immigrants, to help suppress wages.

They want you to think that they’re doing some thing about illegal immigrants by chasing people around and holding them in custody great cost to the government. It cost a whole lot more money to keep these people in custody, then it does to let them loose in the general public.

Holding 40,000 people in custody at a cost of $700 per day per prisoner, is enriching the for-profit prison corporations who are also big Republican donors.

And then Tucker Carlson can go on Fox News and rant and rave about open borders and how Republicans are going to stop illegal immigration and other bullshit to gin up outrage in gullible people like you.

There have been random prosecutions. Lets argue even hundreds. A blip when you understand millions are employed.

Mandatory e-verify with strong enforcements. Fines that could put you out of business. Problem solved. Why do you suppose it's not done?