You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims. Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample. Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
Let us revisit post # 4242.
You wrote:
"There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
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
[ 1808 ].
The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case -
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 was in
1875.
HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
ME: I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey. It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page. Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand. You are one the most misguided, so here is your
RESPONSE:
I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration. So, here we go:
"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."
Explanation: This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
Also see this:
Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein. Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
It is still an irrefutable
FACT that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states. It is an irrefutable
FACT that:
"The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called
An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight. The bound measure also regulated the
coastwise slave trade. President
Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution. That was legislating from the bench. Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
* The
fact is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
* The
fact is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution,
MILLIONS of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
* The
fact is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The
fact is since Congress has
no authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
The
fact is, we have at least
TWO separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
The
fact is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they
are going to rule against you. Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't. If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights. Either they do or they do not. If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
But, you won't. It's because they do have Rights. And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty. Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans
WILLINGLY invite the foreigners here. Does it cause us problems? YES. But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution. You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others. At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do. I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong. How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment. There is your FACT.
Article I
Section 9.
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.
It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States. As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government;
observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”
SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.
If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved. Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals:
It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.”
Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality. —-
If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals. The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.
A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right. He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred. He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing,
they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that
foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule.
The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.
The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but
their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”
“If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term.
To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia. That’s it?
Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts? Do you actually know what real research is? Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases. Can you? I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding. Can you? I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to. This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business. WTF is wrong with you? Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“
That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
Franklin - “Pennsylvania
“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. addressed concerns over an
OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
(1) Ben Franklin
(2) George Washington
(3) Alexander Hamilton,
(4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution. More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t. I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours. Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above. Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through
and providing individual views (
sources) going back to our nation’s founding.
Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free. If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc. Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens. So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
1) If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself. I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest. So, why aren't you? OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job? I think that maybe you understand that half of the population - at a minimum
invited the foreigner here. So, your first paragraph is
irrelevant.
2) Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.? OR did he leave well enough alone? Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country? How many people agreed with him?
3) You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what,
NONE of them done a damn thing about the
FACT that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the
STATES. The founders did not address it in the Constitution. As a matter of
FACT, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
"
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration. The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
Let me repeat what YOU said:
If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals
I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business. It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem. How do you think you got into this situation?
Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law. Here is a quote from it:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
naturalization laws 1790-1795
Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Constitution of the United States
WHEN the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [
sic] by that instrument to the citizen?
...
We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
Eleven years later the Republicans
ILLEGALLY ratified the 14th Amendment:
The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
* It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
* The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your
unalienable Rights. Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
Let's move on:
"The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
“A “US Citizen†upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerceâ€, as a “resident†does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.†Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended" (Reposted with permission)
2 Classes of Citizens
I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
..…………
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
