danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,601
There is no express immigration clause in our supreme law of the land.You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.
People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
You are an absolute dumb ass. You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you. I've not said anything regarding every form of "border enhancement." That is total bullshit you just made up.
IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall. A wall must transverse across PRIVATE property lines wherein people do not want it. The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of enforcement of the wall. Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people? Your side pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc. THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS.
IF your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is. You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument. So, let me get you caught up to speed:
You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
"the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
This statement is absolutely true. That is two points you have gotten right this week. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."
Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
The 14th Amendment created TWO separate and distinct classes of citizens. You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links. Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen. Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty. The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. Initially when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship. HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought everybody under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights. If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of life, liberty and property - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States. These are government granted rights, but it is what it is. There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint. Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor. That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment. In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion. Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
The Two United States
I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.
Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.
You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?
If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.
The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.