Take your pick....Loud Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other insane retards who spew lies about undocumented immigrants.

You should be so lucky to live in California. What's the temperature where you are? California has great weather, the most powerful economy of any state in the union, the most diverse population, and the most beautiful people.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. I'm guessing the only reason it doesn't work like this is because of political reasons, as the only time the federal laws are seriously brought up is right around election time when the idiots struggling in congress are their most vocal. No one really seems to want to actually enforce them and, really, who would? Immigrants are good for business.

My dictionary lists the first definition of invasion as...

invasion: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.


If I could get my hands on a Black's Law Dictionary from 1891, I'd look up the definition at that time since it's probably the most accurate and most likely matches this one.

We can also read about the discussions made by the founders when they created this clause. It was referring to invasions from British or other army troops.

In case I did, the first thing I'd do is move. I've worked there. No thanks.
You need a new one! Radar. At one time I kinda liked you, the hotdog deal, BUT HELLO?

Addendum! If my life's ambitions were to sell hot dogs and run for public office in the Great state of CA. Think I'd ask Mike for a ride on the anvil!
VERY humbly yours. bb

Nothing in the Constitution about a law dictionary being the arbiter.

Nothing in the Constitution about using the (highly subjective) inner thinking of the founders (which ones??) when trying to decide how the Constitution should be applied.

And so the question remains: If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

:wstupid: Forget the stupid part!

First, what type of immigration laws are we talking about? Are we saying that we can limit a certain number of people coming into the country, talking about limiting certain ethnicities coming into the country, or something different?

Now I will agree that immigration laws such as the ones in the late 1800s and early 1900s where they limit immigration to proportions that favor a particular ethnicity are unconstitutional but I disagree that limiting the number of people coming into the country is unconstitutional in every situation. I am pro-immigration but if a billion people start immigrating into the US, that will not help us at all because our economy will probably collapse.

But can we explain what types of immigration laws we are dealing with?

Ok, so I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer or the brightest bulb. What is it I am missing here - I've been liooking for about an hour found a lot of interesting reading and came to the conclusion that I really don't know what I'm looking for. What am I missing here? (Other than the Elephant right in front of me)

Federal Immigration Law Enforcement

immigration law: an overview

Immigration Act of 1924

It means deporting Roman Moroni to Sweden, might have been unconstitutional.

No document should have to bear the burden of settling disputes over definitions of words in the way you are suggesting.

Let me explain: If I have a contract stating that I will be paid $100 dollars to paint a fence, I can't turn around and claim that I should be paid $100 because I pissed on the fence. I can't say that the contract has to specify that painting the fence means painting it and not pissing on it, shitting on it, sneezing on it, etc.

I'm not being sneaky by signing this contract, then pissing on the fence and demanding payment. Because that's stupid.

Words mean things. Invasion means invasion.

Legal briefs and judicial rulings put definitions of key terms and phrases in the front of them all the time.

Yes, but do they use imaginary definitions?

Or, more to the point, unless they state that a word means what it actually means, can you later claim that it means something that it clearly doesn't and never has?

Does my fence painting contract have to specifically state that I will not be paid for shitting on the ground next to the fence, because "shitting next to" does not mean "painting"?

I don't think so, but have you ever read a contract? Most of them go on for pages, attempting to cover as many situations as possible. Some are truly ridiculous.

Edit: And a fence painting contract will probably go into some detail about what level of work is required. How much scraping. How much cleaning. Method of application, how many coats, conditions under which the paint will be applied, etc.

If it states "You must apply three coats" can I say that I pissed on it three times because it didn't provide a definition of "you", a definition of "must", a definition of "apply", a definition of "three", and a definition of "coats"? Can I say that it didn't specify that "three" means "three" and not "zero" and then demand payment for applying zero coats?

What I'm getting at is that you can't foresee all possible absurdist interpretations, so at some level words have to mean something. By default, what they actually mean.

Later, contrived meanings and things-you-wished-they-meant don't apply just because they didn't say "it doesn't mean that".