There are no illegal immigrants in America

[Undertoad]

It's all moot because the Constitution is not a contract. It's the founding document of the Government.

Nevertheless, all contracts face this same problem; they fail in things like terms, and differences have to be settled somehow. Some contracts actually say who will decide whether the contract has been met.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's all moot because the Constitution is not a contract. It's the founding document of the Government.

Nevertheless, all contracts face this same problem; they fail in things like terms, and differences have to be settled somehow. Some contracts actually say who will decide whether the contract has been met.

The Constitution is a contract and the foundation of our government. It strictly limits the powers of the federal government to keep the majority of power with the states or the people.

When the founders said "invasion" they were using the commonly accepted term meaning invading armies and did not use it to describe a flow of peaceful immigrants. This part of the Constitution does not grant any power whatsoever to the federal government over immigration.

Nor does the necessary & proper clause, nor does the migration and importation of slaves, and nor does the power to make rules concerning naturalization.

[regular.joe]

I can't take it anymore. I have to come out from behind the couch. I clicked on one of classic mans links to read a little about immigration law. The first sentence I read was this:

The United States has a long history of immigration laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) with some major, and many minor, changes continues to be the basic immigration law of the country. The most significant amendment to the INA was in 1965 which abolished the natural origin provisions, and established a new quota system.

So what you're really trying to tell me is this: since 1952, perhaps longer, our congress has been absolutely ignoring the constitution on this issue, and no one has been able to point this fact out the the Congress? If some one has made a point about these unconstitutional laws congress has seen fit for over 50 years to ignore it? (I'm not gonna start with the Alien Act of 1798, which would mean that there is some sort of super conspiracy in play, probably including the Masons)

So, the next thing I read is this:

Congress has total and complete authority over immigration. Power of the President is limited to policies on refugees. Unless the issue concerns the rights of aliens to constitutional protections the courts have rarely intruded.

This would lead me to believe that the courts are in on some kind of conspiracy to get around our constitution on this issue. (Just like congress!!) Or perhaps Radar could be, well wrong would be a strong word to use, so I'll use the word erring.

Of course this is only one source of info, and it is from the Cornell University Law School. I'm sure they have their own agenda, right? Especially when they post a link to this section of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This question of naturalization and immigration. The definition of naturalizaion is: Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

or as Webster puts it: 1: to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship.

I can't really see any other way to interpret this then this is how people immigrate legally to the United States. They are naturalized, and admitted as citizens of the U.S.

I have to admit, I didn't know much about the libertarian party until now. The more I learn the less I like. This has been a useful discussion for me.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

So what you're really trying to tell me is this: since 1952, perhaps longer, our congress has been absolutely ignoring the constitution on this issue, and no one has been able to point this fact out the the Congress?

I'm saying it's been going on a lot longer than 1952.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

This would lead me to believe that the courts are in on some kind of conspiracy to get around our constitution on this issue. (Just like congress!!) Or perhaps Radar could be, well wrong would be a strong word to use, so I'll use the word erring.

The courts are very much in a conspiracy. They routinely rule directly against the Constitution when they deem it to be in the interests of government to do so. They are granted no such authority by the Constitution. Judges are hired and paid by the government and when they rule against the expansion of governmental powers, they face losing their jobs.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Of course this is only one source of info, and it is from the Cornell University Law School. I'm sure they have their own agenda, right? Especially when they post a link to this section of the U.S. Constitution:

Ask Cornell University to provide the actual clause of the Constitution that grants power over immigration to the federal government or even to provide the part of the Constitution that allows government to have "implied" powers. I can provide the part that PROHIBITS the government from having implied powers and from doing anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, more than 80% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This question of naturalization and immigration. The definition of naturalizaion is: Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

or as Webster puts it: 1: to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship.

I can't really see any other way to interpret this then this is how people immigrate legally to the United States. They are naturalized, and admitted as citizens of the U.S.

If you can't see it, you need to clean your glasses. Immigration is the process by which an immigrant becomes a citizen and has nothing to do with how they immigrate here in the first place.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I have to admit, I didn't know much about the libertarian party until now. The more I learn the less I like. This has been a useful discussion for me.

Most people who dislike the Libertarian Party or libertarian philosophy do so because they really don't know much about politics or they believe government should tell us what to do with our money, our body, etc. and otherwise be our nanny. They have no confidence in the ability of regular people to run their own lives in the way that is best for themselves without harming others. That's up to you. I am of the opinion that government isn't here to define our rights or to limit them and that any such laws are illegitimate. You don't have a right to go through life without being offended, but others do have a right to freedom of expression and the freedom to travel anonymously. This is the opposite position of that held by the founders.

[busterb]

I guess you are more satisfied with your job blowing truckers for speed at rest stops.

I suggest what ever your narrow mind tells you keep that kind of shit to yourself. I might be old and in MS. But I might just be back to your cock sucking state one day. I hope you run for office again so I can set up a website and post this shit. BY MF!

[Undertoad]

How can you be so sure? How can you describe every type of "invasion" that ever happened? Who is the Final Arbiter of the question of what "invasion" could mean?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who is the Final Arbiter of the question of what "invasion" could mean?

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Really -- when is the last time you heard someone call a single person crossing a border with peaceful intentions an invader?

Okay, okay, besides the last time you watched Fox News.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How can you be so sure? How can you describe every type of "invasion" that ever happened? Who is the Final Arbiter of the question of what "invasion" could mean?

I'll tell you who the final arbiter is....and it's not the Supreme Court. The final arbiter is "We the People" and "We the people" granted specific powers to the federal government and the definition of the word "invasion" used by "We the people" refers to an armed or hostile invasion force....invading armies.

That's what it's always meant and attempts to twist the meaning of the words 218 years later doesn't fly.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'll tell you who the final arbiter is....and it's not the Supreme Court. The final arbiter is "We the People" and "We the people" granted specific powers to the federal government and the definition of the word "invasion" used by "We the people" refers to an armed or hostile invasion force....invading armies.

That's what it's always meant and attempts to twist the meaning of the words 218 years later doesn't fly.

As if the framers could ostensibly know the precise nature of all types of "invasion" 218 years into the future. As if they could even possibly predict that 100% open borders present horrible problems that could harm the general welfare of a nation. As if they wouldn't mention it in the C if they did expect it would happen.

If it is "we the people" you are arguing for rule by "the people" 14 generations ago, which won't hold, or rule by modern day public in Democracy, which I know you don't like. It's not instructive to you that if we implemented the law as you envision it, the people would throw it away and develop a new Constitution.

The C isn't a suicide pact. The law can't work that way. The idea that it does is superstition on your behalf.

And you continue to ignore the sections of the C that you don't like. Who decides the meaning of "invasion"? It's right there in the C, if you care to read it.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As if the framers could ostensibly know the precise nature of all types of "invasion" 218 years into the future. As if they could even possibly predict that 100% open borders present horrible problems that could harm the general welfare of a nation. As if they wouldn't mention it in the C if they did expect it would happen.

If it is "we the people" you are arguing for rule by "the people" 14 generations ago, which won't hold, or rule by modern day public in Democracy, which I know you don't like. It's not instructive to you that if we implemented the law as you envision it, the people would throw it away and develop a new Constitution.

The C isn't a suicide pact. The law can't work that way. The idea that it does is superstition on your behalf.

And you continue to ignore the sections of the C that you don't like. Who decides the meaning of "invasion"? It's right there in the C, if you care to read it.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and open borders don't amount to suicide. A free flow of immigrants is what made America the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It's higher than the Supreme Court, The President, and Congress. It is the foundation of our government and it is not to be ignored. Whether or not the founders could forsee problems in the future is irrelevant. They made the Constitution so it could be changed, but not ignored.

If you think the Federal government should have Constitutional authority over immigration, you should push for an amendment to the Constitution to allow the fed to do this rather than supporting unconstitutional laws or parts of government to handle what really isn't a problem at all.

Undocumented immigrants don't cost American citizens a single penny. They contribute more to the economy in taxes than they use in social services (which are also unconstitutional). And yes, they do pay taxes.

I don't ignore any part of the Constitution. A free flow of immigrants is not an invasion regardless of how much you say otherwise. America INVITED immigrants from all over the world to come here, and until the Constitution is amended to grant power over immigration to the federal government, all federal immigration laws are unconstitutional and therefore null and void and no immigrants who enter America with or without documentation are "illegal".

[busterb]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Thanks. I've been waiting for that. bb

[busterb]

Someone told me, maybe Mom, never argue with a fool. Other folks might not pick the right one. So good luck with you job of bull shitting the home folks. Join Maggie.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by busterb

Someone told me, maybe Mom, never argue with a fool. Other folks might not pick the right one. So good luck with you job of bull shitting the home folks. Join Maggie.

One would have to be a fool to argue with someone who has facts, logic, reason, and black and white proof that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws.

I've proven my case. I've proven that the majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional....aka ILLEGAL and that there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" in America.

The only way to disprove me is to show me where the fed is granted authority over immigration in the Constitution.

So far we know it doesn't get any authority over immigration through it's power to repel invasions, to charge a duty or tax on the import of slaves, the power to make rules concerning naturalization, or through the necessary and proper clause.

[busterb]

Right You got the votes?

[classicman]