immigration; legal or unlegal

Discussion in 'Immigration' started by delade, Mar 10, 2018.

  1. delade

    delade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Is 'immigration' something similar to being a 'guest'?

    If I invite another person into my home, is it the same as if I didn't invite the person into my home? But with both instances, the person ends up in my home?

    I can ask nicely the first time. I can ask nicely the second time.. But when does asking nice turn into demanding if the person refuses to leave my home?
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
  2. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dishonest analogy.

    The United States Constitution gives Congress ONE authority relative to this issue:

    "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Section 8)

    Under your scenario, that's it. Now, during the lives of ALL THE FOUNDERS, the states had the authority to decide who came and went. Despite the fact that only whites could become citizens, every color and race of man from sunset to midnight came to America. Naturalization = citizenship. A person being invited into this country (as California does) is not my business over here in Georgia.

    It would not be until the founders - every single one of them - was dead and buried that this even became an issue. Then, in 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, the United States Supreme Court granted Congress plenary power over immigration. The problem is, the Constitution does NOT empower the Supreme Court with granting any freaking body with any power.

    So, California is well within their rights to have Sanctuary Cities. The problem is when California tries to use federal taxpayer dollars to pay for their guests. So, we could cut off federal funds that benefit undocumented foreigners, but outside of that, we have no de jure / legitimate reason to be obsessed with who states allow - or don't allow in as guests. Unfortunately, those Americans doing the inviting have just as many rights as you.
     
    kazenatsu likes this.
  3. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would that allow other states to sue california for illegals that california allowed yet they dont prevent from entering other states ?
     
    shortbox69 likes this.
  4. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I highly doubt it, but there would be no purpose. But since I answered your question, would you answer mine?

    Do you have any objections about rounding up blacks and sending them to Africa?
     
  5. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they are africans and here illegally not at all . If they are americans , what is wrong with you ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    shortbox69 likes this.
  6. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing wrong with me. It's just that the anti-immigrant lobby is all about things being legal like and all. The 14th Amendment is what guarantees that the children of undocumented immigrants born here are citizens. It's the same Amendment that made the black people citizens. The real problem is, it was illegally ratified. If you nullify it, you do away with the so - called "anchor baby" issue (which has no basis in fact) and you take it out of the equation.

    http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf



    http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

    https://civilwartalk.com/threads/14th-amendment-illegally-passed-and-ratified.130461/




    Of course, the black people would no longer be citizens, but legal is legal. And right how, what the anti-immigrant lobby wants is a felony consequence for a civil misdemeanor. I'm just trying to see how "by the books" those on this thread really are.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  7. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have at it.
     
  8. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't you think that's non-responsive? You've made much ado about legality of the situation, but take no stand on nullifying an unconstitutional Amendment that is directly related to the immigration issue. What makes it any different?
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is the 14th Amendment, that pretty much forced Congress to have a particular rule of naturalization. So, if you let them in, and they have babies, automatic citizenship.

    It can also be pointed out that the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, seven years before Chy Lung v. Freeman.

    Obviously there are some compatibility problems here. I'm guessing no one foresaw that birthright immigration would come to be a problem.


    This comes from another article:

    Websites in many foreign countries induce pregnant women to come to and pay up to $80,000 to “maternity hotels” in the United States, on the promise of American citizenship to the newly-born child who then returns to the foreign country. Mexican pregnant women cross the border to give birth in near-border U.S. hospitals for the same purpose. Many illegal immigrants in this country have children with the expectation that the child will be a U.S. citizen at birth, and thereby anchor the parents to be able to remain here.
    https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/birthright-citizenship-two-perspectives
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  10. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yes

    No, the person invited has a reason to be there, the person uninvited has no reason to be there.

    Both can be forced to leave.

    After the first time asked.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  11. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It can be pointed out that the Chy Lung decision came before the 14th Amendment, but the Chy Lung decision gave Congress plenary power over immigration. Immigration = Citizenship.

    I personally cannot figure out what that had to do with the price of tea in China. Again Immigration = Citizenship. People entering the United States with no intention of becoming citizens can and should be allowed in provided they can fend for themselves. There is no reason that they should be entitled to the privileges / benefits of citizenship (welfare, Socialist Security, etc.)

    Prior to the 14th Amendment, the United States DID have a Rule of Naturalization. You simply did not research the issue. Congress did their job within the first year of the ratification of the Constitution:
    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    "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 on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."

    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

    Non-whites came here in droves; however citizenship was limited to whites. Non-whites worked, earned money, but were not allowed to vote, run for office, etc. That was clearly not within a state's jurisdiction. But, those who came to work or simply be guests were in that state at the discretion of state immigration officials. The Chy Lung decision only took a bona fide states right away and gave total control to the feds... and you cannot cite that part of the Constitution that empowers the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant any other branch of government anything.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  12. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The OP asked:

    "Is 'immigration' something similar to being a 'guest'?"

    You replied:

    No, the person invited has a reason to be there, the person uninvited has no reason to be there.

    RESPONSE:
    Your answer is WHOLLY false. Your premise is that some people are not invited. As California has proven, they are, as a state, comfortable with having undocumented foreigners there. So, they ARE, in fact, invited guests. Here is where the anti-immigrant lobby loses control of reality. Let's define immigration.

    "Immigration - The coming into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Emphasis mine, of course (Source: Black's Law Dictionary - which is the most authoritative Law Dictionary in the legal community and used by the United States Supreme Court)

    Immigration = Citizenship. Not everyone who comes here wants to be nor should be forced to become citizens. AND, the Constitution does NOT address guests.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was believed that the individual states were the ones that held plenary power over immigration, then sets a context for the 14th Amendment, because they would have (or should have) known they were deciding to give anyone born and living in the U.S. citizenship, even though they knew (or were presuming) that each state had the control over who could be born and live there.

    Are you able to see the importance of this now?

    So I'm thinking either they overlooked something when they were passing the 14th Amendment, or perhaps it was believed at the time the federal government had some control over immigration.


    The point isn't so much what the uniform rule set by Congress at the time actually was. The point is that the 14th Amendment took away this discretionary power of Congress to be able to roll the citizenship granting process back, if it was thought a change in policy was necessary.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  14. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The federal government ALWAYS had authority over immigration. Immigration = Citizenship.

    Look, let's try your house analogy:

    You have an apartment and everybody pays rent. That makes you the equivalent of a landlord. Now, as a landlord, you can specify that people who live there permanently be on the lease (citizenship) and those who visit - well they are guests. They don't jump through hoops.

    You're telling me that Congress is so stupid that they did not know the long term ramifications of their actions, but you trust them to pass and enforce laws YOU don't even understand the long term ramifications of? And no, the 14th Amendment does not give the United States Supreme Court any new powers.
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't understand what you're saying, you seem to be contradicting yourself now.

    First you say it's the states who were the ones who should be deciding, now you're saying it's always been the federal government??


    This is probably getting too confusing here, but maybe when you say "immigration", you don't really mean immigration, you're only talking about citizenship.

    If that's the case, then the 14th Amendment sort of took the power out of the hands of Congress, since now any resident alien born and living for any length of time in any of the states has to be given automatic citizenship.

    So now ultimately any of the states would (if we go by what you're saying) be able to choose to create another citizen in the country from foreign aliens.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  16. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, at least you got 50 percent of the equation Immigration = Citizenship.
    "Immigration - The coming into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

    Back to the house analogy. I come to your house to pick up your daughter for a date. Hell, you don't even know me from Adam. Just because your daughter invited me to watch tv while she finishes getting ready, are you going to force me to marry her?

    And, if the kid next door cuts your grass - or you pay someone to take in your mail and feed the dog for a week while you're gone on vacation, do you force them to become full time employees under you?
     
  17. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were a nation of laws , cant pick n chiose
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're still not making sense. Are you saying the federal government should (under the original intent and meaning of the Constitution) have control over whether foreigners who take up permanent residence in a state?

    It seems you're being vague and ambiguous with your choice of terminology, so that people can't really tell what you're actually meaning.

    Maybe you could try restating the core of what you're trying to say in more clear words?

    You said the states had the authority to decide who came and who went, but then you also say the federal government has authority on whether those foreigners can come into the country "for purposes of permanent residence". How does that make any sense? Just taking a literal interpretation of your words, there's no way for anyone to know what these foreigner's "purpose" actually is when they come. Just answer the question: Do you believe the Constitution gives the federal government authority to kick a foreigner out of a state? Like, perhaps for example if they stay too long. And how is the federal government supposed to deal with certain states who let foreigners in just so they can give birth to babies who will have to be given automatic citizenship?
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  19. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    My answer isn't false, your claim is what is false. Would you care to try again, since I answered Yes to the question: Is 'immigration' something similar to being a 'guest'?

    California may be fine with having illegals within its borders, that does not make them invited guests. Bolding and Capitalizing your words doesn't make your response to my comments any more authoritative, or correct for that matter.

    Immigration does not = citizenship, an immigrant can come here and live their life as a Legal Permanent Resident and never obtain citizenship, yet he is considered as having immigrated, just like the definition you gave from Black before you tried to make it mean more than what he stated.
     
  20. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's how they become citizens of a state. How do they become citizens of the nation? As far as I can tell, they don't. Are you saying only those descendants of the folks who came prior to the signing of the Constitution are citizens?
     
  21. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see anywhere that states those immigrants get any federal money, if that is the case.

    I don't see where those states get money from the feds either. It's up to them to deal with who they invite.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  22. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876)

    The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868.

    How do you figure the Chy Lung case came before the 14th Amendment?

    The 14th Amendment is nothing more then declaratory of existing law, that law being the Civil Rights Act of 1866. So if you were to somehow get the 14th Amendment negated you still have the same laws in effect via the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  23. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't think the U.N. made the laws? Congress has no say. This is a violation of the Constitution.

    They can't supersede the Constitution. That's illegal.

    We need to roll back these violations.

    https://conventionofstates.com/
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  24. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. That is the reason you don't want to give the federal government any more control than the Constitution allows for.
     
  25. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You, yourself, have acknowledged that many people come to this country to download babies for the express purpose of having children so that those now American children can somehow "anchor" the children here. I hate to tell you this, but legally, that is not true and can be evidenced by the numbers of those parents who are being deported under Trump.

    POLICY, not law, is what has been at the core of the "anchor baby" argument. Nevertheless, the reality is simple: Foreigners are economically beneficial to this country. Trump, who claims to be on your side, willingly hired undocumented foreigners in the past. Now, he is suddenly the champion of your cause? You're about to get screwed.

    Improper Entry is the federal equivalent of you driving down the road and making an improper U Turn. Yeah, if you get enough hits against your driving record and it can become a felony, but in and of itself, it's no big deal. The government will tell you what you want to hear because they know this issue is headed to the United States Supreme Court. When it reaches that level, the Court WILL tell you that you cannot separate families over a minor offense like improper entry. Then Trump and the phonies like him can parade around and tell you they did all they could do.

    I asked the rooster in post #4 if he / she had any objections to sending blacks to Africa. Unless you have an answer to that, you would never understand the solution. IF you are all about the law, then know this: The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified AND it has been ruled on in our Courts. If you're born here, you are a United States citizen. The only remedy there is to nullify the 14th Amendment. IF people cannot become citizens and they cannot get ANY benefit or privilege of citizenship, then they will think long and hard about coming to the United States. The bottom line here is that if the 14th Amendment were repealed and someone came here from south of the border, but could not get any help because they did not have American relatives and the government would not spring for anything other than a bus ride to Mexico,

    The alternative to this course of action means that you will forfeit more and more of your individual Rights, America will become more and more liberal, and as they move left, they will ultimately out-vote you and this entire discussion becomes moot. Right now I am content to watch California offer refuge to the undocumented foreigners, the feds cut off funding and then allow the state of California be the model by which we judge this issue by. IF the right wing is correct, and California starts to drown, they will bow down to the feds and beg Uncle Scam to come in and remove 'em all. Then you have a definitive answer for a solution without having to pass another law.

    But know this: my dog in the fight is that the precedent protecting Sanctuary Cities is protecting YOU and me and it has nothing to do with immigration. But, if you're all about the law, then you can no more justify the 14th Amendment than the left can justify their position.
     

Share This Page