It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

dude do not derail the op please

i am more than happy to discuss such not related to the op in one of the other threads

take a deep breath and become untriggered

the federal government was not granted the power to regulate immigration.. any thoughts?




posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

the federal government was not granted the power to regulate immigration.. any thoughts?

Yes it was. SCOTUS was empowered in interpreting the constitution and granted the power to the federal government.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: howtonhawky

the federal government was not granted the power to regulate immigration.. any thoughts?

Yes it was. SCOTUS was empowered in interpreting the constitution and granted the power to the federal government.


as outlined they have gotten it wrong and it is being challenged by california currently

there is a reason cali continues to do such and the reason is because the power was never granted by the constitution and all that stands in the way is another ruling that takes into account the actual constitutional and not the unjustified rulings in the past

other states should step up



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
It has gone unchallenged for so long cause we have never abused the system as we currently are.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky



as outlined they have gotten it wrong and it is being challenged by california currently


They gave the power to SCOTUS because they knew things would change.

Second ammendment says we have the right to bare arms, yet I can't get a machine gun, or hand grenades... Why, because they constantly adjust laws.

You can play semantics all you want. At the end of the day we have laws, if the states wanted to object, they can vote on it.... They haven't and don't want to. They don't want to assume that role, with maybe the exception of California. If you really don't like it, I think the only course of action is Calexit. Best of luck, we're all rooting for ya.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
I had a vision where someone was discussing the wall and the rationale was that if we had a wall then at least we would get only the strongest immigrants cause they would be the only ones to get across the wall.

survival of the fittest immigrant


Give them a free t-shirt with an ultraviolet activated bullseye before the try to cross the wall. As a prize for making it across, a cellphone with gps location permanently enabled, along with some Cubane inside, just in case. You could video it all, turn it into a game show and hire rich MF's to do the hunting :-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

The part of the constitution also never says anything about immigration, it only speaks of Naturalization. It doesn't say who or who does not have powers of immigration.

So basically you're saying you've interpreted it a different way than the SCOTUS... Gotchya.

I assume you're a lawyer since you've made such a bold claim. Good luck in your case against them.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Here's article 1 section 8 clause 4 for anyone who wants to read how far OP is grasping at straws.


the congress shall have the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.


Didn't say anything about states. It didn't say who would deal with immigration...

So the SCOTUS did.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky




the federal government was not granted the power to regulate immigration.. any thoughts?


Yes they were, as pointed out to you already. So I'm guessing you're now gonna go on a tirade about morality because you're gonna lose this debate too.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

So instead of a wall, you'd rather spend more money annually to risk incidents involving national guard and deputized civies..



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: howtonhawky

the federal government was not granted the power to regulate immigration.. any thoughts?

Yes it was. SCOTUS was empowered in interpreting the constitution and granted the power to the federal government.


as outlined they have gotten it wrong and it is being challenged by california currently

there is a reason cali continues to do such and the reason is because the power was never granted by the constitution and all that stands in the way is another ruling that takes into account the actual constitutional and not the unjustified rulings in the past

other states should step up


You MUST know that if you have to hold up Kalifornistan as the shining example of how to properly enforce Constitutional law that you’ve already lost the debate? The governing bodies of Kalifornistan haven’t a clue how to interpret the US Constitution. If they did, it wouldn’t be the broken #hole taxpayer money sink it is now...with WAY too many US citizens dying on the streets of its major cities.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

You're just plain wrong here.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The power belongs to the states concerning immigration.

The founders did not grant any power of immigration to the federal government.

www.americanbar.org...


It was not until the late 19th centu­ry that Congress began to actively reg­ulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers.


States Rights

Currently California is the only state following the Constitution in this area and others could follow.







Actually, Arizona voted to enforce the laws of the US. (Immagration). The previous administration sued them. SCOTUS ruled that immagration law and enforcement is federal jurisdiction ONLY.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Trump..enforcing law passed by dems and signed by clinton in 97...is just upholding his constitutional duties by enforcing the laws on the books.

Tell the dems in congress to quit stonewalling and work to pass a better law.

BTW, these crying kids are using daddy and mommy...that is not spanish, bet they were put up to it...



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

If i want to cross a border, i will find a way. Thats human nature. Better spent the money for schools & education, thats the most important thing in these days.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

I already explained and shared a link with you about this.

Your refusal to accept reality is a major issue.

143 years ago, the federal government passed its first immigration law. One year later, the SCOTUS recognized that immigration regulation was the sole responsibility of the federal government.

Just because the Constitution does not enumerate something akin to "Congress shall enact all laws and regulations governing legal and illegal immigration" does not mean that, since the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the government has not legally and appropriately taken control over appropriate aspects of our country's governance.

I'm not saying that I agree with every single power that the government has that isn't enumerated originally in the Constitution, but one should reasonably understand why control of policy governing admittance across the nation's borders would lie with the government that...you know...governs the nation.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: Christosterone

If i want to cross a border, i will find a way. Thats human nature. Better spent the money for schools & education, thats the most important thing in these days.


Yea, one more broken system in this country to throw money at? Our educational system is obviously broken when so many people have a hard time understanding how our 3 branches of government operate and how laws are created.

Let me know when money starts growing on trees will ya?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky


We can secure the border without a wall here.

Texas national guard can help.

We could deputize folks along the border to help.

It would not take much to activate the red necks.


Hasn't worked so far so why do you think it would work now? Once they are on US soil they yell "I'm afraid of going back and request asylum" so what do your red necks do then...lol

Need to change up asylum requests to predetermine the countries that meet asylum status. I don't know of any south of the border that does...In fear of the cartel or crime is not a reason for asylum status.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo


If i want to cross a border, i will find a way. Thats human nature. Better spent the money for schools & education, thats the most important thing in these days.


Well do it once and we send you back do it twice and you go to jail...does that help? A wall on the border along with drones etc is like a big safe that yes someone can break in but the 99.999% of the people can't.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454


So instead of a wall, you'd rather spend more money annually to risk incidents involving national guard and deputized civies..


Its like leaving your door to your house open compared to locked with a security system. Someone wanders in with the door open and there is a question of intent. Someone breaks into your locked house there is no question of intent, intent is 100% known at that point.



edit on 19-6-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
It has gone unchallenged for so long cause we have never abused the system as we currently are.



WE have abused or THEY have abused our the system. This is not one sided with us as we are only a reactionary force on the border.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join