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.

 

Democrat Congressional Bill to Dismantle ICE To Be Introduced in House

page: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you're questioning the constitutionality of being able to defend ourselves from individuals violating US law?




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
If "I.C.E." was unConstitutional, somebody would have challenged it in court by now.

🎓💨



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And I thought you were a researcher.
I'm shocked.



edit on 7/1/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
DO IT.

They will just give the Republicans more votes in Nov.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: toysforadults

Guaranteed job at $15 an hour minimum to everyone. That's the Democrats new platform. So no borders and tax payers give every immigrant a minimum of $30k a year. Makes sense.

And the democrats don't tell you that they will take back much of that $15 a hour in taxes so you will be just where you are now.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you're questioning the constitutionality of being able to defend ourselves from individuals violating US law?



Nope.

I'm questioning the Constitutionality of ICE, a Federal police force with virtually unlimited jurisdiction.

Did you find justification for it in the, you know, actual Constitution yet? Or are we going to have more quips about making Americans into second-class citizens.

After all, you and the others are self-described strict constructionalists ... surely thats not only to be applied when you don't like something the government does ... right?




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
If "I.C.E." was unConstitutional, somebody would have challenged it in court by now.

🎓💨


LOL. Heavy on the weak sauce there Xuench.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You keep posting that map unsourced.

Is it your intellectual property?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Still trying to figure out how ICE is anti-constitution.


Not as smart as you so it'll take some time.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I know how much many of you respect Newsmax:

Here's the map of the southern border from their site ...



Newsmax

Hmmm ... why does that one looks different from the one that Ignorance is posting (uncited)?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Still trying to figure out how ICE is anti-constitution.


Not as smart as you so it'll take some time.



Nah. You're plenty smart.

Remember a few years ago, you know, in the Obama Dark Ages before the Glorious Light of Trump?

So many Republican Congresspeople PROMISED that no more legislation would be put forward unless it was EXPRESSLY noted in the Constitution, right?

So, as an originalist and someone who apparently supports ICE ... surely you can show us where in the Constitution a Federal police force with nearly unlimited jurisdiction is provided for ... right?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

it's totally constitutional

constitutioncenter.org


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


Article 1, Section 8

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a list of naturalization acts with information on each one to see the evolution of immigration into the US.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Still trying to figure out how ICE is anti-constitution.


Not as smart as you so it'll take some time.



Nah. You're plenty smart.

Remember a few years ago, you know, in the Obama Dark Ages before the Glorious Light of Trump?

So many Republican Congresspeople PROMISED that no more legislation would be put forward unless it was EXPRESSLY noted in the Constitution, right?

So, as an originalist and someone who apparently supports ICE ... surely you can show us where in the Constitution a Federal police force with nearly unlimited jurisdiction is provided for ... right?


Would you prefer the use of the military because under the 10th amendment they could use the military. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

So Congress can establish the procedure for naturalization ... awesome.

Yeah, not what I asked, but then you know that.

Here's a hint: ICE was set up under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Now, cite the portion of the Constitution that gives Congress the ability to create a Federal police force like ICE.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm becoming more and more conservative as I grow older, and this strict constructionalist philosophy really is starting to make sense.

Congress can't use "the military" under the 10th Amendment for godssakes. The President could call the National Guard I imagine.

SO ... are you saying that the Constitution DOES NOT give express consent to a national Federal Police Force with nearly unlimited jurisdiction?

Jeez.

Sounds like the Dumbocrats are actually supporting the Constitution for a change, huh?


edit on 1-7-2018 by Gryphon66 because: LOL



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

thefederalistpapers.org...


“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.


It's pretty clear they understood the impacts of culture on immigration.



“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.




“In the infancy of the country, with a boundless waste to people, it was politic to give a facility to naturalization; but our situation is now changed. It appears from the last census that we have increased about one third in ten years; after allowing for what we have gained from abroad, it will be quite apparent that the natural progress of our own population is sufficiently rapid for strength, security, and settlement. By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself goes far towards a denial of that privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances, and perhaps demands revision. But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required.


and before you go on about the slavery bull# they talked about that as well, they didn't like at all



"It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!" -- James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 42


econfaculty.gmu.edu...



Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, or morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, 1816



There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." -- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786



www.proconservative.net...


"They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)



"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall op- pressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a resi- dence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to eve- ry one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes perma- nently with us?" (1)


so not only did the founding fathers understand that people should be able to seek refuge here they also understood the implications of unfettered immigration

anyway good luck in your reading



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

thefederalistpapers.org...


“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.


It's pretty clear they understood the impacts of culture on immigration.



“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.




“In the infancy of the country, with a boundless waste to people, it was politic to give a facility to naturalization; but our situation is now changed. It appears from the last census that we have increased about one third in ten years; after allowing for what we have gained from abroad, it will be quite apparent that the natural progress of our own population is sufficiently rapid for strength, security, and settlement. By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself goes far towards a denial of that privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances, and perhaps demands revision. But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required.


and before you go on about the slavery bull# they talked about that as well, they didn't like at all



"It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!" -- James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 42


econfaculty.gmu.edu...



Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, or morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, 1816



There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." -- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786



www.proconservative.net...


"They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)



"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall op- pressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a resi- dence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to eve- ry one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes perma- nently with us?" (1)


so not only did the founding fathers understand that people should be able to seek refuge here they also understood the implications of unfettered immigration

anyway good luck in your reading



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

no sorry but what that article of the constitution says is that the government can create a process of naturalization AKA a law regulating the process of legal citizenship and all laws come with enforcement

you need to read more before making assumptions



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



What's Next , Democrat Congressional Bill to Dismantle the Constitution ? Not Only should these Radical Socialists , Anarchists , Progressive Liberal Democrats be Voted Out of Office , they should also be Charged with Sedition Against our Democratic Republic through Abuse of Power .....



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


So, as an originalist and someone who apparently supports ICE ... surely you can show us where in the Constitution a Federal police force with nearly unlimited jurisdiction is provided for ... right?


Give me time.

My research so far leads to many articles out to illustrate how ICE is unconstitutional.

Similar (almost cut and paste) to articles just a few years old describing how the FBI is also unconstitutional.

Quick question for you, do you think the FBI is unconstitutional?




top topics



 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join