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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.
originally posted by: toysforadults
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
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.
No ICE just changed its name prior to that it was the INS. Dont think this is new do you please do some research. ICE is investigators they are special agents that are called when a crime has been committed involving the US border. For example human trafficking or drugs. When called they will investigate to ses if they can find the source of the crime. The rename was so they could be put under control of homeland security in the attempt to stop terrorists from entering the country.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
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?
Or even the so-called General Welfare Clause?
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: DBCowboy
I already did the work for you.
Laws require enforcement obviously it's legal. It's a totally ridiculous point of view.
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66
Or even the so-called General Welfare Clause?
you already know you're making a deceitful argument here and this has been hashed out thoroughly you can read allllll the info you want
stop trying to mislead easily hypnotized emotional thinkers it's not working and you're not good at it
I supplied a lot of info for anyone willing to actually research their perspective with an open mind do not be fooled
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: DBCowboy
I already did the work for you.
Laws require enforcement obviously it's legal. It's a totally ridiculous point of view.
Spoken like a true statist.
You really don't understand what strict constructionalist means do you?
Hint: the late great Justice Scalia was one.
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66
you have supplied no evidence to support your position until you do so your position is totally invalid, good luck fooling the easily fooled
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876)[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[2][3][4]
At around the time that Chy Lung v. Freeman was decided, the United States Federal Government passed its first official policy significantly restricting immigration, along lines similar to the California statute deemed unconstitutional. This law, called the Page Act of 1875, prohibited the entry of immigrants considered "undesirable", a category intended to include forced laborers and female prostitutes, and applied to people of Chinese citizenship and descent. The bar on female prostitutes was the most heavily enforced aspect of the Act. The implementation mechanics involved pre-screening of Chinese women in Hong Kong to ascertain their good moral character and certify that they were not prostitutes. This was very different from the operation of the California statute, which involved inspection by the immigration commissioner after the ship had landed.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: DBCowboy
I already did the work for you.
Laws require enforcement obviously it's legal. It's a totally ridiculous point of view.
Spoken like a true statist.
You really don't understand what strict constructionalist means do you?
Hint: the late great Justice Scalia was one.
Neither do you because a constitutionalists recognizes what powers were given to whom. You totally ignore the 10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66
oh name calling, great good luck Democrat