Democrat Congressional Bill to Dismantle ICE To Be Introduced in House

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: 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

"All laws come with enforcement"? Wow, and I'm the one that needs to read more?

You really think that desperate hand-waving is going to cover this? Come on.

Congress can establish by law the methods to become a naturalized citizen. That doesn't grant the authority to create a national police force by any logic and CERTAINLY not by the logic of strict construction ... (you do know what that means, right?) Obviously the Framers intended the several States to have that power under the afore mangled 10th Amendment.

Here, let me help you out ...

How about this one?

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.

Or even the so-called General Welfare Clause?

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;

Either of those is a better answer than "well, they just have the power to enforce the laws."

Yet, neither give explicit permission for this ICE force ... or really, any national police force, does it?

Hmmm.

I guess the Department of Education isn't the only non-Constitutional agency that needs to go, huh?

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: 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.

I love people who don't know what they are talking about telling me to do research.

I gave you the answer above. ICE was set up in 2002 under the Homeland Security Act.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, from a strict constructionalist position ... the FBI and most government agencies are unconstitutional.

Makes you think huh?

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?

Suggest you start by reading the 10th amendment. Then you can look in 1891 when congress set up border enforcement. You might also look into why they did as people were being killed by bandits from mexico. They would raid towns along the border then run back to mexico. Prior to this the us military was used i think having federal agents handle it is a better approach. I wouldn't want to put the military on border patrol

a reply to: DBCowboy

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


No , the " Patriot Act " Legalized their Power to Enforce the Illegal Entry of Foreign Nationals crossing the Boarders of the United States for National Security Reasons .

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

a reply to: dragonridr

the first naturalization act was in the 1700's and they barred immigration from countries for various reasons some of them bad and some of them good

The police state in action. And people cheer it on. SMH. Tell me. You must be an ardent supporter of the Patriot Act as well?

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.

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

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

I'm making a deceitful argument? Hardly. I began with a question that neither you nor anyone else has answered.

I even gave you hints. Then you started this ridiculous ad hom tirade directed at me because you dont' have an answer beyond "well, it's just that way."

You're just one of those lefties that wants to give the Federal government more power that it doesn't have in the Constitution!!!

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.

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

I quoted the Constitution for you, statist.

a reply to: Gryphon66

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

a reply to: Gryphon66

oh name calling, great good luck Democrat

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.

I ignore the 10th Amendment which you tried to wave your hands over as well and claim that gives Congress the power to call out the militia/National Guard? That's not even the right part of the Constitution and it's the President that has that power not the Congress.

LOL...

Let's look at the 10th Amendment, shall we?

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.

Now, show us how that allows the FEDERAL government to create a national police force!

a reply to: toysforadults

Still nothing about the establishment of a Federal police force, eh?

You really just don't get it.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66

oh name calling, great good luck Democrat

LOL ... I'm not a Democrat, but you are an out-of-control statist.

You want to give all the power over to the Federal Goverment! Shall we bow down and kiss Uncle Sam's nethers too?