Judge rules that Obama-era DACA program will stand

a reply to: howtonhawky

Immigration is a states issue

Wrong.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: howtonhawky

Immigration is a states issue

Wrong.

no it is right just as it is unconstitutional to tax a persons labor.

they get away with both cause we let them

a reply to: howtonhawky

DACA was an executive order and not a law. The judge overstepped his authority by telling POTUS he cant rescind Obama's EO.

Scotus will most likely have to smack down these courts.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Justso

No,
You're assuming that.

DACA was an executive order. And the President has full authority on immigration.

So just like the terrorist countries travel ban this is another case of district judges overstepping their authority. It will be struck down as well.

On what grounds would the scotus strike down the daca?

Immigration is a states issue and something that the scotus has the right to not hear the case on because it would set precedence for sanctuary cities and that is something they do not want to muddy up.imo

No - immigration is a federal issue and not a state issue.

DAPA, the parental version of DACA that was based on DACA was found to be unconstitutional. The same will be found for DACA as it violates immigration laws. When Obama tried to get a law passed Congress voted it down so Obama used an EO to bypass Congress. Hence the reason numerous states filed lawsuits against DACA.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Are you sure about that? The constitution kinda disagrees with your opinion.

a reply to: Xcathdra

blah blah

it is in tha constitution as a states issue and the federal government has overreached their authority. I am quite sure we have covered this ground.

Immigration is a function of the state. deal with it

Tell me about all those federal ports we have...

No daca will not be struck down...and there was great cause to strike down dapa

really? nice try though

i do not buy your fancy conflations

a reply to: howtonhawky

Try reading the actual constitution please, section 8 specifically here

a reply to: howtonhawky

Immigration deals with national sovereignty.

It is a federal issue.

The 10th amendment originally gave some authority to the states regarding immigration (some rules regarding immigration) however the Supreme Court ruled one year later that immigration is the sole responsibility of the Federal government.

DACA will be struck down as its unconstitutional. Just as DAPA was struck down for being unconstitutional. Throughout the years federal laws have dealt with this and the Supreme Court confirmed it all with their border search exception to the 4th amendment.

As for what you think you know, you dont. I would spend some time educating yourself before looking like an ignorant ass.

Texas vs. United States - appeals court found DAPA unconstitutional. The Supreme court deadlocked in a 4 to 4 ruling, leaving the appeal court ruling as final = unconstitutional.

a reply to: Xcathdra



Here is when they went wrong
1882 Immigration Act of 1882
First comprehensive immigration law for the US.
Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials

until then there were only naturalization acts as the founders intended.

it is a states issue and the feds have been givin power thru fear of immigrants taking over

It is the first traces of the nwo

I am still waitin on that list of federal ports of entry

a reply to: howtonhawky

and as I pointed out the Supreme Court ruled 1 year after the adoption of the 10th amendment that immigration belongs solely to the federal government.

Here is your list -

* - 19 CFR 101.3 - Customs service ports and ports of entry.
* - USCIS -

Port of Entry

Any location in the United States or its territories that is designated as a point of entry for aliens and U.S. citizens. All district and files control offices are also considered ports, since they become locations of entry for aliens adjusting to immigrant status.

* - Port of Entry immigration / customs search

Finally - no it is not a state issue. It is solely a federal issue.

Now show me state laws dealing with entry into the US that grants authority to state / local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. If you want I can give you the answer - there are no state laws granting such authority to state / local law enforcement. They are federal laws and are federal for a reason. States have no authority in immigration matters.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: howtonhawky

and as I pointed out the Supreme Court ruled 1 year after the adoption of the 10th amendment that immigration belongs solely to the federal government.

Here is your list -

* - 19 CFR 101.3 - Customs service ports and ports of entry.
* - USCIS -

Port of Entry

Any location in the United States or its territories that is designated as a point of entry for aliens and U.S. citizens. All district and files control offices are also considered ports, since they become locations of entry for aliens adjusting to immigrant status.

* - Port of Entry immigration / customs search

Finally - no it is not a state issue. It is solely a federal issue.

Now show me state laws dealing with entry into the US that grants authority to state / local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. If you want I can give you the answer - there are no state laws granting such authority to state / local law enforcement. They are federal laws and are federal for a reason. States have no authority in immigration matters.

I am immune to the bs spin. orielly taught me well.

You my fine friend are doing the nwo spin in conflating CUSTOMS issues into immigration.

Ports are property of the states and they have constitutional right to let in who ever they want. They simply have chosen to delegate their authority to the feds via the means you have laid out. What i am stating to you and have been stating to you is that the power can be wielded at any time by a state by simply growing a set and challenging the feds on the issue.

You see we are not in disagreement except that you are ignoring what i am telling you in the matter. the reason is because it flies in the face of the current system. I get it and understand your points but you would be wise to at the least keep in mind what i am pointing out because it will soon come into play regarding the sanctuary cities.

The feds are not needed regarding immigration in this day and age and let them deal with customs and naturalization as the founders envisioned. Ice in that manner has a very much unconstitutional mandate along with other phonetical agencies. Sure they hold on but only by weak threads.

ignorant ass

tsk tsk

a reply to: howtonhawky

So when presented with facts that you cant challenge you just ignore the facts - check.

Ignorance is a choice. You have chosen poorly. I'll leave you to your delusional world now.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: howtonhawky

Are you sure about that? The constitution kinda disagrees with your opinion.

No the constitution does not disagree with that opinion but some rulings starting in 1950's or so seem to supersede a mountain of rulings that came before.

Think about it...the founders did not like taxes and wrote much about the labor of man being something god gave and how it should not be happening.

Now profit on the other hand is totally taxable.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: howtonhawky

So when presented with facts that you cant challenge you just ignore the facts - check.

Ignorance is a choice. You have chosen poorly. I'll leave you to your delusional world now.

I am not ignoring facts and i could say very much the same about your ignorance and your spin.

If the founders wanted a federal force dealing with immigration then they would have created one.

It was others that done it.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Think about it...the founders did not like taxes

Then why is it specifically listed in the constitution that

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: howtonhawky

Think about it...the founders did not like taxes

Then why is it specifically listed in the constitution that

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

A better question is why was it upheld that labor tax was not part of what you referenced and then a couple court rulings decided to reinterpret the wording to include labor.

Would you like me to list the many rulings through out the years that excluded labor until the 1950's?

here is a sample...

1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of
Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which
is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not
inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their
prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their
highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH
EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF
ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

a reply to: howtonhawky

A better question is why was it upheld that labor tax was not part of what you referenced and then a couple court rulings decided to reinterpret the wording to include labor.

So you selectively accept some court rulings but not others based upon your opinions and bias?

Here's my surprised face

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: howtonhawky

A better question is why was it upheld that labor tax was not part of what you referenced and then a couple court rulings decided to reinterpret the wording to include labor.

So you selectively accept some court rulings but not others based upon your opinions and bias?

Here's my surprised face

Yes i select my beliefs as do you. I try my best to surround myself with facts and not feelings.

You have to be specific as to what you are referring if you want clarity.




eta
really i do not have problems with court rulings unless they change precedence. In all the side topics i have covered in this thread that is what has happened. Call it reinterpretations if you like. Now as to the ruling in the op it is not the case cause it has never really been covered before and the reason is because it has always been a states rights issue and naturalization issue until some judge came along and gave states power to the fed.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: howtonhawky

Excuse me? You think 800,000 illegal aliens are getting citizenship on 23rd?

Your excused...

The process will begin.

Which process to grant citizenship are you referring to?

You are welcome to state your point.

Unless tha trump admin comes up with valid constitutional reasons that those 800,000 should not be legal citizens then they will be able to begin the naturalization process.

If you truly want answers then study up on federal tax payer laws...

Yes, I am aware that I am able to state my point. This is a forum.
I am interested to know what path to citizenship has been agreed for DACA recipients - specifically what starts on the 23rd.
Please be specific on how the deferred action program has been changed to now offer a path to citizenship as you stated. I was under the impression that the judge in question is referring to restarting the DACA program, not changing it, but you seem to have new information...

a reply to: UKTruth

I am aware that I am able to state my point

I was not speaking on your abilities but i welcome your post. nice spin though

I gave you an example of 40,000 getting a green card already. My view of it is that there are several ways a person can get a path to citizenship if they are allowed to stay but the most likely way is through congress after daca is settled. You are correct that daca itself does not include a path to citizenship if that is the point you are attempting to make without ever stating so as far as i can tell. Again once daca is settled then the debate will shift from legalization to a debate about naturalization and citizenship. I did not mean to lead you down a mental path where you thought i was saying daca is citizenship.