Posted on 12/10/2015 3:04:19 AM PST by Biggirl
I didn't know that. Do you have some reference links, please?
>> I didn't know that <<
Mostly because it's not true. I know people who came over in the late 1940s, became citizens.
Natural inalienable rights, remember? We can’t impose protection of those rights outside our borders, but those inside do/should get them.
Remember: I’m looking for the “bright line” delineating the “enemies foreign or domestic” exemption.
But our gummint can only guarantee those ^natural and inalienable^ rights to the citizens of the USA.
By extension, the USA did not intend to nor to were compelled to protect those same...
...God-given and inalienable rights as described by our Constitution to and of the collective citizens of England in the “Empire” under Geo. III.
ne c’est pas, ami?
If this position was truly intended to be applicable to the peoples-of-the-world, why do we have laws/rules/regulations for immigrants to be naturalized?
Exactly. It seems to me that the Constitution does not give the federal government any power to regulate immigration.
No matter how hard I look, I can't find that authority in the original document or in the amendments. Therefore it appears that control over immigration was one of those unenumerated powers thought by the Founders and by the framers of the Bill of Rights to be reserved to the states, per the Tenth Amendment, which says:
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.
So what have I overlooked? Please explain to me how it has ever been constitutional for the federal government to regulate all aspects of immigration, as opposed merely to the regulation of the naturalization process. Aren't all of our immigration laws and regulations rendered null by a proper reading of the Constitution?
There are Federal statutes and executive orders, policy, memoranda and internal regulations doled out to the State Department, but these are NOT part of the founding document OR its subsequent Constitutional Amendments.
The very key difference is that the former can be undone much more easily - often literally with the stroke of a pen to put it in Hussein’s words. The latter must follow a more rigorous path I’ll bet not one Democrat wants to go down with respect to incoming immigration.
So Paul Ryan is a blathering fool.
Yes, actually. He is. And he is wrong.
Thank you.
It is the meme that when you run out of ideas cry “unconstitutional”. It is used the same way that “racist” is used to shut down anything they don’t want to hear.
They don’t know enough about their own laws to come across as intelligent.
Been shouting this for years. Apparently no one in congress has a clue what Sharia is.
Maybe if we all keep shouting, we can make someone listen. Thr quiet majority has been too quiet, too polite, for far too long.
BTW love your name. My dearest friend is always saying “it’s a hoot.”
“They certainly do not have a ‘right’ to enter the US at their pleasure.”
The question is whether we may, under the Constitution, prevent them for entering _solely_ because they admit to exercising an enumerated natural/inalienable right which _is_legal_and_protected_ for citizens & residents.
Remember, the Obama is reportedly prohibiting entry of refugees _solely_ because they admit to being Christian. Objectively & legally, what’s the difference?
(I _get_it_, I just can’t _solve_ it. There’s a difference.)
I bet all those people in Saudi Arabia about to get their head cut off for bloggin will be glad to know that under the US Constitution, they have the right to free speech.
They should be released any day now...
“It seems to me that the Constitution does not give the federal government any power to regulate immigration.”
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”
Too many immigrants in too short a time (a la Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) may be construed as an “invasion”, likely overwhelming & subjugating a US jurisdiction. As the total number of people _wanting_ to enter the USA seems far higher than our ability to absorb them without detrimental consequences, ‘tis sensible for Congress to set limits, and exemptions thereto, in the interest of forestalling what practically (if not intentionally) constitutes an “invasion”.
I didn't know that. Do you have some reference links, please?
Rush has been saying that for a month or so and I just saw Martha McCallum say the same thing a few minutes ago.
Very limited over rides of existing policy. The congress absolutely shut down mass immigration.
Sarcasm recognized, but you lay the groundwork for a good example.
If a Saudi shows up here requesting asylum due to his sensible exercise of the natural/inalienable right of freedom of speech leading to viable threat of decapitation, our inclination/obligation is to allow entry & residency.
In light of that scenario...
If a Syrain shows up here requesting asylum due to his sensible exercise of the natural/inalienable right of freedom of religion (specifically, as a “moderate” Shiite (as some domestic citizens are)) leading to viable threat of execution (by the dominant & violent Sunni community), isn’t our inclination/obligation to allow entry & residency? or do we say “Shiite, Sunni, yer all Muslims - go away” despite millions of exactly that persuasion living domestically in peace?
In the context stated, that isn’t exactly ‘immigration’. Invasion implies armed incursion, not cultural and demographic imbalance brought on by pure politics for which Obama has been working.
I still maintain, the only immigration-specific constraints are federal statutes and executive policy, both of which are easier to dispense with than Constitutional language in the founding document and its amendments.
I wasn't being serious about the blogger, as you noted. Asylum does not have to be granted if we think the person is a danger to US citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.