Posted on 12/10/2015 3:04:19 AM PST by Biggirl
It’s exactly that “think the person is a danger to US citizens” point that I can’t crack. I understand the general idea of the alleged threat, but seeing as millions of adherents are here without problem, the alleged correlation isn’t proving actual causality. I’m trying to avoid the exact same logic ant-RKBA types use, construing the NRA as a “terrorist organization” (never mind members & their ilk owning 200M guns and 1.2T rounds ammo not causing any harm whatsoever) - the allegation is understandable (from certain axiomatic starting points I don’t share), but the reality makes the imputation groundless.
And yes, I think the staunch refusal of Syrian Christians is severely problematic - if anyone deserves refugee status, it’s them (country being bombed into oblivion AND 95% of surrounding population wants ‘em dead). (Of course, sneaking over the border is grounds for summary expulsion: if you’re not going to cooperate with our law & order, get out.)
But the Chinese Exclusion Act was based precisely on construing “invasion” that way: the total number of individually harmless immigrant workers was adding up to overwhelming local populations, gravely disrupting normal law & order.
As for the Constitution’s role: it enumerates powers granted to the federal government; if not granted, or contrary to explicit prohibitions therein, it’s not allowed.
The ‘argument’ in today’s debacle from the left that controlling immigration is unconstitutional. It is patently not because the Constitution-proper (with amendments) does not cite it.
The entire question is of laws (federal statutes and executive policy) which are not immutable. IOW, they can be easily repealed or modified. Likewise with Executive policy.
What I am saying here is this liberal “Unconstitutional” argument is bullshit.
I generally agree with you, I’m just trying to nail down _why_ it’s not bull$hit.
Remember: we WILL see a Supreme Court challenge to such an immigration blockade. If Trump et al enact it, he WILL have to explain in minute & irrefutable detail why it’s Constitutional - and “freedom of religion” is a powerful counter-argument, especially when only 1-2 justices need be suitably bought/blackmailed.
And from my perspective, only the laws and executive policy re: immigration could be found unconstitutional. The CONSTITUTION says nothing about it. Even the 14th amendment which touches on foreigners isn’t about immigration; it is about those born here by foreign parent(s) AFTER the immigration or whatever has taken place.
This is a non-argument for me. I’m not into word games and interpretations that stretch the heck out of this law or that. The Constitution says what it says.
Precedent 1924 to 1965. NO IMMIGRATION AT ALL>
Hey! This ain’t rocket science, and I wasn’t lying. Just go to your favorite search engine and type in:
immigration 1924 - 1965
You’ll get more links than you have time to follow. And if you bother to READ any of it, you’ll discover that the stopping of immigration was an Act of Congress. And the real gobstopper for all those who are badmouthing Trump is that the Act specifically NAMES certain nationalities that we didn’t want; for emphasis, I guess. No chinese, no italians, etc.
It just shows you how dishonest, or blithering idiots, or both (Take your pick) the bigmouths are who are so high and mightily condemning Trump.
P.S. BTW....The Act, of 1924 didn’t totally stop ALL immigration from everywhere. It choked it down to practically nothing from certain areas; and totally slammed the door altogether on the MIDDLE EAST, for one.
I’m sure Trump will be magnanimous enough to accept apologies from the know-it-alls who ragged him about his position on muslims.
P.P.S. There are those, myself included, who have criticized FDR for not accepting Jews during WWII. Depending how one reads the Act of 1924, it excluded both Jews and muslims. Yes, the majority of Jews would have come from Europe, but they were and are of ME ethnicity. So I’ll have to let up on FDR.
>> There are Federal statutes and executive orders, policy, memoranda and internal regulations doled out to the State Department <<
Yes, but not one of these items is authorized via the Constitution’s delegation of “express powers” to the federal government.
Therefore, they would seem to be unconstitutional.
bkmk
Good point. So if a state like Arizona goes to the federal government and complains of an invasion, the feds clearly have the power and the duty to stop the invasion.
But if a state like California tells the feds that they consider all their illegal immigrants to be honored guests, rather than invaders, where does the federal government derive a right to keep those immigrants out of California?
Seems the feds have the final say on whether something constitutes an “invasion”, at least insofar as it acts thereon. If not the National Guard stopping invasion, then presumably the state has the right to put its own State Guard to work. The feds, being subject to the Constitution, are subject to taking such steps according to the 1stA - in conflict with declaring war based on religion. If that’s allowed, then we’re back at POTUS having power to commence war, literally, against Christianity. Keep in mind: when granting the government the power to act as you see fit, be wary of the government then having that power to act against your interests.
Hey Tucker,
I did go out and read something before posting - it was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States
I thought it was interesting in many ways other than showing that immigration was indeed happening during the time frame you mentioned. It also shows that the level of immigration under Obama has occurred in the past, which surprised me.
Based on that, I thought I’d ask you where you got your facts out of curiosity.
I didn’t accuse you of lying. There’s no need to be rude about my ability to do research.
BTW, I like what Trump is doing to expose the PC crap for what it is, and I think this latest move of his was strategically brilliant.
In the 50s there were thousands of “war brides” who came home with their GIs.
my grandfather supposedly came here around that time. walked across a bridge from canada after my dad was born(funny). during the war he was building tanks at the fords plant in chester and the FBI wanted to verify who he was. The lawyer made up some story cuz i think he came here with my grandmother from ireland in the teens.
my grandfather supposedly came here around that time. walked across a bridge from canada after my dad was born(funny). during the war he was building tanks at the fords plant in chester and the FBI wanted to verify who he was. The lawyer made up some story cuz i think he came here with my grandmother from ireland in the teens.
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.