http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

WTH is a constitution?

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

How is the law unconstitutional? Is protecting our borders against the constitution? If the Feds refuse to do it, then it falls upon the states. I have no problem with Nevada's law whatsoever.

Illegal immigrants aren't protected by the United States constitution... therefore how is it unconstitutional?

BTW, is having to produce a driver's license unconstitutional then? Or a license to practice medicine?

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

You do realize this law is the same as the Federal one.......right?

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

Roberta the brainless freeloader hasn't any idea what is constitutional and what is not.

(04-26-2010 01:43 PM)mlb Wrote:  Illegal immigrants aren't protected by the United States constitution... therefore how is it unconstitutional?

BTW, is having to produce a driver's license unconstitutional then? Or a license to practice medicine?

The Constitution places limits on the actions of the governement. The vast majority of its provisions apply to all people, not just citizens (there are a few exceptions).

You could make a case that, since the roads are provided by the public, the government has the right to restrict access to only those who have approved licenses.

Medical licenses, on the other hand, are designed to limit competition & raise revenues & will eventually be found to be unconstitutional.

For all the strict constitutionalists on here, what provision of the Constitution grants the government the right to restrict immigration?

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

See Bold print... If it were unconstitutional, it wouldn't pass legal challenges

(04-26-2010 03:28 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:43 PM)mlb Wrote:  Illegal immigrants aren't protected by the United States constitution... therefore how is it unconstitutional?

BTW, is having to produce a driver's license unconstitutional then? Or a license to practice medicine?

The Constitution places limits on the actions of the governement. The vast majority of its provisions apply to all people, not just citizens (there are a few exceptions).

You could make a case that, since the roads are provided by the public, the government has the right to restrict access to only those who have approved licenses.

Medical licenses, on the other hand, are designed to limit competition & raise revenues & will eventually be found to be unconstitutional.

For all the strict constitutionalists on here, what provision of the Constitution grants the government the right to restrict immigration?

Medical licenses are designed to assure competence/SOME level of safety, just like Drivers license

as to immigration, most people would argue

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; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

or

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

(04-26-2010 03:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Medical licenses are designed to assure competence/SOME level of safety, just like Drivers license

I agree that that's the excuse they use. I don't agree that that's the way they are designed or function.

Quote:as to immigration, most people would argue

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; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

or

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

I don't think it makes sense to compare the peaceful & legal (as in the case prior to the first immigration laws) migration of people to an invasion, making Article IV, Section quite a stretch.

The reason the founders gave for granting congress the power to regulate naturalization in Article 1, Section 8 (there is no mention of immigration) is because of the confusion that could arise if the various states could set their own rules (see Federalist Paper #42). I can't find any mention of immigration anywhere in the Federalist Papers (no entries in the index or other in other related topics). I doubt the founders, needing all the people they could get, were at all concerned with limiting immigration.

Alternatively, the absence from the Constitution opens the possibility that immigration regulation was a power reserved for the States. Of course, this would create the same problems they were trying to avoid with naturalization.

I know the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the authority, but activist judges have been getting things wrong since our countries inception. I've done a little looking, but I can't find the original decision granting congress the power to regulate immigaration.

(04-26-2010 04:38 PM)jh Wrote:  I don't think it makes sense to compare the peaceful & legal (as in the case prior to the first immigration laws) migration of people to an invasion, making Article IV, Section quite a stretch.

As there is a law regulating how you must register when crossing the border, the illegal crossing is, technically an invasion. Article 1 clearly gives the government the right to establish a law requiring registration for admission to the country.

There are laws describing how someone may enter your property... if they do so in another fashion, would you deny it was an invasion?

Quote:The reason the founders gave for granting congress the power to regulate naturalization in Article 1, Section 8 (there is no mention of immigration) is because of the confusion that could arise if the various states could set their own rules (see Federalist Paper #42). I can't find any mention of immigration anywhere in the Federalist Papers (no entries in the index or other in other related topics). I doubt the founders, needing all the people they could get, were at all concerned with limiting immigration.

What difference does that make? they also never envisioned abortions or a need to regulate hunting or fishing.

Quote:Alternatively, the absence from the Constitution opens the possibility that immigration regulation was a power reserved for the States. Of course, this would create the same problems they were trying to avoid with naturalization.

I know the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the authority, but activist judges have been getting things wrong since our countries inception. I've done a little looking, but I can't find the original decision granting congress the power to regulate immigaration.

Sorry, but it seems as if you believe if the founding fathers couldn't imagine it, it isn't necessary. Do you disagree that immigration and naturalization are related items??

What exactly is your point?

(04-26-2010 05:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 04:38 PM)jh Wrote:  I don't think it makes sense to compare the peaceful & legal (as in the case prior to the first immigration laws) migration of people to an invasion, making Article IV, Section quite a stretch.

As there is a law regulating how you must register when crossing the border, the illegal crossing is, technically an invasion. Article 1 clearly gives the government the right to establish a law requiring registration for admission to the country.

There are laws describing how someone may enter your property... if they do so in another fashion, would you deny it was an invasion?

I was looking for the constitutional justification for congress regulating immigration. Prior to enacting the first immigration laws, everyone entering the country was doing so legally. It's hard to see people doing something entirely legal as an invasion.

Quote:

Quote:The reason the founders gave for granting congress the power to regulate naturalization in Article 1, Section 8 (there is no mention of immigration) is because of the confusion that could arise if the various states could set their own rules (see Federalist Paper #42). I can't find any mention of immigration anywhere in the Federalist Papers (no entries in the index or other in other related topics). I doubt the founders, needing all the people they could get, were at all concerned with limiting immigration.

What difference does that make? they also never envisioned abortions or a need to regulate hunting or fishing.

Immigration and Naturalization are two different things. People are allowed to immigrate without naturalizing (I don't know if the converse is true). Since the reasons given for regulating naturalization had nothing to do with immigration, and Article 1 only mentions naturalization, how does that provide later justification for regulating immigration?

Quote:

Quote:Alternatively, the absence from the Constitution opens the possibility that immigration regulation was a power reserved for the States. Of course, this would create the same problems they were trying to avoid with naturalization.

I know the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the authority, but activist judges have been getting things wrong since our countries inception. I've done a little looking, but I can't find the original decision granting congress the power to regulate immigaration.

Sorry, but it seems as if you believe if the founding fathers couldn't imagine it, it isn't necessary. Do you disagree that immigration and naturalization are related items??

Something is either in the Constitution or it isn't (regardless of whether or not the founders could have imagined it). If they couldn't, and it truly needs to be regulated, then a Constitutional ammendment is in order.

Immigration and naturalization are related, but they are not the same thing. The expansive view that the Constitution granting a right to regulate one thing automatically grants them the right to regulate anything related to it is not one that is typically embraced on this board.

Quote:What exactly is your point?

I'm not making a point, I'm asking a question. I don't see any Constitutional justification for congress regulating immigration. I'm trying to find out what it is.

in·va·sion (n-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of invading.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

home invasion
n.
Burglary of a dwelling while the residents are at home.

Seems appropriate to me to call illegal immigration an invasion.

(04-26-2010 05:51 PM)jh Wrote:  I was looking for the constitutional justification for congress regulating immigration. Prior to enacting the first immigration laws, everyone entering the country was doing so legally. It's hard to see people doing something entirely legal as an invasion.

but it isn't entirely legal and hasn't been for quite some time.... just like abortion and dumping oil isn't entirely legal, even though the Constitution says nothing about it. The Constitution generally assumed arrivals by boat, not by plane or car.

Quote:I'm not making a point, I'm asking a question. I don't see any Constitutional justification for congress regulating immigration. I'm trying to find out what it is.

If you're really looking for an answer, I suggest you take up the issue with a Supreme Court justice, not a blog... What you're REALLY doing is posting an inane academic question... "why"?... when the answer is actually quite obvious. Your choice to deny what the SCOTUS has said... and that is that Immigration and Naturalization aren't just remotely related... they are inseperable in many cases. While cetainly you can immigrate without becoming naturalized, you cannot, except in perhaps the most bizzare of circumstances become naturalized without immigrating. We also have treaties in re extradition which require knowing WHO has entered your borders and from where that we didn't have in 1776. Certainly you wouldnt' deny that Congress has the authority to enter into treaties? Certainly you wouldn't deny that crossing a border shouldn't exempt someone from prosecution from crimes?

National extradition is not a state issue, but a Federal one. States do not negotiate treaties with foriegn countries... even those that border the states.


a "living" constitution requires putting yourself in someone elses shoes and trying to think like they would have... that isn't what we're talking about with immigration. We're talking about how barring being here before the country was formed, one would carry out the process of naturalization (defined by the constitution) without carrying on the act of legal immigration.

The fact that we did not deny immigrants entry doesn't mean we didn't register them. Ellis Island was the entry point. We documented who arrived, whether or not they became citizens

(04-26-2010 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you're really looking for an answer, I suggest you take up the issue with a Supreme Court justice, not a blog... What you're REALLY doing is posting an inane academic question... "why"?... when the answer is actually quite obvious. Your choice to deny what the SCOTUS has said... and that is that Immigration and Naturalization aren't just remotely related... they are inseperable in many cases. While cetainly you can immigrate without becoming naturalized, you cannot, except in perhaps the most bizzare of circumstances become naturalized without immigrating.

If you happen to have the contact info for a supreme court justice & could put me in touch, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'm sorry that you find Constitutional questions inane. You might not care about the Constitution, but most on here at least pretend to revere it. And in any discussion of constitutionality, the right almost always argues that the intent of the founders must be considered. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply here. I fully expected to see "regulate immigration & naturalization" when I checked Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but it's not there. So I checked the Federalist Papers to see if they were using Naturalization as a short hand for both. I could find no evidence that they were. So where did the power come from?

I never denied what the Supreme Court has said. The Supreme Court, sometime in the 1800s (I think towards the later half), ruled that the various states weren't allowed to set their own immigration policy and that it was reserved for the federal government. What I don't know is the specific case or their reasoning (and resoning matters - taking private property & giving it to another private person is still unconstitional, regardless of what the court may say). And if it as clear as you believe, why were the various states making their own immigration laws?

One example of naturalization without immigration is people in acquired lands, either through conquest, purchase, or treaty (had to throw that in for Texas). Unusal yes, but hardly fantastic, and it has happened on several times in our brief history. So neither immigration nor naturalization is either necessary or sufficient for the other. For the first 75 years (give or take 50) of our country, there were no restrictions on immigration while the rules on naturalization were almost immediately adopted, further showing the disconnect.

(04-26-2010 07:31 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you're really looking for an answer, I suggest you take up the issue with a Supreme Court justice, not a blog... What you're REALLY doing is posting an inane academic question... "why"?... when the answer is actually quite obvious. Your choice to deny what the SCOTUS has said... and that is that Immigration and Naturalization aren't just remotely related... they are inseperable in many cases. While cetainly you can immigrate without becoming naturalized, you cannot, except in perhaps the most bizzare of circumstances become naturalized without immigrating.

If you happen to have the contact info for a supreme court justice & could put me in touch, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'm sorry that you find Constitutional questions inane. You might not care about the Constitution, but most on here at least pretend to revere it. And in any discussion of constitutionality, the right almost always argues that the intent of the founders must be considered. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply here. I fully expected to see "regulate immigration & naturalization" when I checked Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but it's not there. So I checked the Federalist Papers to see if they were using Naturalization as a short hand for both. I could find no evidence that they were. So where did the power come from?

I never denied what the Supreme Court has said. The Supreme Court, sometime in the 1800s (I think towards the later half), ruled that the various states weren't allowed to set their own immigration policy and that it was reserved for the federal government. What I don't know is the specific case or their reasoning (and resoning matters - taking private property & giving it to another private person is still unconstitional, regardless of what the court may say). And if it as clear as you believe, why were the various states making their own immigration laws?

One example of naturalization without immigration is people in acquired lands, either through conquest, purchase, or treaty (had to throw that in for Texas). Unusal yes, but hardly fantastic, and it has happened on several times in our brief history. So neither immigration nor naturalization is either necessary or sufficient for the other. For the first 75 years (give or take 50) of our country, there were no restrictions on immigration while the rules on naturalization were almost immediately adopted, further showing the disconnect.

The fact that there were no/few restrictions (I believe we still on occassion deported criminals) doesn't mean that there were no rules whatsoever.

As for annexation, it follows the same rule as the original adoption... and it's a much bigger process to conquer, purchase or make a treaty with people than for individuals to come across the border. CLEARLY the Fed can do that.

I find it inane because you have an opinion that isn't going to be changed by some "person" on a blog. Unless I could point to a line in the Constitution that said... THIS... you'd think it was wrong... and if I could, I suspect you'd have already seen it... so its a waste of time. MOST people, myself included, have their opinions about what the Constitution says and doesn't say.

I believe this law will not stop the traveler problem and will only increase a another failed government bureaucracy in the form of the police state.

I do however take exception to El Presidente Calderon's comments about this law and would like to remind him that Mexico has MUCH more stringent traveler laws than the US and add that he is a corrupt criminal @sshole that has contributed to the flow of people coming from his sh!thole country. If it was not for the economic benefits that the US provides for Mexico they would be no more affluent than the lowest 3rd world nation... If he so damn concerned about his people then I would suggest that he should should do something about the poverty,crime and just simply $hittyness of his nation and refrain from opening his piehole until he can claim he has done something positive for the people that he holds as his slaves. F'ng hypocrite douchebag!!

(04-26-2010 10:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I do however take exception to El Presidente Calderon's comments about this law and would like to remind him that Mexico has MUCH more stringent traveler laws than the US and add that he is a corrupt criminal @sshole that has contributed to the flow of people coming from his sh!thole country. If it was not for the economic benefits that the US provides for Mexico they would be no more affluent than the lowest 3rd world nation... If he so damn concerned about his people then I would suggest that he should should do something about the poverty,crime and just simply $hittyness of his nation and refrain from opening his piehole until he can claim he has done something positive for the people that he holds as his slaves. F'ng hypocrite douchebag!!

You expounded an earlier sentiment of mine in another thread nicely. I think I just posted a short "fyck him".

(04-26-2010 01:46 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

You do realize this law is the same as the Federal one.......right?

Really? The federal law says you can stop someone for no reason if the "look" like they are illegal? I don't think so. That is what the Arizona law says. They must be really good if a person can tell if someone is illegal by just looking at the person. Btw, could you provide proof that you are a citizen if a cop stopped you and asked you for yours?