Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train Wreck

[VanceMack]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want enforcement. Both sides have had the opportunity to do so each time they've had power over the last 30 years, and the situation still hasn't been dealt with.

Yet, Arizona DOES...and is willing to do the hard thing...and for that they are labelled racist.

Oh...you wont get me defending republicans on this or any other topic. I completely agree that the republican party especially at the federal level is worthless as the democrats.

None of that takes away from the basic facts. The states and specifically the citizens of the states suffer from illegal immigration. Phoenix has seen a boom in the number of kidnappings for ransom for Gods sake...thugs and illegal immigrants with contacts in that ****hole that is mexico exploit people in this country both legally and illegally. Arizona is dealing with a problem the fed has refused to handle.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

If you're enforcing immigration law, you're enforcing the border. The two activities are one and the same.

Just so we are on the same page then...when LE in North Carolina arrests illegal immigrants they too are enforcing the border???

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Just so we are on the same page then...when LE in North Carolina arrests illegal immigrants they too are enforcing the border???

Yep. Your point?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Yet, Arizona DOES...and is willing to do the hard thing...and for that they are labelled racist.

I was talking about at the Federal level. So far as it goes with Arizona I don't think it's racism, it's a certain measure of xenophobia and a lot of fear-mongering.

None of that takes away from the basic facts. The states and specifically the citizens of the states suffer from illegal immigration. Phoenix has seen a boom in the number of kidnappings for ransom for Gods sake...thugs and illegal immigrants with contacts in that ****hole that is mexico exploit people in this country both legally and illegally. Arizona is dealing with a problem the fed has refused to handle.

Have you ever asked yourself why the Feds have been refusing to handle it, on both sides of the isle?

I have a sneaky feeling it has a lot to do with political pressure from those who benefit from cut-rate manual labor.

Until that situation -- meaning either the employment of cut-rate labor or the ability of such employers to influence Washington -- is dealt with, it won't matter what Arizona does or does not do.

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

If you're enforcing immigration law, you're enforcing the border. The two activities are one and the same.

If you can't show an enumerated power of the Federal Government that allows them to enforce immigration, then that power falls to the States via the 10th amendment.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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 me just the word "immigration" anywhere in the Constitution. (hint: the word is not in the Constitution.... QED, the Fed has no enumerated power over it so of course the States do)

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Go ahead, see for yourself....... the word isn't in there. :lamo

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

If you can't show an enumerated power of the Federal Government that allows them to enforce immigration, then that power falls to the States via the 10th amendment.



Now show me just the word "immigration" anywhere in the Constitution. (hint: the word is not in the Constitution.... QED, the Fed has no enumerated power over it so of course the States do)

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Go ahead, see for yourself....... the word isn't in there. :lamo

Well, then, I suppose you don't know how to read and understand the Constitution. You might want to refer to the following:

• Article I, Section 8, clauses 3, 4, 18 (and possibly 15, depending on your interpretation);
• Article I, Section 10 (which generally makes it pretty clear the states have no import/export control except safety inspections)
• Article IV, Section 4 may also be applicable, depending on your interpretation

My notations with respect to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 and Article IV, Section 4 have to do with the fact that I don't think illegal immigration can be reasonably described as invasion or insurrection, but some people disagree and so I included them in the list.

Regardless, the word "immigration" isn't mentioned in the Constitution because, in the Constitution, it's called "naturalization."

I hope that helps!

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Well, then, I suppose you don't know how to read and understand the Constitution. You might want to refer to the following:

• Article I, Section 8, clauses 3, 4, 18 (and possibly 15, depending on your interpretation);
• Article I, Section 10 (which generally makes it pretty clear the states have no import/export control except safety inspections)
• Article IV, Section 4 may also be applicable, depending on your interpretation

My notations with respect to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 and Article IV, Section 4 have to do with the fact that I don't think illegal immigration can be reasonably described as invasion or insurrection, but some people disagree and so I included them in the list.

Regardless, the word "immigration" isn't mentioned in the Constitution because, in the Constitution, it's called "naturalization."

I hope that helps!

Definitions of immigration on the Web:

•migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there)
•the body of immigrants arriving during a specified interval; "the increased immigration strengthened the colony"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•Immigration is the introduction of new people into a habitat or population. It is a biological concept and is important in population ecology, differentiated from emigration and migration.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

define:immigration - Google Search

Definitions of naturalization on the Web:

•the quality of being brought into conformity with nature
•the proceeding whereby a foreigner is granted citizenship
•the introduction of animals or plants to places where they flourish but are not indigenous
•changing the pronunciation of a borrowed word to agree with the borrowers' phonology; "the naturalization in English of many Italian words"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•Naturalization is the acquisition of

define:naturalization - Google Search

Hope that helps. :roll:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

I notice that you had absolutely no response whatsoever for the several portions of the Constitution which, by the nature of the authority they imart to the Federal government, set aside the control of immigration for the Federal government and NOT the states.

Is there a reason you failed to respond to how clearly the Federal government was put in charge of such things, which rendered completely inaccurate your Tenth Ammendment argument?

Now, as for the dictionary definitions of immigration versus naturalization, is it your argument that, despite the several Constitutinal references I cited to you, that the Constitution gives the Federal government authority over naturalization and not immigration?

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

I notice that you had absolutely no response whatsoever for the several portions of the Constitution which, by the nature of the authority they imart to the Federal government, set aside the control of immigration for the Federal government and NOT the states.

Is there a reason you failed to respond to how clearly the Federal government was put in charge of such things, which rendered completely inaccurate your Tenth Ammendment argument?

Now, as for the dictionary definitions of immigration versus naturalization, is it your argument that, despite the several Constitutinal references I cited to you, that the Constitution gives the Federal government authority over naturalization and not immigration?

Article I, section 8 clause,

3....... I coved that, naturalization is not immigration...... two different concepts.

4.......

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

WTF??????????????

15.....

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

What are you smoking?

18...... there are only 17 clauses in the section. :roll:

•Article I, Section 10 (which generally makes it pretty clear the states have no import/export control except safety inspections)

So now Illegal Aliens are a commodity that can be imported and exported?

•Article IV, Section 4 may also be applicable, depending on your interpretation

Section 4 - Republican government

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.

I agree that the Illegal Aliens are an invasion force and are a real and present danger as far as domestic violence is concerned...... how does this help your case?

Again, there is no federal authority as far as immigration goes.... it is a State right and a State problem.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

I guess we're having a communications breakdown. Since the clauses are not individually numbered, I was using Cornell Law University's layout for counting the clauses. Either I miscounted, or you're not familliar with that layout, so I will explicitly quote the portions of the Constitution I was referring to.

Article I, Section 8, clause 3:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Article I, Section 8, clause 4:

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article I, Section 8, clause 18:

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.

Article I, Section 8, clause 15:***

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Article I, Section 10 (I meant to site clause 2):

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

Article I, Section 10 (I meant to site clause 3)***:

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV, Section 4:***

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.

Now, with those sections and clauses properly cited, please explain to me how entry into or exit from the United States is in any way within the scope of the individual states to regulate.

You'd also have to explain this in the face of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the regulation of immigration is strictly the domain of the Federal government back in 1875.

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

I guess we're having a communications breakdown. Since the clauses are not individually numbered, I was using Cornell Law University's layout for counting the clauses. Either I miscounted, or you're not familliar with that layout, so I will explicitly quote the portions of the Constitution I was referring to.

Article I, Section 8, clause 3:



Article I, Section 8, clause 4:



Article I, Section 8, clause 18:



Article I, Section 8, clause 15:***



Article I, Section 10 (I meant to site clause 2):



Article I, Section 10 (I meant to site clause 3)***:



Article IV, Section 4:***



Now, with those sections and clauses properly cited, please explain to me how entry into or exit from the United States is in any way within the scope of the individual states to regulate.

You'd also have to explain this in the face of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the regulation of immigration is strictly the domain of the Federal government back in 1875.

Funny, I didn't see one instance of the word "immigration" in any of the clauses you quoted........ I'd count that as a miss.

You'd also have to explain this in the face of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the regulation of immigration is strictly the domain of the Federal government back in 1875.

Have you heard of links and quotes to backup your statements?. Try it some time.

Now, with those sections and clauses properly cited, please explain to me how entry into or exit from the United States is in any way within the scope of the individual states to regulate.

Now, with those sections and clauses properly cited it is obvious that the word "immigration" doesn't appear in them.

My argument that immigration is a State right is simple....

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Funny, I didn't see one instance of the word "immigration" in any of the clauses you quoted........ I'd count that as a miss.

Now you're just being silly. There are all sorts of rights and limits on government power that are not explicitly, word-for-word, black-and-white described in the Constitution, and yet the Supreme Court derives them from a combination of the Constitution, intent, common law, and common sense.

The sections I cited went over all the ways in which the Federal government has the power to control comings and goings and interactions with foreign governments. You put those together, and you get immigration.

Have you heard of links and quotes to backup your statements?. Try it some time.

Are you able to ask a question without being so sarcastic that civil discourse becomes all but impossible? Try it some time.

Nevertheless:

The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.

CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN, 92 U. S. 275 :: Volume 92 :: 1875 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

In other words, the Supreme Court decided that the Feds have sole authority to regulate immigration -- not because immigration is mentioned explicitly, but because of all the clauses I cited.

My argument that immigration is a State right is simple....

More like oversimplified, and in contradiction to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Nevertheless:



In other words, the Supreme Court decided that the Feds have sole authority to regulate immigration -- not because immigration is mentioned explicitly, but because of all the clauses I cited.

Maybe you should have quoted all of that passage....

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.

We are not called upon by this statute to decide for or against the right of a state, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad, nor to lay down the definite limit of such right, if it exist.

That case was about a State setting a bond requirement for a certain class of person.... "lewd and debauched women." It was basically a bill of attainder against that certain class of women.

In the second paragraph that I included, the SC set the limits of the Federal government's right to control immigration and that right stops when a State passes a law "to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad"

And that of course is what we are talking about.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Maybe you should have quoted all of that passage....

No, not particularly. What you provided was the logic behind the decision for the particular case before them. The text I provided was the broader-reaching decision which has been cited on pretty much any web site I found on Google which attributes the authority for regulating immigration to the Feds.

That case was about a State setting a bond requirement for a certain class of person.... "lewd and debauched women." It was basically a bill of attainder against that certain class of women.

That wasn't why it was decided that the state lacked the authority to do what it did.

In the second paragraph that I included, the SC set the limits of the Federal government's right to control immigration and that right stops when a State passes a law "to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad"

And that of course is what we are talking about.

There's an absence of legislation by Congress?

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

There's an absence of legislation by Congress?

That is obvious to any thinking person..... or am I mistaken and this country really doesn't have an Illegal Alien problem? And neither does Arizona?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem.

I'm arguing that there's not an absence of legislation.

 

[Crunch]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem.

I'm arguing that there's not an absence of legislation.

I'm arguing that there is a lack of legislation that effectively addresses the problem. :mrgreen:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: Jan Brewer's Opening Statement for the Gubernatorial Debate...OMG, It's a Train W

Oh, that you can argue all day long, and I might even agree with you . . . except that you're still left without a Constitutional leg (either in the text or in a Court decision) to stand on.