Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you of the belief that any and all benefits should be given to anybody and everybody who simply shows up and asks for them? There are both federal and state residency requirements, so why should the state or State not care? You miss the whole point of citizenship and what it means, the allegiance owed and given, the sovereignty earned. Illegals are denied such rights and benefits due to owing allegiance elsewhere and can not be forced to give their allegiance to a State not of their own.
You do realize your phrase is only discussing that of slaves and their importation, right? It has no bearing on immigrants, then or now. I fear you use it for your own inept belief that somehow allows all illegals to live here freely and that you somehow believe that that Act makes them "residents" untouchable. I mean, the Slave Act has absolutely nothing to do with immigration and or the claims you are making with the LA officials attempting to allow for their own ideological beliefs of granting some sort of legality to illegal immigrants. There have been immigration laws in place (starting with the Virginia Colony) since 1606, none of which have changed very much to benefit that of the immigrant.
No. What I am advocating for is an actual and permanent solution to our illegal problem through Commerce that is well regulated among the several States. We could be solving it through Commerce and generating revenue from that natural public sector monopoly and potential public sector means of production that could raise revenue to defray the cost of government and lower our tax burden.
I believe your point of view is mistaken. Our supreme law of the land does not only apply to slavery since it no longer exists in our republic, but confirms that only the general government of the Union has any authority over immigration into the US.
No. What I am advocating for is an actual and permanent solution to our illegal problem through Commerce that is well regulated among the several States. We could be solving it through Commerce and generating revenue from that natural public sector monopoly and potential public sector means of production that could raise revenue to defray the cost of government and lower our tax burden.
Article IV of the Articles of Confederation states that already, however it is limited to the "free inhabitants" (which are the persons that the state has already recognized as residents and for all purpose, citizens of said state):
Quote:
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.
We already have a well regulated immigration program. The issue is the persons whom are suppose to use the program fail to do so. They take it upon themselves to bypass and ignore what they themselves think they should not account for. Please explain how to solve it through commerce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
I believe your point of view is mistaken. Our supreme law of the land does not only apply to slavery since it no longer exists in our republic, but confirms that only the general government of the Union has any authority over immigration into the US.
The Articles of Confederation (1781) confirmed that the Federal Government had authority over immigration into the US. Now, what you believe about my point of view and what is, makes no difference, as I have stated how our system is.
I will repeat it for you: Unlawful and non-immigrant persons within the US are not able to become "residents" of the US or of any state, that is Federal Law. All states must abide by it. Many states also have within their own State Constitutions limiting factors of "residence" of the state (the states still hold their power to determine residency; why do you think one must live within a state for a certain period of time before they can apply for that states benefits?). Just because someone is in a state and living there, does not mean that the State or state must recognize them as "residents". It also does not mean that the persons should be afforded any benefits of the state or State.
The LA council has no business in asking that the public library take on the responsibility of issuing ID documents for purpose beyond what the library is intended.
I would agree with you more, if our Founding Fathers had not abandoned the Articles of Confederation for our current, federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
Can you cite where in our federal Constitution any provision is made for States having any authority over immigration into the US or even each of the several States? Article 1 Section 9 confirms my contention. Do you have anything that supports your contention?
Quote:
Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
For your line of reasoning to hold, the several States would have retained customs offices even for US citizens since anyone from out of state or out of State would need to be inspected.
We have a separation of powers for a reason and the several States are sovereign to the extent permitted under our federal Constitution. Federal obligations are enforced by the federal government and State obligations are enforced by the several States. Consider also that the several States no longer have any authority over bankruptcies, either; so, are you claiming they should enforce their own bankruptcy laws as well?
We should be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis through Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, and generating revenue to defray the cost of government. Why do you advocate the fiscal irresponsibility of duplication of public sector services where there is no longer any States' right to do since 1808?
I would agree with you more, if our Founding Fathers had not abandoned the Articles of Confederation for our current, federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
Can you cite where in our federal Constitution any provision is made for States having any authority over immigration into the US or even each of the several States? Article 1 Section 9 confirms my contention. Do you have anything that supports your contention?
You're confusing immigration with residency. I agree that the Feds have control over naturalization, of which immigration falls under, I said so in my first comment. The claim as you made it was in 1808, I said it was in 1781 that states lost the ability of immigration. Please follow along as you are arguing a point that we both agree, it is merely the dates were we disagree. You pointing to a Slave Act and me pointing to the Articles of confederation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
For your line of reasoning to hold, the several States would have retained customs offices even for US citizens since anyone from out of state or out of State would need to be inspected.
Hardly. You fail to discern the difference between "residency" and immigration. As the Articles of confederation state, "free persons" are free to move among the states. This article (IV) alone makes your comment inane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
We have a separation of powers for a reason and the several States are sovereign to the extent permitted under our federal Constitution. Federal obligations are enforced by the federal government and State obligations are enforced by the several States. Consider also that the several States no longer have any authority over bankruptcies, either; so, are you claiming they should enforce their own bankruptcy laws as well?
The several states never had control over bankruptcy, Article 1 of the Constitution. Just like states lost their ability to allow immigrants to become citizens of the state from the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
We should be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis through Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, and generating revenue to defray the cost of government. Why do you advocate the fiscal irresponsibility of duplication of public sector services where there is no longer any States' right to do since 1808?
I see you have yet to explain exactly what you mean with through Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, and generating revenue to defray the cost of government. Visas have costs, do they not defer the costs? Do the prices need to be raised to defer more of the costs? Oh yes, your Globalist Libertarian ideology. I myself am a Classic Liberal, where you Libertarians have perverted my beliefs to suit your globalist views.
You're confusing immigration with residency. I agree that the Feds have control over naturalization, of which immigration falls under, I said so in my first comment. The claim as you made it was in 1808, I said it was in 1781 that states lost the ability of immigration. Please follow along as you are arguing a point that we both agree, it is merely the dates were we disagree. You pointing to a Slave Act and me pointing to the Articles of confederation.
I am not sure how you arrived at your line of reasoning. Even the Articles of Confederation support my contention regarding immigration into the Union as a federal matter and no longer a States' right.
Quote:
and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.
Hardly. You fail to discern the difference between "residency" and immigration. As the Articles of confederation state, "free persons" are free to move among the states. This article (IV) alone makes your comment inane.
If you agree with me that immigration is only a federal matter and no longer a States' right, then why should anyone believe that any State of the Union should have any basis to care, if someone is from out of state or from out of State.
Why is it so difficult to convince our elected representatives to be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws?
I am not sure how you arrived at your line of reasoning. Even the Articles of Confederation support my contention regarding immigration into the Union as a federal matter and no longer a States' right.
Damn dude, the claim you made was it was in 1808, I said it was in 1781, the contention is in the dates and the fact that your Slave Act claim wasn't correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
If you agree with me that immigration is only a federal matter and no longer a States' right, then why should anyone believe that any State of the Union should have any basis to care, if someone is from out of state or from out of State.
Why is it so difficult to convince our elected representatives to be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws?
I see, you still can't comprehend "residency" vs immigration. All states still hold some sovereignty, 10th Amendment, USC. The Fed Gov't doesn't recognize non-immigrants as residents, so how can the states do so? The entirety of your Libertarian argument relies on the simple fact that you don't believe that a person should have to prove status, if they are here, by hook or by crook, who are we to question them? ... Even the Federalists wouldn't agree with you. How about a link to the Federalist Papers which allows for all persons here, no matter status, can be here and obtain benefits reserved for citizens. Here's a hint: YOU CAN"T SHOW IT, IT'S NOT IN THEM, yet you claim to be a Federalist. The Federalists were believers of State Sovereignty, Federalist #42.
Our own laws state that if an illegal person is found they are to be DEPORTED, in this regard I, too, think that our elected representatives should be moral and bear true witness of our laws.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 09-16-2012 at 06:06 PM..
I see you have yet to explain exactly what you mean with through Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, and generating revenue to defray the cost of government. Visas have costs, do they not defer the costs? Do the prices need to be raised to defer more of the costs? Oh yes, your Globalist Libertarian ideology. I myself am a Classic Liberal, where you Libertarians have perverted my beliefs to suit your globalist views.
I am merely advocating that our elected representatives be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws. Our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates a republican form of government in the US and a respect for rights in private property. Social transactions involving mutually beneficial trade in private property tend to improve the standard of living of the market participants involved. It also embraces the concept of Capitalism.
Since, only the general government of the Union has any authority over immigration into the US, it is a natural monopoly unique to that government by the delegation of that power of the People, to our federal Congress. Any natural monopoly should be maximized to its fullest potential in order generate the most revenue. Means of production unique to a public sector could be termed, public sector means of production. There is an already proved business model that generates profit for that sector of our economy. The amusement park business model generates revenue and a profit for those private sector Firms in that sector. When harnessed as a public sector means of production, that revenue potential could be used to defray the cost of government and lower our Tax burden in the process.
In my opinion, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance, at lower prices.
Damn dude, the claim you made was it was in 1808, I said it was in 1781, the contention is in the dates and the fact that your Slave Act claim wasn't correct.
1808 is when that part of our supreme law of the land was scheduled to take effect and be legally binding upon the several States of the Union. It secures federal supremacy regarding immigration into the US and no longer retained as a States' right.
I am merely advocating that our elected representatives be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws. Our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates a republican form of government in the US and a respect for rights in private property. Social transactions involving mutually beneficial trade in private property tend to improve the standard of living of the market participants involved. It also embraces the concept of Capitalism.
Yes, you have parroted this inane paragraph now, over and over. While in theory it sounds nice, in reality it pertains to legal persons living within the US, not illegals, as they are only covered by certain civil law protections and the 5th, 6th, and 14th (EPC) Amendments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
Since, only the general government of the Union has any authority over immigration into the US, it is a natural monopoly unique to that government by the delegation of that power of the People, to our federal Congress. Any natural monopoly should be maximized to its fullest potential in order generate the most revenue. Means of production unique to a public sector could be termed, public sector means of production. There is an already proved business model that generates profit for that sector of our economy. The amusement park business model generates revenue and a profit for those private sector Firms in that sector. When harnessed as a public sector means of production, that revenue potential could be used to defray the cost of government and lower our Tax burden in the process.
In my opinion, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance, at lower prices.
So I 'll ask again, do we need to increase the cost of a visa to enter the USA? Why not expand your theory to include the social costs that un-skilled persons pose upon skilled persons? An un-skilled person costs the Gov't $89K over their lifetime. What of all the social welfare? (Milton Friedman) has even stated that you can't have the welfare state and immigration. Your theory, in the overall picture is, a failure from the get-go. So, how do you propose to get rid of the welfare state and impose on un-skilled workers their portion of costs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like states lost their ability to allow immigrants to become citizens of the state from the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution. 
...
