I thought you fellers might enter this into your Forum Journals so you don't get too far afield when discussing these subjects.
I bring it up now, on this day that will mark the end of the USA as we know it, transformed, as Obama once predicted.
I too have predicted that you will win in the end, and I think it will come sooner than I thought, the surprise Article 42 nightmare will speed it up a bit. I say 80M will be here in 10 years.
TWO items:
""Believe it or not, the U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention health. As for regulating healthcare, many have taken the "promote the general welfare" notion from the Constitution's Preamble as an indication that the federal government can pass laws pertaining to health care"".
https://arrington.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=581
@averagejoe1 saidQuote where the US Constitution mentions "Border". Let me help you out. The US Constitution does not contain the word "border" anywhere within it. When will you stop lying?
I thought you fellers might enter this into your Forum Journals so you don't get too far afield when discussing these subjects.
I bring it up now, on this day that will mark the end of the USA as we know it, transformed, as Obama once predicted.
I too have predicted that you will win in the end, and I think it will come sooner than I thought, the surprise Artic ...[text shortened]... pertaining to health care"".
https://arrington.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=581
Do you even understand how small the nation was when the Constitution was ratified? May 29, 1790 Still 13 states.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat "invasion"?
How can the government throw invasion right into the face of the Constitution?
Get out your Slim Whitman albums.
Oh, wait. You actually think The Big Book of Republican Fairy Tales is non-fiction, don't you?
@suzianne saidThe country's sovereign power to defend it against invasion?
Quote where the US Constitution mentions "Border". Let me help you out. The US Constitution does not contain the word "border" anywhere within it. When will you stop lying?
Do you even understand how small the nation was when the Constitution was ratified? May 29, 1790 Still 13 states.
Oh wait , it says 'protect each of the 'states'; against invasion". Silly me, I messed up against Suzianne. I said the 'country's' sovereign power. There I go using interchangeable words again.
You know, Marauder likes specificity as much as you do.
But don't you think it is OK on the forum to be respectful, give a little leeway to obvious subjects where the meaning and intent of the post is quite clear.
Or, do you think I am dammmit wrong,....that the Constitution is not referring at all to people crossing over our border, invading our border, coming uninvited.....invading? Or what is it? What would our founding fathers call it?
Riiiiiiight. an invasion. But, you can parse all the parlance you want, you are not fooling even the liberals on this Forum.
YOU are giving me the creeps. You WANT these people to pour in here? You all comfy since the govt has you covered?. Why, I know of someone who is drawing in $40k.
@suzianne saidNo invasion.....
What "invasion"?
Get out your Slim Whitman albums.
Oh, wait. You actually think The Big Book of Republican Fairy Tales is non-fiction, don't you?
And you prob believe Biden who says his family got NO money, when evidence was shown yesterday.........................that they have. $10M. Did he lie?
@averagejoe1 saidDon't really know much history, do you?
I thought you fellers might enter this into your Forum Journals so you don't get too far afield when discussing these subjects.
I bring it up now, on this day that will mark the end of the USA as we know it, transformed, as Obama once predicted.
I too have predicted that you will win in the end, and I think it will come sooner than I thought, the surprise Artic ...[text shortened]... pertaining to health care"".
https://arrington.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=581
Here you can read a summary of US immigration policy after the Constitution's ratification and beyond, at the Cato Institute's website:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day#post-ratification-period
As you may or may not know, the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank. It is not a haven for "libs" by any means.
Here's a bit from that link that you might enjoy (emphasis mine):
While Congress lacked an enumerated power under the Constitution to control immigration, in 1819 it indirectly regulated immigration under the guise of safety by limiting the number of passengers that a ship could carry based on its tonnage.
Before 1819, except for a period from 1798 to 1801 when some war hysteria was gripping the nation, generally here's what someone had to do to immigrate to the US and become a citizen:
1) Come to the US.
2) Live in the US for 3 to 5 years (declaring an intention to naturalize at some point beforehand).
3) Pledge allegiance to the US.
Boom. You're a citizen.
This didn't change after 1819, but as the quote above indicates, some gimmicks were instituted to make it a bit harder for immigrants to come over, but once on US soil the three-step procedure above still applied.
@soothfast saidSure no argument.
Don't really know much history, do you?
Here you can read a summary of US immigration policy after the Constitution's ratification and beyond, at the Cato Institute's website:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day#post-ratification-period
As you may or may not know, the Cato Institute is a right-wing th ...[text shortened]...
2) Live in the US for 3 to 5 years.
3) Pledge allegiance to the US.
Boom. You're a citizen.
So, we, heirs to the Founfing Fathers have changed hell out of their wishes. You see, we need to go back to where it was, and esp that Article saying No Fentanyl, and the one saying that aliens cannot vote.
Do you agree?
11 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidIf you're going to take the position of a constitutional originalist, I'm here to tell you the bad news: originally the Constitution outlined no real restrictions on immigration, and gave Congress no real power to restrict it.
Sure no argument.
So, we, heirs to the Founfing Fathers have changed hell out of their wishes. You see, we need to go back to where it was, and esp that Article saying No Fentanyl, and the one saying that aliens cannot vote.
Do you agree?
The constitutional provision that says something about the US government protecting the various states from invasion means, strictly, a military invasion. Immigrants do not constitute a military invasion.
You cannot be a constitutional originalist while simultaneously perverting the original meanings of words in the Constitution.
@soothfast saidWho said anything about immigrants? Was that a word back then. Look up alien, that is the person that Ben Franklin was scared of.
If you're going to take the position of a constitutional originalist, I'm here to tell you the bad news: originally the Constitution outlined no real restrictions on immigration, and gave Congress no real power to restrict it.
The constitutional provision that says something about the US government protecting the various states from invasion means, strictly, a [i]milita ...[text shortened]... onal originalist while simultaneously perverting the original meanings of words in the Constitution.
Let me know where I pivoted.
Soothfast here has informed us all what the Founders were thinking, that the breach of our sovereignty had to be a Military attack or some such. Jesus. And I thought Suzianne was smart!
Soothfast, your time would be better spent with reliving Trump, you will have a LOT of friends! A mob, your favorite.
@averagejoe1 saidI note you failed to rebut anything that I've said thus far.
Who said anything about immigrants? Was that a word back then. Look up alien, that is the person that Ben Franklin was scared of.
Let me know where I pivoted.
Soothfast here has informed us all what the Founders were thinking, that the breach of our sovereignty had to be a Military attack or some such. Jesus. And I thought Suzianne was smart!
Soothfast, you ...[text shortened]... me would be better spent with reliving Trump, you will have a LOT of friends! A mob, your favorite.
In the title of your thread you mention the Constitution, not Benjamin Franklin. What Franklin may or may not have said on this matter is irrelevant, largely, unless you want to expand the scope of germane documents to include the writings of the various Founders, in which case you'll find a lot of them (like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) very much in favor of letting in all comers to boost the population for various reasons.
Anyone with foreign citizenship who comes to the US with the intention of naturalizing is an immigrant. When you speak of the border of the US, you are really talking about who can cross said border and set foot on US soil. "Aliens" may or may not have any intention of declaring an intention to naturalize. If they do not, there is nothing in the Constitution that says -- well, hell, just read the link I supplied above and educate yourself.
@soothfast saidDear liberal person. You want aliens to flow into the USA. You sadly have no idea what it will mean for your grandchildren. Suzianne thinks it is cool, and thinks that she gets points for saying their advent is OK. She probably has no children in grade school.
If you're going to take the position of a constitutional originalist, I'm here to tell you the bad news: originally the Constitution outlined no real restrictions on immigration, and gave Congress no real power to restrict it.
The constitutional provision that says something about the US government protecting the various states from invasion means, strictly, a [i]milita ...[text shortened]... onal originalist while simultaneously perverting the original meanings of words in the Constitution.
The border is Wide Open, and you care not. Check out the Muslim takeover of France. They are not happy. Sadly, some in this forum will likely fit in well with these soon-to-be dependents.
@averagejoe1 saidI think it might be a good thing for the US to suffer an actual invasion just to stop you from abusing the word.
The country's sovereign power to defend it against invasion?
Oh wait , it says 'protect each of the 'states'; against invasion". Silly me, I messed up against Suzianne. I said the 'country's' sovereign power. There I go using interchangeable words again.
You know, Marauder likes specificity as much as you do.
But don't you think it is OK on the forum to be ...[text shortened]... re? You all comfy since the govt has you covered?. Why, I know of someone who is drawing in $40k.
An influx of defenceless asylum seekers and economic migrants IS NOT AN INVASION Joe.
It’s the prelude to an economic boom.
What we did to Iraq was an invasion, what the Kremlin is doing to Ukraine is an invasion. Have another look at your southern border Joe and tell me if you can see the difference.
@averagejoe1 saidWait why do you think the words 'border' and 'protect' are interchangeable?
The country's sovereign power to defend it against invasion?
Oh wait , it says 'protect each of the 'states'; against invasion". Silly me, I messed up against Suzianne. I said the 'country's' sovereign power. There I go using interchangeable words again.
You know, Marauder likes specificity as much as you do.
But don't you think it is OK on the forum to be ...[text shortened]... re? You all comfy since the govt has you covered?. Why, I know of someone who is drawing in $40k.
@kevcvs57 saidan unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
I think it might be a good thing for the US to suffer an actual invasion just to stop you from abusing the word.
An influx of defenceless asylum seekers and economic migrants IS NOT AN INVASION Joe.
It’s the prelude to an economic boom.
What we did to Iraq was an invasion, what the Kremlin is doing to Ukraine is an invasion. Have another look at your southern border Joe and tell me if you can see the difference.
This is a straight copy of dictionary definition. Let us discuss just this, to have a starting point. I say these people are unwelcome, have not been invited. Frankly if they weren't invading, would they not just come in by normal means? You know there are highways, and also walking trails along said highways.
So explain any difference to me, and could you zero in on why they don't come like normal travelers?