View Poll Results: Is state nullification constitutional?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 38.78%
  • No

    26 53.06%
  • Other/Don't know

    4 8.16%
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #91
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Nonsense. Uniform rules of naturalization do not grant sole authority over determining residency. It's an imense distortion, and utter abandonment of logic, to say that residency should be determined,defined, and controlled by the rules which govern becoming a citizen because one can easily maintain residency with no intention of gaining citizenship.

    The Federal government can say "Yeah, here are the rules for becoming naturalized citizens of this nation. This includes receiving federal permission to reside in the US. If you receive State permission but not federal permission, this will prevent you from being able to attain citizenship." and that'd be fine. But to usurp state authority over their own residency laws and take full responsibility over determining residency? Miles and miles away from an enumerated power.
    I don't see any incongruencies, the fourteenth pretty much establishes immigration rules for the U.S. by setting the naturalization duties to the federal. It then stands to reason if the U.S. is charged with enforcing naturalization then they must be the ones to set uniform immigration policies.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #92
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I don't see any incongruencies, the fourteenth pretty much establishes immigration rules for the U.S. by setting the naturalization duties to the federal.
    Naturalization =/= immigration. You won't see the incongruities if you are ignoring the obvious truth.

    Naturalization means acquired citizenship. Acquired citizenship is not at all the same thing as immigration. It takes an abandon,ment of logic to imply that rules about aquiring citizenship means that you can take total control over something else that is not acquiring citizenship.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #93
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Naturalization =/= immigration. You won't see the incongruities if you are ignoring the obvious truth.

    Naturalization means acquired citizenship. Acquired citizenship is not at all the same thing as immigration. It takes an abandon,ment of logic to imply that rules about aquiring citizenship means that you can take total control over something else that is not acquiring citizenship.
    Naturalization is the legal immigration process, once someone immigrates they are expected to naturalize in order to obtain legal citizen status. Yes, Immigration is the actual act of crossing borders to move to the U.S. regardless of status, but for the naturalization part, to remain here legally, it is a duty charged to the federal. The Federal is charged with removing people who refuse to naturalize or attempt to circumvent the system, which is why, according to SCOTUS and IMO as well the only natural logical conclusion is for them to have immigration authority.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #94
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Naturalization is the legal immigration process
    False. Naturalization is the legal process in which people acquire citizenship (if they are not natural citizens).

    once someone immigrates they are expected to naturalize in order to obtain legal citizen status.
    absolutely, positively, undeniably false. that's just some nonsense you made up and pretended to be true. Don't do that.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #95
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. Naturalization is the legal process in which people acquire citizenship (if they are not natural citizens).



    absolutely, positively, undeniably false. that's just some nonsense you made up and pretended to be true. Don't do that.
    1) Not false, the naturalization process is one of a few paths to citizenship, i.e. legal immigration. The others are political asylum, refugee status, or guest visas. Basically only citizens have the right of permanent residence in the U.S. via the naturalization process. The only way to start that is immigration, documented immigration. 2) Not false by any stretch. If someone is caught here without documented status they are detained and deported, that's why we have INS to begin with.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #96
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    1) Not false, the naturalization process is one of a few paths to citizenship, i.e. legal immigration.
    You are redefining the words into synonyms which they are not in order to irrationally justify a big government position. Don't do that, it's fallacious.

    Basically only citizens have the right of permanent residence in the U.S. via the naturalization process.
    Completely made up nonsense. you obviously do not know anything about the immigration process. When a person is granted permanent resident alien status (green card) they are NOT expected to become naturalized citizens. And non-citizens are granted permanent residency before they are even allowed to seek naturalization.

    Seriously, you obviously do not have any knowledge about how immigration works, La. that puts yu at a serious disadvantag ein this discussion because you seem to have a great many false beliefs about immigration that are not supported by any facts whatsoever.

    2) Not false by any stretch. If someone is caught here without documented status they are detained and deported, that's why we have INS to begin with.
    And that has nothing (NOTHING) to do with naturalization. Immigration is NOT naturalization, despite your repeated attempts to pretend they are the same thing.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #97
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You are redefining the words into synonyms which they are not in order to irrationally justify a big government position. Don't do that, it's fallacious.
    No, I am not, immigration and naturalization are two different things, but naturalization cannot happen without immigration. You can't be a U.S. naturalized citizen of European origin, or elsewhere if you choose to remain in your country permanently. However one can immigrate illegally if not naturalized. It's the difference between the action and the status. However since one must immigrate to naturalize it isn't that far fetched that the power covers the laws regarding immigration.



    Completely made up nonsense. you obviously do not know anything about the immigration process. When a person is granted permanent resident alien status (green card) they are NOT expected to become naturalized citizens. And non-citizens are granted permanent residency before they are even allowed to seek naturalization.
    There's nothing made up, they are not citizens until naturalization, and the green card may be revoked, or otherwise can expire. That person is a non-citizen immigrant, but typically the green card is the first step towards naturalization.

    Seriously, you obviously do not have any knowledge about how immigration works, La. that puts yu at a serious disadvantag ein this discussion because you seem to have a great many false beliefs about immigration that are not supported by any facts whatsoever.
    Immigration is based upon the move to a new location. Naturalization is the recognition of that move as a legal recourse to obtain citizenship based upon certain criteria. There are gray areas in the laws, and lots of them, but I do in fact understand the issue.


    And that has nothing (NOTHING) to do with naturalization. Immigration is NOT naturalization, despite your repeated attempts to pretend they are the same thing.
    [/QUOTE] I never said the two were the same thing. In fact I made it clear earlier that they are an action and a process. However because the process is dependent upon the action it only makes sense that both would fall under the purview of the granted power of the naturalization process. Thus this is one of the few federal powers that would fall under the supremacy clause.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #98
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    No, I am not, immigration and naturalization are two different things, but naturalization cannot happen without immigration.
    So? There can be multiple paths to immigration with only one path to naturalization. The enumerated power of creating uniform laws of naturalization doesn't justify the usurpation of State sovereignty. I'm not saying that state's should have the power to affect citizenship, I'm saying they should have the authority to legally grant residency status.



    There's nothing made up

    False. you completely made up the claim that only citizens have the right of permanent residence as well as your claim that immigrants are expected to become citizens. Bot of those claims are totally false claims.

    Legal permanent residents have the right of permanent residence. They can lose that right, but not because they do not attain citizenship.


    they are not citizens until naturalization, and the green card may be revoked, or otherwise can expire.
    Naturalized citizenship can also be revoked.

    The point is that residency is not naturalization, ergo residency and immigration is not an enumerated federal power.

    That person is a non-citizen immigrant, but typically the green card is the first step towards naturalization.
    So? The feds are free to give out green cards if they wish. That doesn't usurp state authority. Preventing the state's from granting residency to that state to aliens as they see fit, however, does usurp state authority. Naturalization does not grant the feds the authority to remove that power from the states.

    Immigration is based upon the move to a new location.
    Exactly. It' snot based on getting permission from the federal government to move to a new location.

    Naturalization is the recognition of that move as a legal recourse to obtain citizenship based upon certain criteria.
    Completely made up nonsense. First, Naturalization is not recognition of ****. It's the process by which immigrants can become citizens if they choose to do so. This process has certain criteria which must be met.

    Those criteria include the federal immigration process.

    Here's the thing, though. The above would not be changed at ALL if the States had the power to determine their own residency laws. If someone underwent a STATE'S immigration process, it would not affect their status in the FEDERAL immigration process in any way. The uniform laws of naturalization remain uniform. No enumerated power is affected.

    But the feds have usurped state sovereignty in this regard and prevent states from having their own paths to legal immigration.

    There are gray areas in the laws, and lots of them, but I do in fact understand the issue.
    there are no gray areas. You are flat out wrong when you say things like "Naturalization is the legal immigration process" It's not. That's totally false. There are plenty of legal immigrants who have not been a part of the naturalization process at all. In fact, you are 180 degrees form correct in that statement. Federally sanctioned-Immigration (what you are calling legal immigration, but since the laws that guide these laws are unconstitutional, I will call it thusly in this thread) is part of the Naturalization process, but that does not preclude other forms of legal immigration (State-Sanctioned immigration, for example)


    I never said the two were the same thing. In fact I made it clear earlier that they are an action and a process. However because the process is dependent upon the action it only makes sense that both would fall under the purview of the granted power of the naturalization process. Thus this is one of the few federal powers that would fall under the supremacy clause.
    It doesn't make sense to usurp state sovereignty though, because allowing different paths to perform the action does not affect the process in any way.

    Irrational justifications for big government should not be dismissed by using the "it only makes sense that I cannot rationally justify my position" line of reasoning.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #99
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    1) I didn't address you 2) yes they do, because that's exactly what was threatened. 3) You haven't been right on very much here. So this will be our last exchange in this thread.
    (1) Any post is fair game for any member-- you ought to know that by now.

    (2) A threat to do X is not enough to legalize X.

    (3) Actually he was cleaning your clock.

  10. #100
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Welcome to the Ignore List.
    No, please don't ignore anyone here.

    I hardly ever compliment anyone, but you are doing such a good job
    with your well-written and well-informed replies that it would be a shame
    for you to drop out against anyone now.

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •