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 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #101
    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
    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.
    Immigrating permanently and legally has only a few paths. Military service, refugee/political asylum, marriage, and the full naturalization process 3 years all requirements met or 5. Just to make sure I double checked. Anyone not naturalized is not a legal immigrant, and when naturalization is skirted it most certainly IS the federal's power to enforce it.






    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.
    Not false at all, green cards expire or can be revoked, anyone who does not meet requirements is up for deportation. If a person does not naturalize they do not have permanent residence rights.

    Legal permanent residents have the right of permanent residence. They can lose that right, but not because they do not attain citizenship.
    If they can lose that right they are not permanent, they are here at the discretion of the U.S. government. To deport a citizen that person must be expatriated.




    Naturalized citizenship can also be revoked.
    Yes, through expatriation, which is a much stricter scrutiny than deportation.

    The point is that residency is not naturalization, ergo residency and immigration is not an enumerated federal power.
    Naturalization powers bestow enforcement powers to the federal government, which is why they have actual purview over immigration.



    So? The feds are free to give out green cards if they wish. That doesn't usurp state authority.
    We are actually seeing that play out right now, with "sanctuary cities" and states taking it upon themselves to enforce immigration laws after federal refusal. It is possible that states can argue for the right to have resident aliens, however because the powers of naturalization are federal the INS could deport them for non-citizen status, the federal could and probably should win on that for the only reason that it is a federal enumerated power.
    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.
    This depends upon a few factors. If the resident alien of a U.S. state were to move to another state, then it is the purview of that state and the federal government. The only reason it's a federal power is due to the nature of the federal having the power of citizenship.



    Exactly. It' snot based on getting permission from the federal government to move to a new location.
    But, for the purposes of legal compliance, those who are not citizens must.



    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.
    It's not a choice, if a person is not a citizen they may be removed at any time for any reason.

    Those criteria include the federal immigration process.
    Yep. To be naturalized, one must go through federal immigration, to do otherwise means they are not legally compliant with federal law. Unlike many federal laws this stems from the fourteenth amendment, it's proper.

    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.
    Not true. We are residents of states but U.S. citizens, while some argue that the citizenship status gives the federal more power it is not the case, the federal, state, and local all have their enumerated or reserved powers, it just so happens the states granted the naturalization powers to the federal, which means they have to accept all that goes with it.

    But the feds have usurped state sovereignty in this regard and prevent states from having their own paths to legal immigration.
    They actually didn't usurp it, the states granted it with the fourteenth. That's why it is proper for federal enforcement.



    there are no gray areas. You are flat out wrong when you say things like "Naturalization is the legal immigration process" It's not.
    I'm not sure how you can assert this. The only way to legally immigrate is to naturalize or become a resident alien. To be a resident alien in all but asylum cases requires one to be engaging in the naturalization process to stay legally compliant. That's totally false.
    There are plenty of legal immigrants who have not been a part of the naturalization process at all.
    Asylum/refugee, or people who renew their green cards, these are all temporary based upon conditions at the time.
    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)
    Actually, I'm right, there is only one permanent status for immigrants......................naturalization.




    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.
    As long as the fourteenth exists it's the only thing that does make sense.

    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.
    LOL. C'mon Tuck, you know I'm not a big government guy. I'm a constitutionalist, as long as the constitution states naturalization is the purview of the federal it's the law, if there were a constitution keeping natural birth citizenship to U.S. purview and remanding the powers of immigration back to the states I would agree with you.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #102
    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 USViking View Post
    (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.
    He was wrong on all counts, which is why I called him out.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #103
    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
    Immigrating permanently and legally has only a few paths.
    due to the federal usurpation of State sovereignty.






    Not false at all, green cards expire or can be revoked, anyone who does not meet requirements is up for deportation. If a person does not naturalize they do not have permanent residence rights.
    They expire like how drivers licences expire. As in you fill out a form and it gets renewed. It's to test to see if you are still residing here. It can only be revoked for the exact same reasons that naturalized citizenship can be revoked.

    If they can lose that right they are not permanent

    So, using that logic, you don't think that citizenship is permanent, then. since you immediately go onto show that even that can be lost:


    they are here at the discretion of the U.S. government.

    See?






    Yes, through expatriation, which is a much stricter scrutiny than deportation.
    Jesus ****ing Christ La. Now you are confusing deportation with revoking a green card? Seriously, learn about the topic. Your ignorance on the subject is astounding. Either you are being purposely dishonest in your arguments, or you are totally and completely clueless on teh subject.

    Naturalization powers bestow enforcement powers to the federal government, which is why they have actual purview over immigration.
    holy **** what a dishonest argument.



    We are actually seeing that play out right now, with "sanctuary cities" and states taking it upon themselves to enforce immigration laws after federal refusal.
    Yes. And rightfully so. Immigration laws are clearly an unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

    But what we aren't seeing is the arresting of INS agents, which is the comparison to the laws in the OP. .

    It is possible that states can argue for the right to have resident aliens, however because the powers of naturalization are federal the INS could deport them for non-citizen status, the federal could and probably should win on that for the only reason that it is a federal enumerated power.
    Now you are simply lying. Immigration laws are not an enumerated power. Holy ****ing hell. Big government liberalism is one thing, but please stop ****ing lying by pretending the constitution enumerates something it clearly does not.

    It requires one to use dishonest, ignorant, illogical arguments to claim that naturalization grants the Feds power over immigration. So be it. At least have the ****ing balls to acknowledge what it is, though. Do NOT ****ing lie to yourself in order to pretend it is not what it is. It is a ****ing unconstitutional expansion of federal authority by the very same standards you attack obamacare and federal gun control laws on. No dishonest justification arguments prevent that from being the reality.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #104
    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?

    U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    There's a link to the enumerated powers. Not a damned thing about residency or immigration. Only about the rules for naturlization. Now, that interpretive dance you are using as a substitute for logic can be used to justify the expansion of federal power, but it employs the exact same reasoning as the argument that the enumerated power of "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" make Obamacare constitutional.

    It requires one to interpret the words in a way that is incredibly different form what was intended.

    From the Kentucky resolutions: "Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens."

    The same people who are cited for the State Nullifcation argument were clear about immigration laws. Such laws were unconstitutional in their eyes. They correctly understood that naturalization =/= immigration or residency laws.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #105
    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
    due to the federal usurpation of State sovereignty.








    They expire like how drivers licences expire. As in you fill out a form and it gets renewed. It's to test to see if you are still residing here. It can only be revoked for the exact same reasons that naturalized citizenship can be revoked.




    So, using that logic, you don't think that citizenship is permanent, then. since you immediately go onto show that even that can be lost:





    See?








    Jesus ****ing Christ La. Now you are confusing deportation with revoking a green card? Seriously, learn about the topic. Your ignorance on the subject is astounding. Either you are being purposely dishonest in your arguments, or you are totally and completely clueless on teh subject.



    holy **** what a dishonest argument.





    Yes. And rightfully so. Immigration laws are clearly an unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

    But what we aren't seeing is the arresting of INS agents, which is the comparison to the laws in the OP. .



    Now you are simply lying. Immigration laws are not an enumerated power. Holy ****ing hell. Big government liberalism is one thing, but please stop ****ing lying by pretending the constitution enumerates something it clearly does not.

    It requires one to use dishonest, ignorant, illogical arguments to claim that naturalization grants the Feds power over immigration. So be it. At least have the ****ing balls to acknowledge what it is, though. Do NOT ****ing lie to yourself in order to pretend it is not what it is. It is a ****ing unconstitutional expansion of federal authority by the very same standards you attack obamacare and federal gun control laws on. No dishonest justification arguments prevent that from being the reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    There's a link to the enumerated powers. Not a damned thing about residency or immigration. Only about the rules for naturlization. Now, that interpretive dance you are using as a substitute for logic can be used to justify the expansion of federal power, but it employs the exact same reasoning as the argument that the enumerated power of "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" make Obamacare constitutional.

    It requires one to interpret the words in a way that is incredibly different form what was intended.

    From the Kentucky resolutions: "Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens."

    The same people who are cited for the State Nullifcation argument were clear about immigration laws. Such laws were unconstitutional in their eyes. They correctly understood that naturalization =/= immigration or residency laws.
    It;s not an "interpretive dance" naturalization is within the purview of the U.S. federal government.

    EDIT - Few things, you are calling me dishonest for things you are refusing to admit. If the federal has the right to determine citizenship then they are the ones who must enforce it, this is one of the FEW things they actually have the right to do. You mentioned the green card/deportation issue, well, what do you expect to happen if a green card is expired/revoked?
    This isn't an either/or situation. Either the federal is in charge of naturalization, which would include immigration or they aren't. Until the 14th is repealed or replaced the U.S. federal has the duty and power of naturalization, immigration enforcement is a natural responsibility stemming from that.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 06-25-13 at 05:06 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #106
    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
    It;s not an "interpretive dance" naturalization is within the purview of the U.S. federal government.
    Naturalization =/= immigration

    Naturalization =/= residency laws.

    It's an interpretive dance to claim that immigration is an enumerated power.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #107
    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

    Naturalization =/= residency laws.
    Agree with you on part 1 but not part 2. Residency is based upon the naturalization process, only exception being asylum.......well, and guest worker laws since G.W.B. residency still requires that a legal status be granted, not so sure that doesn't fall under naturalization myself.

    It's an interpretive dance to claim that immigration is an enumerated power.
    But it is not, you can't have a naturalization process without immigration, but if immigration isn't assumed to be part of the process then how do you enforce? My point is the two are related.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #108
    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
    Agree with you on part 1 but not part 2.
    your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Naturalization =/= residency laws. that's a fact.

    Residency is based upon the naturalization process, only exception being asylum.......
    Nonsense. Residency is completely independent of the naturalization process. Just because the naturalization process is dependent on residency status does not mean that residency is based on the naturalization process. Student visas, work visas, temporary visas... all of these are legal paths to residency that have nothing whatsoever to do with naturalization.

    Also, you seem to be confusing the legal paths to residency with the legal paths to naturalization. Asylum is merely one of many paths to legal permanent residency (a green card).

    A green card is required to go through the process of naturalization, but so is birth. By applying your logical framework that since legal residency is a prerequisite criterion for naturalization, residency is based on naturalization, we can also say that since being born is a prerequisite criterion naturalization, being born is based on the naturalization process. Obviously, such a logical paradigm is incredibly flawed.

    Residency is the independent variable. It can, and always does, occur in the absence of the naturalization process every single day.

    Ergo, Naturalization =/= residency laws regardless of whether you chose to ignore that fact or not.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #109
    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
    But it is not, you can't have a naturalization process without immigration
    So? You can't have a naturalization process without birth either, but that does not mean that the feds can regulate foreign births.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #110
    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
    So? You can't have a naturalization process without birth either, but that does not mean that the feds can regulate foreign births.
    Actually, among citizens traveling or stationed/working abroad yes they can to a certain degree for citizenship purposes. IOW, that person is either going to be considered a natural born U.S. citizen or possibly under certain circumstances a dual citizen.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •