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.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.
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.Legal permanent residents have the right of permanent residence. They can lose that right, but not because they do not attain citizenship.
Yes, through expatriation, which is a much stricter scrutiny than deportation.Naturalized citizenship can also be revoked.
Naturalization powers bestow enforcement powers to the federal government, which is why they have actual purview over immigration.The point is that residency is not naturalization, ergo residency and immigration is not an enumerated federal power.
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.So? The feds are free to give out green cards if they wish. That doesn't usurp state authority.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.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.
But, for the purposes of legal compliance, those who are not citizens must.Exactly. It' snot based on getting permission from the federal government to move to a new location.
It's not a choice, if a person is not a citizen they may be removed at any time for any reason.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.
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.Those criteria include the federal immigration process.
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.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.
They actually didn't usurp it, the states granted it with the fourteenth. That's why it is proper for federal enforcement.But the feds have usurped state sovereignty in this regard and prevent states from having their own paths to legal immigration.
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 no gray areas. You are flat out wrong when you say things like "Naturalization is the legal immigration process" It's not.Asylum/refugee, or people who renew their green cards, these are all temporary based upon conditions at the time.There are plenty of legal immigrants who have not been a part of the naturalization process at all.Actually, I'm right, there is only one permanent status for immigrants......................naturalization.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)
As long as the fourteenth exists it's the only thing that does make sense.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.
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.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.