How the hell is that a naturalization issue? what the **** nonsense definition of "naturalization" have you invented, dude?
Nobody has said that Naturalization isn't under the federal purview. It's an enumerated power. Somebody, however, is under the delusion that immigration is an enumerated power when it is not. I'm debating that person now.
No it isn't. It is an amendment that describes the rights of citizens. Just because the amendment stated that naturalized citizens are citizens doesn't mean it is a "naturalization amendment."
The problem is that you are using invented definitions of words and pretending they are true. the 14th doesn't state anything
about immigrants. Only citizens.
Of course. This is how it has always been.
Of course we do. Without them, our economy would falter greatly. We would have failed as a nation without them. They tend to use fewer resources and break fewer laws than our citizens do, and they contribute hard work and labor for our benefit and all that they ask for in return is the opportunity to work. I WISH
our citizens had half the work ethic and only twice the desire for luxury as immigrants do.
That irrational, purely fictional demonization of immigrants is why people who like to pretend
to support small-government policies will hypocritically **** all over their own supposed ideals when it comes down to immigration laws because they do not really
have the balls to support about small government because doing so in a legitimate sense would mean that, sometimes, you have to allow **** that you don't personally
agree with to be the law of the land.
It's hard to promote small-government principles consistently. That's why the vast majority of people fail at it.
This is a case of you ****ting all over your professed ideology because you do not have the gumption to follow that ideology through to it's logical conclusions even when the logical conclusion would force you to take a position which runs counter to your personal views on a matter.
You are doing this interpretive dance because you are starting from your personal view and then trying to justify
that view in order to pretend it is not
antithetical to your professed ideology.
You have no idea how often I promote the rights of certain states to engage in behaviors that I personally abhor.
Take immigration law, for example. I supported Arizona's law based entirely on the principles I'm discussing here.
I ****ing hate
that law, and I think it is ignorant bull****. I think the people who created it are scumbags who deserve to be flogged. But I support their right to pass such idiocy, despite the fact that I find them to be vile hateful morons, because I am consistent in my ideology. Not my state, therefore it's not my business to get the law changed.
I could easily
take the big government stance you are promoting on immigration because it would suit my purposes greatly. I could decide, arbitrarily, that Arizona's enforcement of federal laws could endanger foreign relations, for example, like the SC did when they decided to usurp State authority in 1875. That would allow me to doublethink my way into holding two contradictory positions at the same time, as so many people do on immigration, but I don't do that because I know that all I would be doing is lying to myself in order to hold a view.
False. People do not have to enter teh process of naturalization in order to obtain a green card. You are simply wrong.
Asylum is merely one path to getting a green card. Once the person receives the green card, they are no different form anyone else with a green card, legally speaking. You seem to be very unaware of the immigration laws in this country.
You are using interpretations and redefinitions in order to justify your big government position. It's doublethink.
The laws which make them "criminals" are unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority to define immigration laws. It is not an enumerated power.
Because the feds usurped state power to determine residency through judicial activism in 1875. That usurpation of authority was unconstitutional, according to the 10th amendment.
Defense ends at the border. If they get in and receive residency permission from a state, the feds need to prove that the individual is a defense risk in order to have authority.
Only in your imagination.