I realize that it doesn't explicitly say in the amendment that naturalization is a power, however, and not interpreting mind you the states are bound to the citizenship requirements as is the federal. The reason the federal assumes these powers is because it's an amendment, the constitution most pertains to the federal.
Nobody is arguing otherwise. Immigration is not citizenship. Residency is not citizenship. Nothing in the 14th about Naturalization was new or different than what was already in the constitution except for the idea that state's could not treat naturalized citizens any differently than they treated other citizens. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with immigration, though. Creating uniform rules of naturalization is an enumerated power in Article 1 section 8, so defining who can become a naturalized citizen and how they go about it has
always been a federal power. The 14th had
no effect on that.
Ergo, the 14th could not possibly have had any effect on immigration, since nothing about naturalization changed with the 14th.
Yes, the Congress passes a proposed constitutional amendment, this is the process of asking the states to surrender that power voluntarily, 3/4ths of the states must agree. That IS the amendment process.
Which has nothing whatseover to do with this discussion, because no amendment was passed regarding immigration. No amendment was passed regarding naturalization, either.
Immigration is part of the naturalization process
False.
Yes, it sounds extreme and we aren't speaking to a martial situation, but it is a non-military invasion nonetheless.
I won't even address the inherent hyperbole in your argument, I'll just point out the statement of
yours, which I highlighted, which proves it is
not a defense issue. Doublethink, dude. Doublethink.
Okay, this is fair. Now to throw a monkey wrench into the logic, with gangs like MS 13, drug running(the violence that ensues), traffickers, coyotes(human smugglers), etc. this does become a violence issue, along with terrorists, etc. So yes, there is a defense component in this and this is a rare instance where the federal does in fact have a valid interest in knowing who is crossing borders.
And as I said earlier, repeatedly, if the individual involved is deemed to be a legitimate threat to the nation, it
returns to the federal purview under the defense powers.
I disagree because of the 14th, and yes, I know you disagree that the 14th provides for federal naturalization, but until that is not a factor for interpretation it is what it is.
You are the person interpreting the 14th. It doesn't make naturalization federal, because defining the naturalization process was
always federal. Article 1, section 8. You implied earlier that you knew what the enumerated powers were in this discussion. NOw you ar eimplying that you have no idea what they are, because you seem to think the 14th had something to do with naturalization.
There was no
need for an amendment in order to state that all person's born in the US were citizens. There
was a need for an amendment to ban states from treating one group of
citizens differently from another group of
citizens as far as laws go.
The key word there is
citizens.
Not all Immigrants are citizens, nor are all immigrants required to be on the path to citizenship (aka in the process of naturalization).
There is no way it is false, deportation is a matter of record.
So are gun bans. Logic fail.
Okay, for "not becoming a citizen" granted, people aren't being forced to become citizens, but they have no permanent standing to remain in the U.S.
False. Millions of non-citizens have permanent standing in the US. They are called a
permanent resident aliens for a reason. They have been granted legal residency for an unlimited amount of time. that's permanent standing. They only lose that standing as a result of due process. It does not expire. Even if their green card expires, they can renew it with little difficulty. Much like how your drivers license expires and you just go and renew it without any trouble.
they are here at the discretion of the federal and may be deported at any time the visa expires they may also be deported for commission of any crime, they do not have the same standing as permanent citizens.
think for a second, LA. Think about what you are trying to use as evidence that the federal has the
constitutional authority to control immigration in a debate about whether or not this authority was
usurped from the states.
Now that you've thought about that for a second, explain how saying "This is the way it is" has any ****ing bearing on a debate about "How it
became the way it is".
There is no answer to it, because it's a stupid as me saying "Illinois has gun bans, ergo, gun control laws are constitutional."
Think about it a bit more. I commit a robbery(not going to happen, but for hypothetical's sake) and am arrested, I go to jail, serve time, and return home. A person on visa with no intent to become a citizen commits same crime they can be deported. This is why I gave that example.
Just because the permanent residency is conditional doesn't make it impermanent. It is the indefinite nature of the residency allowance that makes it permanent (stable, unchanging). If a person who is a PRA commits a crime, the law treats that as the choice to willingly relinquish their residency status. They are informed of the requirements for maintaining their green card when they receive it, so the only way that they can lose it is by making the choice to do so.
Ah, but they are. Any country has the right to determine the path to citizenship. As long as the federal is charged with upholding citizenship and the rights therein, it's within their purview to set the standards and thus enforce.
Nobody has
ever argued otherwise in this thread. You've simply attempted to make a false equivalency between that and immigration in order to ignore the fact that control over immigration is NOT an enumerated power, nor is it a power granted by any amendments.
Again, if people are not here legally, they can be deported.
The only reason a person is here illegally is because the federal government stole the power of determining residency from the states. Deportation due to unconstitutional federal laws is unconstitutional.
If a person is going through the naturalization process, they are here legally.
And a person can be here legally without going through the naturalization process (hint: million of pimmigrants are here legally
without going through said process), so that comment is worthless nonsense that has no bearing on the discussion.
But, does that person have the right of residence if they do not have the right to be here?
Depends on what the state they reside on says about it. If the state decides they have a right to residency, they
do have a right to be here. The feds stole the power to determine who has a right to be here from the states via judicial activism.
So then you agree that immigration (which is
not crossing the border, it is obtaining residence in a country other than the country of birth) is not under the federal purview.
I think we're conflating two issues here. The federal has the power to enforce immigration, but no, they do not have the right to hinder a person seeking residence.
I'm not conflating two issues. Immigration
is the act of a person seeking residence. That's
what it is. One must cross a border in order to immigrate, but that doesn't make immigration the act of crossing a border nor does it mean that those who have control over who may or may not cross a border can make a determination about who may or may not immigrate. They can only make the determination of whether or not said person can cross the border, and they can only do that AT the border. If the feds
fail to do their job AT the border, they
lose their
opportunity to make any determination about residency (according to the constitution, specifically the 10th amendment).
The
immigration decision is made by the State, or
was until the feds usurped via judicial activism.
And slight disagreement here, if a person is not here legally, I do argue that the government has the authority to enforce.
The feds do not have the authority to determine if a person is
here legally or illegally. At best (in a constitutional sense), they can charge someone for crossing the border "illegally", but that is charging someone for the feds' incompetence at protecting the border and monitoring people crossing said border.
Under a constitutional republic, yes, when I have to suffer unconstitutional laws because of it, no.
Once you yield on the principles by employing a big government mentality, you are engaging in the very behaviors you claim to oppose and have become your own ideological enemy.
Not what I am saying. Not in the least. The federal has the right to insure that representative to the federal are elected properly.
The respective states are the people who determine the proper way to elect their own representatives. The feds do not have that authority. They have the authority to determine how many representatives come from each state. They ave the authority to determine the way the representatives get split up within a state. There is NOTHING in the Constitution which grants the federal government the authority to ban non-citizens from being given the right to vote. Nothing. Check it out.
It has been
made a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, but that is, too, a federal usurpation of State sovereignty. In the past,
many states allowed their aliens to vote.
I'll take a religious nut over a control freak like Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer any day. But yes, just about all of them are ****ing stupid.
So we're ****ed anyway if the feds continue to have powers they usurped (such as power to determine who is or is not a "legal" immigrant). Idiots will elect idiots as their representatives. And most people are idiots. Just because they are idiots doesn't mean they should not be able to choose their representatives, though.
Keep in mind I'm not calling for anything more than federal elections being done correctly
"Correctly" is determined by the states, as it is
their federal representative. Nothing in the constitution grants the feds the authority to ban aliens from voting for a State's representatives in the federal government. Nothing.
Dude, not making anything up.
You kind of are.
Deeply flawed analysis based on fictional assumptions.