Bill to punish lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time

[Alaska_Slim]

Oh, BS. NO NATION on the planet permits unfettered, uncontrolled immigration

We did though. So long as you behaved, we allowed people to come & go as they pleased. Fact.

It’s fact that we have had this experience, prospered from it, and that the man who framed our constitution embraced it.

It’s been a right, it works (just look at freer immigration places around the world), and our own Founding Ideology upholds it.

You can regulate it, you can ween out the criminals, but not block innocent people. That’s the difference.
If you’re trying to block innocent people, you’ve gone too far.

[Alaska_Slim]

Except, I was quoting Napolitano, who is a a textualist on the Constitution, and quite familiar with John Locke’s ideas on law.

It’s not that “I don’t get it”, it’s that, you never learned what our Founding Ideology was. He’s applying it, and you’re applying something else.

Something you’re using to reinterpret the Constitution into a grab bag to justify the powers you want. Textualism, the idea that you should apply the Constitution as it meant at the time it was written, calls foul on that.

You twist his words

BS. His report to the Virginia Assembly in 1800, criticizing the Alien & Sedition acts.

Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return, to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens.

He makes a distinction between Alien Friends, and Alien enemies, the latter being citizens of a country we are at war with.

So long as Alien Friends come here willing to express obedience, they fall under municipal law (his claim), and are granted all of the protections the Constitution acknowledges.

The reasoning here used, would not in any view, be conclusive; because there are powers exercised by most other governments, which, in the United States are withheld by the people, both from the general government and from the state governments. Of this sort are many of the powers prohibited by the Declarations of right prefixed to the Constitutions, or by the clauses in the Constitutions, in the nature of such Declarations. Nay, so far is the political system of the United States distinguishable from that of other countries, by the caution with which powers are delegated and defined; that in one very important case, even of commercial regulation and revenue, the power is absolutely locked up against the hands of both governments.

And this is why appealing to “well other countries do it” is futile. We were as a nation designed to be different, from the start.

[johnwk]

Except, I was quoting Napolitano, who is a a textualist on the Constitution, and quite familiar with John Locke’s ideas on law.

Napolitano is a libertarian who ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is adhering to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.______HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[johnwk]

No more catch and release in Florida, illegal entrants to be handed over to ICE

SEE ICE, 17 FL sheriffs announce new enforcement partnership

01/17/2018

”LARGO, Fl. – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced 17 Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA) with various Florida sheriffs that aim to prevent the release of criminal aliens back into the community. ICE places a high priority on enhancing public safety through the arrest and removal of criminal aliens from the United States. However, when an alien is arrested on a local criminal charge, all too often, they are subsequently released before ICE has the opportunity to pick them up from a local jail. ICE’s valued state and local law enforcement partners are being challenged in court for facilitating the secure and orderly custodial transfer of criminal aliens to ICE.”

The article also points out:

“Today’s announcement is about public safety – period. For years, sheriffs have had to choose between releasing criminal illegal aliens from their jails back into the community, or exposing themselves to potential civil liability. Both choices are unacceptable and that is why the Basic Ordering Agreement model being unveiled today is the linchpin in allowing us to faithfully execute our public safety duties,” said MCSA Treasurer and Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri.”

Florida has one of the highest number of illegal entrants in the United States and it’s about time those who are caught breaking the law in Florida are handed over to ICE and then removed from our country!

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[old_dog]

We did though. So long as you behaved, we allowed people to come & go as they pleased. Fact.

This is totally irrelevant. Did you miss the word “did”, It was a choice and not an eternal commitment.

It’s been a right, it works (just look at freer immigration places around the world), and our own Founding Ideology upholds it.

I was unaware that there is such a thing as “our own Founding Ideology” the Constitution was a compact between States of varying cultural and economic interests. You can quote Madison and Napolitano all you want. What part of “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” do you not understand?

I haven’t read or researched the court decision on “right to travel” that you mentioned earlier but I’ll bet my last Bitcoin that it was referring to travel within the United States and is therefore totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Susanna]

“…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

What don’t you understand about the meaning of the above quote? Who are “ourselves”? Who are “our posterity?”

[old_dog]

What don’t you understand about the meaning of the above quote? Who are “ourselves”? Who are “our posterity?”

Susanna, are you replying to me or Slim? I understand the quote perfectly well.

[johnwk]

Fifth Column open border crowds heads exploding over end to catch and release!

.

Our Fifth Column open border crowd’s heads are exploding over Florida and 16 other States putting an end to catch and release, and handing criminal aliens over to ICE.

SWEET. VERY, VERY SWEET!

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[Alaska_Slim]

It’s been a right, it works (just look at freer immigration places around the world), and our own Founding Ideology upholds it.

I was unaware that there is such a thing as “our own Founding Ideology”

John Locke’s theories on Natural law, combined with Res publica.

The American experiment was explicitly ideological, because it was by this idea, that we replaced the need for a King to serve as a conduit to grow governing legitimacy.

The cornerstone of our Constiution was English Common law, and the cornerstone of English Common Law, as espoused by jurist William Blackstone (whose Commentaries were second only to the Bible in the crafting of our law), is Natural Law.

The pieces are all there Old Dog, the text of the Constitution, it’s verbiage, it’s background, the people who made up the influence behind it, and the people who wrote it.

It’s present in our current legal discussion, and it’s current among the jurists who are not living Constitutionalists.

So at some point, you’re just going to have to give up the ghost here, and admit that you’re interpreting the Constitution with ideas that weren’t around when it was made. Ideas that conflict with the ones that comprise it.

the Constitution was a compact between States of varying cultural and economic interests. You can quote Madison and Napolitano all you want. What part of “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” do you not understand?

Ourselves refer to the opening statement, We the People.

And as we just went through, “the people” refers to more than just Americans.

So you’re not getting anywhere by rehashing this same point, with a different word. The Constitution, was meant for anyone who came here.

Natural Law, applies to anyone who is a human being. Otherwise, you are saying rights derive from Government.

If that’s your position, fine, but own up to it.

[Alaska_Slim]

Except, I was quoting Napolitano, who is a a textualist on the Constitution, and quite familiar with John Locke’s ideas on law.

Napolitano is a libertarian who ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is adhering to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.______HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

There is no “documented legislative intent” that gives the Federal Government power over immigration. That power didn’t arrive until the 1880s. So Napolitano, who is a Textualist, remains correct.

[old_dog]

Ourselves refer to the opening statement, We the People.

And as we just went through, “the people” refers to more than just Americans.

WRONG. It reads “We the People of the United States…” It does not read “We the people of planet Earth…” The high court agrees with me and not you.

So you’re not getting anywhere by rehashing this same point, with a different word. The Constitution, was meant for anyone who came here.

And if they came here in violation of our laws they are entitled to due process before imprisonment and/or deportation.

Natural Law, applies to anyone who is a human being. Otherwise, you are saying rights derive from Government.

Still patiently waiting for a clear concise of what you believe Natural Law and Natural Rights are.

If that’s your position, fine, but own up to it.

Why don’t YOU own up to being some flavour of Libertarian Anarchist and don’t ask me to define that term; I find it one of the most bizarre ideologies in existence.

[Alaska_Slim]

Ourselves refer to the opening statement, We the People.

And as we just went through, “the people” refers to more than just Americans.

WRONG.

Back. at. you. The court agreed with me, hence why even illegals get rights under the 5th amendment.

Legals, get everything. Which means we are obligated to treat them in good faith, and to let them in.

Regardless, no one gets to re-decide what the words mean 200 years after the fact. We know what the definitions are.

But instead of enlisting those, you’ve been substituting your own thoughts into this all along, because you didn’t know what the Founders thoughts were, and you didn’t go looking for it before I came along to show them to you.

The thoughts you are substituting for theirs are anachronistic, Hegelian-Nationalist ideas, that didn’t arise until the 1830s. Using those ideas to interpret the Constitution, only demonstrates how out of step with history that viewpoint is.

It’s like a liberal, pretending the Founders wrote “promote the general welfare” as an explicit endorsement of Universal healthcare.

No conception Old Dog, No conception. That’s all either of those ideas would be to the Founders.

[johnwk]

There is no “documented legislative intent” that gives the Federal Government power over immigration. That power didn’t arrive until the 1880s. So Napolitano, who is a Textualist, remains correct.

Baloney! For starters, I suggest you see Article 1, Section 9, wherein Congress is in fact granted a power over migration. This of course indicates a regulatory power does exist in Congress’ hands over migration of persons which the States shall think proper to admit.

In regard to legislative intent, the very purpose of our Founders granting a power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization was to prevent states from indiscriminately granting citizenship to foreigners who may then be forced upon other states. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

Our lawless government officials in California are inviting aliens to come to their state where they are given all kinds of ID which is then used by these aliens in other states who are literally forced to accept these unwanted aliens.

The fact is, Napolitano ignores legislative intent to advance his absurd libertarian beliefs.

Additionally, our federal government is charged with protecting our borders from invasions. Do I have to teach you everything?

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[Pappadave]

BS. No “innocent people” sneak across our borders in order to take advantage of our generosity or overstay their tourism visas because they realize that our way of life is superior to that from which they came.

[Pappadave]

Ourselves refer to the opening statement, We the People.

And as we just went through, “the people” refers to more than just Americans.

So you’re not getting anywhere by rehashing this same point, with a different word. The Constitution, was meant for anyone who came here.

Natural Law, applies to anyone who is a human being. Otherwise, you are saying rights derive from Government.

If that’s your position, fine, but own up to it.

BS. “We the people” refers to the people of the United States…period. It does NOT mean every human being on the planet which would have been literally INSANE, even in the 18th Century.

[Alaska_Slim]

Ourselves refer to the opening statement, We the People.

And as we just went through, “the people” refers to more than just Americans.

So you’re not getting anywhere by rehashing this same point, with a different word. The Constitution, was meant for anyone who came here.

Natural Law, applies to anyone who is a human being. Otherwise, you are saying rights derive from Government.

If that’s your position, fine, but own up to it.

BS. “We the people” refers to the people of the United States…period.

To include denizens, Native Americans, freeblacks, and a whole list of other folks, who were not citizens.

The suggestion it refers to “just citizens” is wrong… period.

[Alaska_Slim]

BS. No “innocent people” sneak across our borders in order to take advantage of our generosity or overstay their tourism visas because they realize that our way of life is superior to that from which they came.

There is no “documented legislative intent” that gives the Federal Government power over immigration. That power didn’t arrive until the 1880s. So Napolitano, who is a Textualist, remains correct.

Baloney! For starters, I suggest you see Article 1, Section 9, wherein

Nope, Slavery:

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/60/slave-trade

In regard to legislative intent, the very purpose of our Founders granting a power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization

naturalization, so not immigration.

Hence why there was no federal immigration law at all until the 1880s.

There’s no way to explain the discrepancy. Immigration, was not a Federal power, but one the courts created.
And even when the courts created it, they cited it as an implicit power, a penumbra.

Ergo, nothing in the Constitution mentions it.

And this settles these points. We’ve already been over them.

The fact is, Napolitano ignores legislative intent to advance his absurd libertarian beliefs.

He didn’t ignore anything, you’ve ignored our jurisprudence, our history, and the difference between naturalization and immigration. All of which he knows.

Sorry John, but you know these aren’t the same.

Even if you wanted to claim it, the courts already made their rulings, and they again, make no mention of this being an explicit power. They would have had every reason to do that, yet they didn’t.

[Alaska_Slim]

BS. No “innocent people” sneak across our borders in order to take advantage of our generosity or overstay their tourism visas because they realize that our way of life is superior to that from which they came.

Shortly after the first federal immigration statute was enacted in the 1880s—the Chinese Exclusion Act—the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are persons, and the Constitution protects all persons from governmental deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process.

History and Jurisprudence say they are “persons”, so they have Natural Rights.

Innocent people become illegals, because we treat them in bad faith. We put them through bureaucratic rigmarole, we deny there’s work for them to do when they can find it within a day, we drag our feet over the course of decades to give them the proper paperwork to stay here.

The only reason you don’t care that the Government mistreats them, is because they aren’t citizens.
If anyone else received the lame *** treatment they do at the Government’s hands, you’d be up in arms.

[Pappadave]

History and Jurisprudence say they are “persons”, so they have Natural Rights.

Innocent people become illegals, because we treat them in bad faith. We put them through bureaucratic rigmarole, we deny there’s work for them to do when they can find it within a day, we drag our feet over the course of decades to give them the proper paperwork to stay here.

The only reason you don’t care that the Government mistreats them, is because they aren’t citizens.

If anyone else received the lame *** treatment they do at the Government’s hands, you’d be up in arms.

Nobody denies they are “persons.” What we’re denying is that they are “persons” with identical Constitutional rights afforded to U.S. citizens just BECAUSE they are presumably human. The courts have consistently ruled that the U.S. government HAS the right and authority to control who comes here. The Congress has been empowered to set the RULES by which people are admitted into this country. Every time the Democrats are in control of the Congress and White House, we get massive influxes of poor, unskilled, semi-literate people–apparently because of the Democrats’ zeal for building a new constituency because they see their grip on identity politics slipping away.

[Alaska_Slim]

History and Jurisprudence say they are “persons”, so they have Natural Rights.

Innocent people become illegals, because we treat them in bad faith. We put them through bureaucratic rigmarole, we deny there’s work for them to do when they can find it within a day, we drag our feet over the course of decades to give them the proper paperwork to stay here.

The only reason you don’t care that the Government mistreats them, is because they aren’t citizens.

If anyone else received the lame *** treatment they do at the Government’s hands, you’d be up in arms.

Nobody denies they are “persons.” What we’re denying is that they are “persons” with identical Constitutional rights afforded to U.S. citizens just BECAUSE they are presumably human.

The only thing they are not allowed, are the positive rights of voting, & running for Federal office. Because those are artificial rights Government creates. All other rights are in play; the Natural Rights everyone else has, and the positive rights that protect them.

Anyone who comes here. That is who these rights apply to.

Why? Because what rights do you have under Common Law? Under Common law, you don’t get an advantage just because you’re a citizen, you get the same rights as a foreigner who does dealings here.

The same rights, the same responsibilities, underlying how you interact with our economic & social domains.

The courts have consistently ruled that the U.S. government HAS the right and authority to control who comes here.

And that is a two-way street. You may manage it, but you must treat them in Good Faith. Because that’s how Common Law treats people.

Meaning you don’t have a right to block innocent people, so long as they submit to the Common Law framework. So long as they do that, they have the same natural rights, and the same responsibilities to continue enjoying those rights, as an American.