New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#26 2018-10-14 18:21:20

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

louis wrote:

Of course you are right kbd. One hopes you have a culture that does not encourage what I would call "adventurous" readings of your constitution. If you want to change your constitution, use the constitutional means to do so. I do certainly object to judges taking it upon themselves to change the meaning of constitutions as understood by previous generations. But clearly judicial decisions in the USA are a "full contact sport".

Saying something has been allowed by SCOTUS isn't the same as it being constitutional.    You guys don't logic well.    If a priest says it's okay to murder someone, that doesn't override the 10 Commandments.  Sheesh.

Offline

#27 2018-10-14 18:26:56

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter wrote:

Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.    In your world, if they say the sky is red, it suddenly is red.  In my world, facts are independent of opinion.

What's embarrassing is that we have people who have been through college who think their personal opinions about the law carry more weight than the opinions of the people we elect or nominate to represent us.  They disagree with their elected government, so rather than change their government to reflect their will, which would be acknowledging the authority of our government, they start claiming that our government doesn't have the authority to make decisions on our behalf, despite all evidence to the contrary.

In the objective world gravity doesn't care about your ideation, nor whether you choose to label it fact or opinion, regarding which way you're going if you jump off a cliff.  Our federal government is a lot like gravity in that regard.  You don't have to believe it has authority, but if you challenge it in any practical way, it'll quickly help you figure out that it's quite real.  For example, the Police don't care about your ideation about the constitutionality of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.  They'll cart you off to jail if you do that and those of us who don't support anarchy will convict you and sentence you to prison for yelling "fire" when there was no fire.

In objective America, SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of laws, not Belter, unless Belter is a member of SCOTUS.  I'm pretty sure Belter is not a member of SCOTUS.  Furthermore, no quantity of non-sentient paper will ever interpret itself, so I'm not too worried about the paper determining what the paper determines.

Belter's Little Pearls of Wisdom: "The Constitution determines what's constitutional."

Ok, Bert.  What does the Constitution say about computers and space travel?  Nothing?  Well then, using computers and sending people into space are clearly unconstitutional activities carried out by our federal government, by their very nature.

Good luck with the prosecution.  Tell them your facts are independent of opinion.  That should go over quite well with a "trier of fact" (a court).

Online

#28 2018-10-14 19:03:16

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter wrote:

Saying something has been allowed by SCOTUS isn't the same as it being constitutional.    You guys don't logic well.    If a priest says it's okay to murder someone, that doesn't override the 10 Commandments.  Sheesh.

SCOTUS determines constitutionality, Belter.  You don't.  SCOTUS has authority to do that.  You don't.

Who gave authority to SCOTUS to interpret our Constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws?

I believe that would be the majority of Americans.  Our form of government is predicated on the consent of the governed.  We keep affirming our consent at the ballot box and the anarchists amongst us keep trying to undermine the institutions that make our country strong.

How's that for logic?

Yes, sheesh.  You don't map well.  I think you need to do a little more work on your maps of meaning.  This feedback you're getting on your ideation should be a clue that the map you're using may have some accuracy issues.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure you'll studiously ignore it, much like those religious fellows you referenced, because you're treating your ideation like a religion.  You thought it, so it must be correct.

Online

#29 2018-10-14 20:19:37

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:
Belter wrote:

Saying something has been allowed by SCOTUS isn't the same as it being constitutional.    You guys don't logic well.    If a priest says it's okay to murder someone, that doesn't override the 10 Commandments.  Sheesh.

SCOTUS determines constitutionality, Belter.  You don't.  SCOTUS has authority to do that.  You don't.

Who gave authority to SCOTUS to interpret our Constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws?

I believe that would be the majority of Americans.  Our form of government is predicated on the consent of the governed.  We keep affirming our consent at the ballot box and the anarchists amongst us keep trying to undermine the institutions that make our country strong.

How's that for logic?

Yes, sheesh.  You don't map well.  I think you need to do a little more work on your maps of meaning.  This feedback you're getting on your ideation should be a clue that the map you're using may have some accuracy issues.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure you'll studiously ignore it, much like those religious fellows you referenced, because you're treating your ideation like a religion.  You thought it, so it must be correct.


Again, only the Constitution makes something constitutional or not.  SCOTUS can agree with the Constitution or disagree with it, but it doesn't change what it says.  The 10th Amendment was clear then, it is clear now.     

You simply believe in mob rules, like any typical statist.   Your thinking is boring, trite and commonplace.

Offline

#30 2018-10-14 20:22:32

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Also, yes, sending people into space is unConstitutional.    NASA requires an Amendment.   Just like the Dept of Education, the very idea of which horrified James Madison, Father of the Constitution. 

“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads.  In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” - James Madison

Yet SCOTUS said "screw Madison, we say it means what he said it clearly doesn't mean"

I'll side with Madison over the usual political idiots on SCOTUS any day.

Offline

#31 2018-10-14 21:18:03

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter wrote:

I didn't say my knowledge carries more weight.  It is simply more accurate.    If all 9 Justices agreed, my opinion becomes meaningless.  But they almost have never all agreed.  So my opinion is precisely the same as any Supreme Court Justices, Founders, Framers and other people with more "weight".  Thomas Jefferson agrees with me.  James Madison agrees with me.  Even the Republican Party in 1864 agrees with me.

You're claiming that the opinion of SCOTUS is inaccurate because not everyone agreed.  Intelligent men and women with different personal experiences and ideas can't disagree about what a reasonable interpretation of our Constitution would be, else their opinions are inaccurate?  Group think at it's finest.

James Madison created Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to our Constitution.

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - The Powers of Congress
Clause 4 - "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"

There it is in print.  Our Constitution gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization.  The literal text of our Constitution disagrees with your assertion that The Founders were for "open borders".  So, no, Madison doesn't agree with you since he gave Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

"In one state, residence for a short term confers all the rights of citizenship; in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one state be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other.  ...  The very improper power would still be retained by each state, of naturalizing aliens in every other state." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers

The same Continental Congress that James Madison was a part of passed a law in 1790 stating that free white men were permitted to be American citizens.  Should James Madison's opinion of who can be an American citizen carry more weight than SCOTUS, seeing as how SCOTUS ruled that immigration laws can't discriminate against who can be a citizen on the basis of ethnicity / gender / religion?

Online

#32 2018-10-14 21:33:58

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter wrote:

Also, yes, sending people into space is unConstitutional.    NASA requires an Amendment.   Just like the Dept of Education, the very idea of which horrified James Madison, Father of the Constitution.

We have people who want to teach creationism in public schools.  The only people not horrified by that idea are creationists.  I may not think much of some of the other things the Department of Education does, but I'm glad we're not allowing states to do that without a challenge at the federal level.

Belter wrote:

“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads.  In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” - James Madison

From that quote, it would seem as if Madison was against establishment of a welfare state.  My principle objections to unchecked immigration stem from the fact that our government has indeed created a welfare state and all these people who come here from countries that refuse to take care of their own citizens seem to think it's our responsibility to take care of them, all evidence to the contrary.

Belter wrote:

Yet SCOTUS said "screw Madison, we say it means what he said it clearly doesn't mean"

Yeah, because if they said "We think Madison knows everything", the only US citizens would be white men and welfare programs that keep people from starving to death wouldn't exist.

Belter wrote:

I'll side with Madison over the usual political idiots on SCOTUS any day.

I think I'll side with SCOTUS in their opinion that immigration can be regulated by the federal government and who gets to be a citizen isn't limited by skin color.  I'm good with both of those interpretations of our Constitution, even if the literal text supporting both interpretations doesn't appear in the Constitution.

Online

#33 2018-10-15 07:13:02

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Your view of the Constitution is literal "creationism".   It's Flat Earth crap.   Mob rules.    Right out of the 1925 Nazi platform.    I'll stick with the Republican one from 1864 when people were more evolved -

8. Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.

Whereas this seems to suit you more -

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

Offline

#34 2018-10-16 00:19:32

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

Let's recap your list of arguments for open borders:

1. the Constitution determines constitutionality (circular logic)

Apart from usage examples, dictionary definitions don't use the word they're defining in the definition of the word for this very reason.  If one never encountered the concept a word was intended to express, then using that word to define the word would presume prior knowledge of the unknown.  This sort of argument is like saying the words written on the paper determine what's written on the paper.  Well, no kidding, but what ideas are the words written on the paper purported to express?  If two people read the paper and walk away with two different understandings of the concepts expressed, then defining the concepts expressed in the paper by stating that the paper means what it means is, well, pretty meaningless.

2. slurs, insults, or demonstrably false claims of racism and xenophobia (personal attacks)

Personal attacks only count as arguments to leftists.  Maybe this tactic works when applied to shrinking violets.  Unfortunately for you, you've stumbled upon someone who won't kowtow to your ideation simply because you called me a few names.  I'll simply keep after you until I get responses approximating something more substantive than adolescent immaturity.

3. claiming that people we should listen to support your argument, despite the fact that they said the exact opposite of what you stated they believed in, both in our Constitution and in The Federalist Papers explaining their thoughts and beliefs on immigration (outright lies)

The Founders were pretty unambiguous in their desire to prevent unchecked immigration and states from granting citizenship.  Several of them expressed congruent opinions about the intent of the previously cited clause in our Constitution.

4. The Republican Party of 1864 agrees with your assertions (something having bean dip to do with our Constitution)

If the Republican Party of 1864 was for open borders, then they likely ignored what our Founders had to say on the topic.  If you're against legislators and judges interpreting the parts of our Constitution that they disagree with in a manner that diverges from what our Founders wrote, then this doesn't seem to be a very congruent argument regarding why it is that our Constitution should be followed.

5. fact is independent of opinion (equivocation fallacy- that you have a personal belief you call a "fact" does not equate it to fact)

Gravity is a fact.  You can use whatever word you want to use to describe the phenomenon, or refuse to express the concept at all, but gravity still exists independent of any ideation about whether or not you believe it exists.  Your interpretation of our Constitution is not a fact, nor will it ever be.  Two reasonable people can interpret expressed concepts differently, with rational and/or irrational ideation on the subject matter.  Our Constitution expresses our Founders core principles and ideas, along with various revisions added by many others over many years.  That said, your interpretation of our Constitution as it relates to immigration seems to run directly counter to that of the men who wrote it.

Nearest I can tell, you seem to lack the ability to generalize and/or have some deep seated belief that our government must express in infinite detail what's permissible in a single document that was intended to express guiding principles, rather than literal detail of permissibility under every conceivable scenario.  The law is used to define permissibility and impermissibility in infinite detail.  I gather that's distinctly dissatisfying to you.  It's virtually impossible for two different people to read a piece of paper expressing multiple abstractions and understand exactly what the writer intended to express when they wrote it, which would be why we have people we use as interpreters for that purpose, however accurate or poor you believe their interpretations to be.

If you have more or better arguments for why America should have open borders, I'd be interested to know about those.  I find it odd that for someone so passionate about their beliefs, no emotional appeal was made.  That would come across as more human than someone asserting authority that's clearly lacking.  If our Founders made statements that supported your arguments about the constitutionality of open borders and you were stating the opposite of what they said, I'd be making the opposite arguments.  This is overwhelmingly about truth in advertisement to me, basic intellectual honesty when it comes to brass tacks, than it is about opposing your arguments.  If you want to simply ignore the parts of our Constitution you don't agree with, fine, and I think there are good reasons for doing that, but make good arguments for doing that.  Doubling-down on the assertions lacking in evidence don't help support your arguments.

Online

#35 2018-10-16 05:52:09

Terraformer
Member
From: Ceres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,800
Website

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Given that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to everyone who is born within the United States, then the constitutional authority granted to Congress to make laws relating to naturalisation pretty much implies that they can regulate immigration, no?


"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony

Offline

#36 2018-10-16 06:43:23

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Terraformer wrote:

Given that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to everyone who is born within the United States, then the constitutional authority granted to Congress to make laws relating to naturalisation pretty much implies that they can regulate immigration, no?


Nope.  The Feds were only ever concerned with citizenship rules, never immigration, until we decided the Chinese were strange and hard working.   Then Democrats made a special racist law against them.    The Founders believed delayed citizenship and voting was the only proper, ethical balance against too many immigrants fleeing their shit countries.  And besides, no State would ever give that level of sovereignty to a distant government, when they had just fought a war against stupid immigration laws from the King.   See Declaration of Independence.

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-16 06:52:00)

Offline

#37 2018-10-16 06:50:33

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

Belter,

Let's recap your list of arguments for open borders:

1. the Constitution determines constitutionality (circular logic)

Does a contract state what is in the contract and what the rules are, or do Judges just get to imagine what it might say?

2. slurs, insults, or demonstrably false claims of racism and xenophobia (personal attacks)

If the shoe fits.  I don't like racists, bigots, xenophobes.  Sue me. 

3. claiming that people we should listen to support your argument, despite the fact that they said the exact opposite of what you stated they believed in, both in our Constitution and in The Federalist Papers explaining their thoughts and beliefs on immigration (outright lies)

Quote the Founders stating ANYWHERE that immigration is a federal responsibility.  Quote the laws they made against it, which will be difficult since that didn't happen until half a decade after every one of them was dead.

Or is this another thing where you just get to invent what they believed without anything in writing?

4. The Republican Party of 1864 agrees with your assertions (something having bean dip to do with our Constitution)

Republicans stated they were for open immigration because some absolute morons decided that maybe open immigration wasn't so good anymore because non-white people started coming.  The more things change.....

5. fact is independent of opinion (equivocation fallacy- that you have a personal belief you call a "fact" does not equate it to fact)

Yeah, except I can quote the Founders and you can't.  I studied the Constitution.  And you didn't.

Offline

#38 2018-10-16 12:16:17

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

Belter wrote:

Does a contract state what is in the contract and what the rules are, or do Judges just get to imagine what it might say?

Were you out sick the day they taught law at law school?

Courts and Judges interpret the meaning of the words written on the paper of those legal documents, which would include contracts.  That process is often referred to as "arbitration".  Why would they call a legal proceeding involving a contract dispute an "arbitration", you might ask?  IT'S ARBITRARY!  It may not be completely arbitrary, but the act of determining what the verbiage of a contract states and its permissibility as a legally binding contract sure is.  Courts also get to interpret the constitutionality of laws.  More legal proceedings involving more people interpreting more paper, as they understand it.  There seems to be a pattern there.

Belter wrote:

If the shoe fits.  I don't like racists, bigots, xenophobes.  Sue me.

As someone casting aspersions on an entire group people on the sole basis of their skin color, it fits you perfectly, so wear it.  Sue yourself, if it pleases you.

Belter wrote:

Quote the Founders stating ANYWHERE that immigration is a federal responsibility.  Quote the laws they made against it, which will be difficult since that didn't happen until half a decade after every one of them was dead.

Or is this another thing where you just get to invent what they believed without anything in writing?

I already did.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of our Constitution says Congress has the power to regulate naturalization.  Citizens are already "naturalized", and I can only guess at who else might fall under the "Rule of Naturalization", but I'm guessing it's immigrants.

Here's your source (James Madison, Federalist 42):

https://www.congress.gov/resources/disp … tPapers-42

Here's your quote:

The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy is so intimately connected with the regulation of commerce, and will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie or be removed into different States, that the expediency of it seems not likely to be drawn into question. The power of prescribing by general laws, the manner in which the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States, where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated, in any stage of the process, within a foreign jurisdiction. The power of establishing post roads must, in every view, be a harmless power, and may, perhaps, by judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency.

When you're done reading The Federalist Papers, read Chapter 16 (Naturalization Law of 1790) of Republican Landmarks by John Sanderson.  In their debate about the law, The Founders expressed a variety of opinions regarding unfettered immigration, none of which support your assertions that they didn't believe it wasn't the responsibility of the government to control immigration and naturalization or that Congress lacked constitutional authority to do it.

Belter wrote:

Yeah, except I can quote the Founders and you can't.  I studied the Constitution.  And you didn't.

I just quoted the person whose opinion you said carried more weight than your own, again.  Maybe you don't like what he had to say, but it's pretty clear to me.

I studied the documents explaining why the verbiage that appears in our Constitution was put there.  The Founders conveniently expressed their opinions about the various subjects in The Federalist Papers.  That seems to be their version of "tweeting" to the American people, but without the character count limitations.

Your argument appears to be with the opinions of James Madison, the opinions of Congress, the opinions of the Courts, and by way of extension, the opinions of the majority of the American people who continue to support Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary.

Online

#39 2018-10-16 16:31:36

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 28,747

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Its more than just one document as it started out since there are so many amendments and individual state constitutions as well that are driving the piles of laws that are not united or universal every to those of the federal level. Its this struggle to create and define America that is where we are at.

I believe even to day the Real ID voter law is not just about voting as its about citizenship and the removal of your rights. There is now another level of attacks on Native american Indians in states with reservations declaring that they are not citizens as they are not on a street address. That a post office mail box is not a physical address...The ability to pay for a post office mail box is about security of your mail and little to do with its physical address of the recipient....

Offline

#40 2018-10-17 16:43:53

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 7,361

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

SpaceNut,

Yes, it is indeed about more than a simple document.  The federal system was created so that concerns affecting more than a single state were adequately addressed by a system of governance that at least attempted some level of uniformity.  There have been lots of challenges to the Constitution and assertions of States' Rights, but the courts have consistently upheld that the laws regarding immigration and naturalization are both constitutional and fair to immigrants who are prospective citizens.

I view immigration as a good thing, but I view unfettered immigration as a bad thing.  I would prefer that the people who come here are a credit to themselves and to the United States of America.  I also recognize that not everyone who comes here will be the next Einstein and great things often come from very humble beginnings.  I'm not at all against accepting immigrants who are down on their luck in the happenstance of the birth lottery, either.  That said, American citizens also have a justified expectation that the people who come here are not felons fleeing justice in their country of origin.  Furthermore, there are limits to the number of people the US can absorb and we already accept more new immigrants on a yearly basis than any other country.  Finally, the people who come here have to come here because they want to be Americans and not simply because "here is better than there".  I don't get the sense that many of the current wave of immigrants, especially the illegal immigrants, understand that.

If we have zero documentation of the fact that a given person was simply born in a given country, never mind criminal records, I'm suspicious of that person simply showing up on our doorstep and claiming they're fleeing persecution.  The reason for the belief is the sheer number of people who have come here illegally for illicit purposes.  Either every other country in Central and South America is so poorly run as to beggar belief, or the people who live there don't want to even try to fix their social and economic problems.  Trying to lay blame at the feet of our nation for every problem on Earth is a fool's errand, as much as expecting us to save them from every unwise decision they make.

Reasonable people must recognize that what they do, who they vote for, what values they choose to uphold, etc, have a profound influence on quality of life.  If the people from Central and South America routinely elect people who prove to be brutal dictators who don't show regard for their fellow countrymen, then perhaps life needs to become so painful for those people that they decide to build a better life or perish from their own ineptitude.  Anyone promising free this / that / the other should immediately be viewed with great suspicion.  You can only be fooled so many times before it becomes painfully obvious that you're not learning.

Anyway, a mere claim is not evidence of anything, nor will it ever be.  However, if the individual in question can be proven to be of good character, then we should accept them as one of us.  There are various ways to do that, but one of the simplest would be showing up to work or school every day, learning American language and culture, and pledging allegiance to the United States of America.

Online

#41 2018-10-18 10:11:46

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Fortunately, the Constitution isn't about "what I prefer".  That's what makes it great.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB