Article 4 section 2. You are pulling stuff out of your ass aren't you? Last time is was Article 1, Section 9 you were touting. You have no ground under you.
Your propaganda and rhetoric does not inspire much confidence in your sincerity. I am glad our Founding Fathers were much wiser.
Propaganda? Well you are incapable of blinding with brilliance and your BS is not baffling. You fail. You have not backed anything up and acted like an idiot.
What part of immigration no longer being a State's right since 1808 is so difficult for you to be moral enough to bear true witness to?
Quit the repetitive double-speak, and explain EXACTLY how you propose to have this done through commerce.
It has to do with the question of whether or not people commit illegalities, even if they are not "jaywalking" across imaginary State lines.
What is diverting about claiming that all of Mexico, cannot be an illegal black market, therefore, some Mexicans must have enough morals to bear true witness to at least some of their laws.
It is only double-speak if you appeal to ignorance instead of a rational argument that begs rational questions. One method of solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, instead of resorting to more arbitrary command economics while not claiming to be truer Socialists; is to vend market friendly work visas on Earth, for the United States. There would be no need to enter the black market, if it were easier to simply purchase a work visa for foreign labor to try their luck in US markets.
I noticed you are resorted to a non sequitur regarding my asking what is wrong with bearing true witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of morals and that form of moral absolutism. This section renders the former States' right of immigration into one of the several United States, no longer a States' right in favor of the general government of our federal Union.
as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, (illegals are not proper to admit) shall not be prohibited by the Congress (this means congress will not stop the states from admitting or refusing them)prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, Hell the federal government is overstepping its bounds in dealing with Arizona. They are within their rights not to accept illegal immigrants and they are within their rights to push them out. Can I lay it out any plainer for you?
The last calendar I consulted, indicated we are way beyond 1808; it is a federal issue, not a States' rights issue, as clearly and specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land. The several States have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state, since 1808. Why do you believe immigration became a federal issue instead of traditional States' rights issue after 1808? Doesn't that imply that our sovereign federal government now has jurisdiction over that matter for the Union? States of our Union are only mostly sovereign within their own State jurisdiction. Why do you believe the several States would not be better off charging ten dollars per importation to ensure commerce is legal within the State and let the federal government do what it does, eventually.
1808 has everything to do with establishing the supremacy of the general government of the Union regarding immigration for the Union and denying and disparaging that former States' right. .
Of course, we are arguing different legal concepts and articles under our supreme law of the land. But, they have not disagreed regarding 1808 and former States' rights.
The ones most likely to not have an ID (a real one anyway) are the illegal aliens. There are a number of groups (each with their own particular reason) who want these illegals here, and who benefit from them somehow. Examples: 1. Businesses hire them for their low wages (cost vs. profit). 2. Democrats consider them a source of VOTES. 3. Churches want them to fill declining/empty pews. 4. Unions want them to replace declining memberships. 5. Hispanics want them for ethnocentrist reasons. 6. US Chamber of Commerce sucks up to the businesses who want them. And all I can say about the whole rat pack of them is:
"Market friendly" work visa ? "Market friendly" to whom ? YOU ? Who is trying to stuff your pockets with more cash by paying out less wages because you know the illegals will work for peanuts ? Have you no SHAME ? What of the 14 million (govt figure) unemployed Americans. What are they to you ? Chopped liver ? Let them eat cake ? Work visas granted to foreigners is NOT VERY "FRIENDLY" to them, now is it ? There should NOT BE ONE SINGLE WORK VISA issued unless it is specifically for a job that no American can do, and I doubt that there very many of those. The US government is already insanely issuing an enormous number (about 150,000/month ?) of work visas for no reason at all, except to suck up to the various special interests I mentioned in Post # All this admittance of foreigners is terribly bad for a country with a population 10 times what it should be. If anything, we ought to be looking for ways to get rid of people, not bring more in. The illegal laiens we have already should be the first one sot be deported in a mass deportation program, like Eisenhower presided over in 1954 in Operation Wetback. Once they're cleared out, and 8 million of the 14 million unemployed could be employed in the jobs those illegals held, then we could take the extra money we'd be saving on welfare losses to illegal families and use it to hire the other 6 million unemployed to government jobs that we are in great need of. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_2/Time_for_an_Immigration_Moratorium.shtml
Does the term market friendly really matter, if it conforms to the theory of supply and demand, like any good supply side public policy should, and generates a positive multiplier effect and that form of investment in the general welfare, that can defay the cost of government. For the sake of argument, a market friendly work visa is that which enables those market participants to better conform to rational choice theory and eliminate a black market via consumer preference instead of the coercive use of force of the State. As a public sector means of production (by public sector intervention and that form of natural public sector monopoly) it can generate revenue via fees and fines; that can be used to defray the cost of unemployment compensation for less efficient native labor that may have less incentive competing in a global economy in the market for labor, especially during periods that engender structural forms of unemployment. We could be solving our illegal problem via the rule of law and that market friendly means, instead of more arbitrary command economics with insufficient glory for the Cause. Why do you object to being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws? Why do you believe we would be worse off if all foreign labor has no incentive to participate in the black market?
I vote that we start with you. After all, what right do you have to be here that is superior to the right of any other?
I think we should let foreign labor subsidize US labor if they want to try their luck in our markets. What would be wrong if US labor has the option to apply for unemployment compensation that also solves for official poverty?
This still does not solve illegal immigration. Why buy a visa and pay taxes, when you can just sneak in here and work for money under the table?
