Arizona governor signs immigration enforcement bill
- Thread starter Lumi
- Start date
And you keep throwing religion around in a thread where we are talking about turning our back on those less fortunate then us.
What does your book say about that?
What does your book say about that?
Seriously why are you getting riled up about that comment.
It says right on the front door here.
THIS FORUM IS NOT MODERATED!
You should be glad not everyone can see it your comments about indians are embarrassing.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
It would help if you had at least a fifth grade education when trying to debate someone. Seriously, learn the fucking language or get the hell out. I bet 95% of Indians can communicate better than you can.
I love it how you use religion as an excuse for murder. Religion is an excuse not to think. I see you have been practicing for a long time. :mj07:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I'm going to make a movie about all these embarrassing comments he has made. He should stick his head in a hole somewhere. He has made a complete fool of himself with his believes. :mj07: :mj07:
For the record I will say this.In our history things have happened that maybe are not right but happen for a reason.
This is hard to explain without offending any race or ones way of thinking. Were the Indians treated unjust yes you can say that,but I believe this country would not be what it is today if the history behind it did not happen.
If the Indians were not disturbed so to speak,there way of life would not of sustained to the way of the world today.God works in mysterious ways.
When I state things worked for the best I truly believe that.Some (not all)methods used yes were cruel maybe even barbaric(you could blame non-government personal for that by the way).
Things happen for a reason.Sometimes even if it seems unfair.That's just how it goes.Does not make it wrong or right,sometimes nature just takes it course.
This is hard to explain without offending any race or ones way of thinking. Were the Indians treated unjust yes you can say that,but I believe this country would not be what it is today if the history behind it did not happen.
If the Indians were not disturbed so to speak,there way of life would not of sustained to the way of the world today.God works in mysterious ways.
When I state things worked for the best I truly believe that.Some (not all)methods used yes were cruel maybe even barbaric(you could blame non-government personal for that by the way).
Things happen for a reason.Sometimes even if it seems unfair.That's just how it goes.Does not make it wrong or right,sometimes nature just takes it course.
I post a parody and you reply with a 400 + page research paper? When did you have time to read all of that? Are you a history major? I am.
I read it, its mainly a book full of stories use to taught lessons.
Most religions have a book like it, its fables that have been passed on from generation to generation.
The problem starts when people believe every line in it and only follow the parts they want to. The parts that are most convenient for them, the parts that they can twist and use it to treat people like shit.
Going against the lessons the book was trying to pass on.
How would you know how the indians would act?
You are reaching on some crazy shit here.
Also again you bring up that god fellow.
I will play along here. God created man correct?
Were indians not considered man? So god was cool with us killing them and treating them like shit because they did not look like what we think god looks like?
How do you rationalize this.
How fucking self righteous and uneducated you are.
I'm glad you posted this.I don't believe anything you said,but that's ok.I am a christian,a believer.
In case you didn't know we believe everything that pertains to the bible.We believe that through grace,not works is the road to salvation.
I am offended by your comments buts that's ok.
You are entitled to your opinion.I don't believe just part in the bible.If you read the old and new testament they are connected .
So to say I believe in just parts of it would make me a non-believer.I hope this gives you a better understanding of salvation,but I doubt it.
I don't know the answer to that.I think its just man being man,the flesh so to speak.To follow in Gods ways are not easy.
God killing his own people ,now that's tough to understand ,I agree.Joshua ,when he crossed the Jordan was given GODS help to the point of nations being wiped out so Israel could have the land.
I know its hard to understand,and to a point it is.All I know is things happen for a reason.
Got it you are just another incredibly large hypocrite.
So these words mean nothing to you?
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Look heres one where god gets pissed about not helping those less fortunate.
Jer. 5:28f. "[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?"
So why thouist you goeth against thyne lordeth?
Why do you throw your religous faith around when you actions and words are anything but christianlike?
But you are better then us because you go to church once in a while you have read parts of the book. That allows you to go against the lords commandments about helping those worse off than you. That allows you to justify murders as gods work.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
They pick and choose what they want out of the bible and ignore the rest. Nothing but hypocrites. Do you really think Jesus is for a little ethnic cleansing? Not to mention these bible thumpers are the ones who are always against helping the less fortunate. Its a fucking joke.
Immigration and Naturalization
Immigration and Naturalization
Immigration and Naturalization
By Michael Boldin
Immigration and Naturalization
Immigration and Naturalization
By Michael Boldin
Over the last couple days, I've received a number of emails about Arizona's new immigration law --
and thought it was worthy of some constitutional consideration.
To start -- we must keep adherence to the 10th Amendment as a top priority. This means that the
federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that we the people of the several
states delegated to it in the Constitution. . .and nothing more. These are often called the
enumerated powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to
"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" -- or, more simply stated, to make universal rules about
giving foreign-born residents of the United States the "privileges of native" born residents.
The most important thing to consider at this point are the words "immigration" and "naturalization"
themselves. While most of us would consider them strongly related, we have to keep in mind that in
any 18th Century law dictionary, they would have been seen as two wholly different words, with two
separate meanings.
And, if like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean the exact same thing today as
they meant the moment it was signed (barring amendments, of course), it's imperative that we
understand the meanings of such words at the time of the founding.
For example, a common 18th century definition of naturalization was "The act of investing aliens
with the privileges of native subjects", while emigrate had a common meaning of "to move from one
place to another."
Such a delegated power over ?naturalization" then, does not specifically address the power over
immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the
common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause) to find
authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was
considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the
delegated power over naturalization.
But, I'm sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I'm all ears! Otherwise, such power
is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments
or not -- as they see fit.
and thought it was worthy of some constitutional consideration.
To start -- we must keep adherence to the 10th Amendment as a top priority. This means that the
federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that we the people of the several
states delegated to it in the Constitution. . .and nothing more. These are often called the
enumerated powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to
"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" -- or, more simply stated, to make universal rules about
giving foreign-born residents of the United States the "privileges of native" born residents.
The most important thing to consider at this point are the words "immigration" and "naturalization"
themselves. While most of us would consider them strongly related, we have to keep in mind that in
any 18th Century law dictionary, they would have been seen as two wholly different words, with two
separate meanings.
And, if like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean the exact same thing today as
they meant the moment it was signed (barring amendments, of course), it's imperative that we
understand the meanings of such words at the time of the founding.
For example, a common 18th century definition of naturalization was "The act of investing aliens
with the privileges of native subjects", while emigrate had a common meaning of "to move from one
place to another."
Such a delegated power over ?naturalization" then, does not specifically address the power over
immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the
common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause) to find
authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was
considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the
delegated power over naturalization.
But, I'm sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I'm all ears! Otherwise, such power
is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments
or not -- as they see fit.
If this analysis is correct, then Arizona's new immigration law would be acceptable under the federal
constitution. It would then need to be scrutinized for compliance under the Arizona State
Constitution (which I have heard almost no mention of in this debate).
At the same time, if my state of California (or any other state for that matter) were to then pass a
law allowing more immigration than what Arizona or D.C. or anyone else has allowed, this would
also be acceptable under the Constitution -- and then would need to be scrutinized for compliance
under the State Constitution of that state.
Such ?marketplace competition" between states would certainly allow us to see which policy worked
best, not only for the economy, but for the amount of freedom vs restriction that people want in their
lives. That's the system that was set up by the founders and ratifiers under the Constitution. It's
called federalism.
The key, of course, would be to remove any federal funding of social programs for people who
weren't ?naturalized" under the rules of the federal government. (discussions on the constitutionality
of those programs aside for the time being) States, however, could enact their own social programs
should they choose -- or none at all.
There is one other extremely important point in all this -- just because something is ?constitutional"
does not mean it's good policy.constitution. It would then need to be scrutinized for compliance under the Arizona State
Constitution (which I have heard almost no mention of in this debate).
At the same time, if my state of California (or any other state for that matter) were to then pass a
law allowing more immigration than what Arizona or D.C. or anyone else has allowed, this would
also be acceptable under the Constitution -- and then would need to be scrutinized for compliance
under the State Constitution of that state.
Such ?marketplace competition" between states would certainly allow us to see which policy worked
best, not only for the economy, but for the amount of freedom vs restriction that people want in their
lives. That's the system that was set up by the founders and ratifiers under the Constitution. It's
called federalism.
The key, of course, would be to remove any federal funding of social programs for people who
weren't ?naturalized" under the rules of the federal government. (discussions on the constitutionality
of those programs aside for the time being) States, however, could enact their own social programs
should they choose -- or none at all.
There is one other extremely important point in all this -- just because something is ?constitutional"
Copyright ? 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
I attend church on a regular basis.I am a member of my church.I do the reading periodically.I am a believer .I practice the faith.This does not make me perfect.In fact my sin is what draws me closer to Christ in the hope of being more Christ like.
As far a immigration.As long as there here legally and putting into the system,I am all for it.
Now if there here illegally and freeloading off the system,yes I have a problem with that.
