Myth, seismic monitoring can easily detect tunneling.
The state, local governments and people have no right to interfere in the federal governments handling of the border.
The federal government has no responsibility to pay for the increased expenses or to protect from the increased crime resulting from the federal governments handling of the border. That is the responsibility of the state, local governments, and people who live near the border.
And stop being mean to Kamala.
One of the reserved powers which the states have never relinquished is the original power to protect against invasions and protecting themselves from an unwanted flood of foreign nationals.
The delegated power over naturalization granted to Congress is very limited in its scope and merely authorizes Congress to determine the process by which a foreign national, already in the country, may become a naturized citizen.
The bottom line is “Naturalization” involves the process by which a foreign national, who is in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States.
.
Congress has been delegated a power regarding “Naturalization”, not “Immigration”.
.
Congress has not been delegated a power to force upon any state a swarm of unwanted foreign nationals i.e., immigrants who are not citizens of the United States.
BTW Doug, you participated in THIS THREAD in which I provided documentation concerning immigration vs naturalization.
JWK
…because they are attempting to thwart illegal immigrants from crossing our border. If you believe doing nothing is better than this, then you’re wrong IMO.
3 Likes
I want you to release the real @DougBH and stop pretending to be him. 
1 Like
The technology is certainly there, but is it being deployed? Trump’s wall maybe, maybe not. A thrown together shipping container wall not likely.
The same argument could be made for a vigilante attempting to take the law into his own hand. 
No…one is using violence where as the other is not. If that has to be explained, we’re done. Thanks.
1 Like
Google definition of vigilante justice has nothing to do with violence, although movie depiction of vigilante justice often does.
Vigilante justice often describes the actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so.
No they aren’t. It’s a political stunt used to please conservatives who aren’t paying attention.
Those shipping containers, as implemented, would do nothing to stop illegal border crossings.
1 Like
The poster appears to be a provocateur and playing you.
Is clearly deflecting away from the thread subject as well.
The question is why?
Then don’t pay them any attention.
1 Like
We are simply weighing in on the debate as to the legality and effectiveness of the shipping containers. Our conversation regarding the containers has nothing to do with our view on border security.
Do you believe that Biden’s response should include a statement assuring Arizona that the federal government would take steps to assure that the area Arizona wanted to place these containers would be protected by the federal government at least as well…and then explain how they planned to protect the area?
I think that would have made more sense by a unifying President as he claimed to be when he ran for office than just saying we will sue you.
1 Like
The current liar in chief has no intention to close down our southern border to the flood of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal foreign nationals, nor the deadly drugs flowing across it, both of which is an outright assault on the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
Border States have the inherent authority to protect themselves from the current and ongoing invasion. And, contrary to the belief that Congress has been delegated exclusive authority over “immigration”, the fact is, nowhere in our federal Constitution has such authority been delegated to Congress.
Immigration vs naturalization and Congress’ delegated and limited authority.
What may come as a surprise to many is, nowhere in the text of our constitution is the word “immigration” to be found! As a matter of fact, a review of historical documentation with regard to immigration confirms the limited power delegated to our federal government by our constitution is to set a uniform rule for “naturalization” of foreign nationals who have already immigrated to one of the United States and wish to become a citizen of the United States.
There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.
So, just what was the specific intention for our framers and those who ratified our constitution to delegate a power to Congress to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]? And, exactly what does the power encompass?
According to our very own Supreme Court, “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849). And, the Court’s statement is confirmed by the following documentation!
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 toprevent 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
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States……all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152
And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157
CONCLUSION:
Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . two very distinct activities!
Now, with respect to Arizona’s Southern Border and protecting Arizona’s citizens against the consequences of an ongoing tsunami of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its border, our Constitution states the following:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
I wouldn’t believe Biden, even if he were to make such a statement - which he won’t. The border is leaking like a sieve. Only a concerted bipartisan will secure the border. But we both know that simply isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Anything short of a concerted bipartisan effort, would be just for show, having absolutely no impact. That’s how I view the shipping container border wall. Whether it was tunneled under or whether it was simply avoided, it had no impact whatsoever in stemming the flow of illegals. But it made conservatives feel good, so there you go!
Agreed, 100%
2 Likes
What is it you guys always say about new gun laws? Something about “if it’s not perfect, then don’t do anything!”
Does the hypocrisy never get old?
1 Like
