As has been pointed out to you by @SneakySFDude, “Congress shall make no law abridging” does not mean the same thing nor carry the same absoluteness as “shall not be infringed.”
Well, at least we have been honest …
When they rape our daughters.
I’m not following you.
The public charge rule was a trump administration rule for legal immigrants.
Measure found to violate Administrative Procedure Act
By an ephor
Not on the merit of the procedure
Irrelevant? They still tried.
It looks would stop the flow of people from wanting to come here, wouldn’t it?
Are you under the impression that this is new or went away?
Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me, might require a convention of states to make clear to some though.
Pretty clear in the first amendment too right?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And yet there are many many caveats and exceptions.
To affect legal immigration.
Means testing for “sponsors” is and always has been a thing. A very extensive thing.
They do. The goverment cannot discriminate.
They didn’t- until recently. Remember the endless Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve threads?
Fiscal conservative huh…ok,
Here is a novel idea, how about the citizens of these countries stay in their respective countries and band together to fix their issues.
I thought the left was again nation building, or are they only against it when a R is sitting in the oval office.
Que the litany of excuses/rationalizations as to why “that won’t work”.
(Hope you don’t say the ridiculous “you can’t yell fire in a crowded room” thingy. )