quote:


Problem is that if we let everyone in who wants in, and let them in right now we would have to large a segment of the population that would try to change us into a different country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

No need to tell me, you are preaching to the choir.

I have known what is going on for years and years.

I am just saying make it fair and let everyone in the world come here.

CNN- Long waits for legal immigration

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

FR

Ann Coulter Introduces Donald Trump at Iowa Speech, 2016 Presidential Campaign Rally 8

Video worth watching

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


BTW.....I see sanity u did not answer My query

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity




Grow up some and learn to address the topic and we might consider your posts worthy of a response

Some swordplay is fine but all you are capable of are childish insults, therefore reading your posts a waste of everyones time

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Why not send Trump off to fight IS in Iraq? Or even better, negotiate with them. Both of them have bad hair fetishes, so there wouldn't be too much trouble finding common ground. Who knows, if the Mop brings the right hair products as gifts, he could generate some serious goodwill ......

I can see the GOP warming to this idea....... or any idea that gets Trump off their hands before the human wrecking ball screws it up for the GOP forever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity




Grow up some and learn to address the topic and we might consider your posts worthy of a response

Some swordplay is fine but all you are capable of are childish insults, therefore reading your posts a waste of everyones time

Is that the royal WE? or your imaginary fraternity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Why not send Trump off to fight IS in Iraq? Or even better, negotiate with them. Both of them have bad hair fetishes, so there wouldn't be too much trouble finding common ground. Who knows, if the Mop brings the right hair products as gifts, he could generate some serious goodwill ......

I can see the GOP warming to this idea....... or any idea that gets Trump off their hands before the human wrecking ball screws it up for the GOP forever.

Here the other day YOU were defending ISIS, wailing about how horrible it would be werent they in Syria / Iraq to govern the territory they hold...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

With the mods blessing.

quote:

quote:
ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:
1. The Naturalization Act of 1790 didn't last very long. It was superceded by the one in 1795, and the one in 1798, and the one in 1802.
Since none of them changed the status of blacks, what is your point?
You fell back on the Naturalization Act of 1790 for credence to your claim that immigration was limited in 1868, making blacks illegal immigrants. Obviously, if the Act wasn't even in force in 1795, it wasn't in force in 1868. Nice googling, but try comprehension next time.

quote:

The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

quote:
quote:
2. Limiting naturalization is not the same as limiting immigration.
Tourist are not immigrants. Immigrants had a protocol to follow to naturalization. This starts with the naturalization act or 1790.
You're comment in no way refutes my statement that naturalization and immigration aren't the same.

Since I never said they were I fail to see your point.

quote:

quote:

Since the Naturalization Acts were about naturalization and not immigration, they don't apply in this thread.

The immigration and naturalization act of 1802 requires the names and all particulars of those who enter the U.S.. Upon completion of this form the immigrant was given a receipt which was dated so that they would have a record of the date they entered to prove that they had been here 5 years before they could apply for naturalization. So, yes in contradiction of your assertion that the U.S. had no immigration and naturalization policies before you are clearly mistaken.

quote:

No results found for "immigration and naturalization act of 1802".
Results for immigration and naturalization act of 1802 (without quotes):

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

quote:
quote:
3. You failed on that one.
I have proved that blacks were precluded from citizenship.
No you didn't.

It is stated quite clearly in the naturalization acts cited that immigration was limited to white people.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Sorry. You asked how a bill's intent and how it's written could oppose each other. And, I gave you a very clear, and recent, example.

Since SCOTUS did not write the bill it would be impossible for them to know the intent. The best they can hope for is to infer. The records of the debates re: the amendment would be the intent.

Since the SCOTUS ruled that the intent of the law was the proper way to enforce the law, it sure seems they had to do some digging to figure the intent, doesn't it? And, since the intent of the law did not align with the wording of the law, my example is spot on.

Since SCOTUS did not write the bill it would be impossible for them to know the intent. The best they can hope for is to infer. The records of the debates re: the amendment would be the intent.
Your example is clearly an attempt to avoid the issue. If you really want to know the intent of the 14th then lets read all the discussion. You wish to limit the discussion to the two inputs you offered and no others. You wish to conflate that with the SCOTUS decision in another case you disagree with. Simply saying something is equivalent is not proof that it is.
Lets give a look at the quote you gave us re: one of the sponsors of the amendment. to wit:
'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.'
You may verify this with a grammarian but the words (foreigners-aliens) are adjectives modifying "families of ambassadors etc. For those words to mean what you want them to mean those words would be separated with (and/or). While I agree that this quote and the other support my position I still feel that we need to address all of the 240+ opinions to get a full understanding of their intent.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

I've never said a good word about IS and never will. If as you claim I was "defending ISIS", then it will be a matter of simplicity for you to cite the relevant post, if it exists.

quote:

his law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
25,000. Exactly. Because that's the quota for Mexico (same as for any other country, whether Liechtenstein or China). And you needed qualifications; most Mexicans aren't eligible.
And they have been waiting for usually approximately a decade or more.
Sure, we have the right to set any rules we like on immigration. But if we set rules that are basically impossible to follow, we shouldn't be surprised if people don't follow them.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)