Value of Citizenship

Nope...........

RStringfield said:
Under what authority? Section 8 mentions naturalization not immigration. I now see something that might be interpreted to grant congress power to regulate, but...
Click to expand...



see 21 USC all section 8 laws...Immigration,Customs etc are covered...ya are in my turf now!
 
Uh no...!

RStringfield said:
So? You fail to support the constitution. I say your citizenship should be revoked or you should sent to a reeducation camp. :pke:
Click to expand...



The constitution allows the congress to enact laws...thats why we vote for those representatives we want in congress to enact or delete laws we like or dislike...get a grip...quit drinking the RP coolaid already...the guy is a nut!
 
DigitalDave said:
No, It just shows me that you have little regard for human life. You think that as long as you are a citizen then you are human, and if you aren't then you are less than. Fuck any cicumstances these people might have had to go through, they don't deserve to be labeled 'citizen' and allowed to make a life for themselves in an American Society, they might be smart enough to take your job!
Click to expand...

it shows he believes our government should reserve opportunities for CITIZENS. ANd he is right. You're wrong.
 
Battleborne said:
The constitution allows the congress to enact laws...
Click to expand...

On the issues outlined in article 1 section 8.

thats why we vote for those representatives we want in congress to enact or delete laws we like or dislike...get a grip...quit drinking the RP coolaid already...the guy is a nut!
Click to expand...

Has jack shit to do with RP. Read Jefferson, Madison or any of the founders.
 
RStringfield said:
The War of 1812 was largely about Britain taking hold of naturalized Americans of British birth. According to France and Britain, citizenship could not be altered, except by the sovereign.

Again, here is good cause to deport Gonzo and nAHZi to Canada fro the allegiance to the crown. Limey bastards.
Click to expand...

Allegiance to the crown? My family immigrated here legally, and not from Britain.

As far as whether or not the government has that power, the laws are on the books. Until the laws are changed, they should be enforced.

I'm not afraid of anyone stealing my job--- if my job can be stolen, I wasn't doing well enough in the first place.

However, I'm not going to sacrifice my own country's interests just so the illegals don't feel bad.
 
RStringfield said:
They are "criminals" not because they violated the rights of others, but because they violated laws that are intended to discriminate against them and aggravate their freedom.
Click to expand...
Oh bullsneeze. They violate the rights of citizens to monopolize the rights inteded for citizens.
Further, the federal government has no power to regulate or criminalize immigration.The power in section 8 is "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization." The first naturalization law required residence within the US for two years (nothing in the law regulated immigration) and only required that the person be white, of good character and swear to support the constitution.

I think nAHZi and gonzo should be deported for failing to support the constitution and being of bad character (well the last more for nAHZi).
Click to expand...

The uniform rule isn't you can't come in without going through the legal process. Are you taking retarded pills?
 
gonzojournals said:
Allegiance to the crown? My family immigrated here legally, and not from Britain.
Click to expand...

If you can establish that then it must not have been long ago. Don't let nAHZi no.

It's sort of tongue in cheek. The idea that a person is somehow tied to his birth nation (and I would guess nAHZi believes that more than you) is what the position of the crown and a factor in the war of 1812.

Our founders believed a person should be free to choose their nation.

As far as whether or not the government has that power, the laws are on the books. Until the laws are changed, they should be enforced.
Click to expand...

Is that the same argument you would give on gun laws, patriot act, etc.? Or is that a position of convenience?
 
RStringfield said:
If you can establish that then it must not have been long ago. Don't let nAHZi no.

It's sort of tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...

Who's cheek is your tongue in? Do you mean "between cheeks" rim boy?
The idea that a person is somehow tied to his birth nation (and I would guess nAHZi believes that more than you) is what the position of the crown and a factor in the war of 1812.

Our founders believed a person should be free to choose their nation.
Click to expand...
Watermark was just discussing the other day about how even citizens abroad are expected to pay taxes.

And more accurately, our founders believed in the right to start a new nation when you feel the old one has become oppressive. Besides, I'm not against immigration done legally in the amounts felt to be healthy by leaders who care about actual well being of current citizens.
 
Last edited:
Ole nAHZi argued that people should be free to form their own collectives. He worries incessantly that the soveriegnty of nations will be usurped, obviously he must be concerned about losing sovereignty of the states, which were the original collectives of the people. The US was merely the collective formed by the states. And I am sure nAHZi does not advocate changing the rules midstream since he railed against this adamantly.

I am sure I have convinced him now. Fat lot of good it will do, he is too stupid to spread the position. He is an anti-meme.
 
RStringfield said:
Ole nAHZi argued that people should be free to form their own collectives. He worries incessantly that the soveriegnty of nations will be usurped, obviously he must be concerned about losing sovereignty of the states, which were the original collectives of the people. The US was merely the collective formed by the states. And I am sure nAHZi does not advocate changing the rules midstream since he railed against this adamantly.

I am sure I have convinced him now. Fat lot of good it will do, he is too stupid to spread the position. He is an anti-meme.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking ignoramous. Take a vacation or something.
 
RStringfield said:
If you can establish that then it must not have been long ago. Don't let nAHZi no.

It's sort of tongue in cheek. The idea that a person is somehow tied to his birth nation (and I would guess nAHZi believes that more than you) is what the position of the crown and a factor in the war of 1812.

Our founders believed a person should be free to choose their nation.



Is that the same argument you would give on gun laws, patriot act, etc.? Or is that a position of convenience?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the same opinion I have on all laws--- the law should be changed, perhaps, but as long as it is there it should be enforced.

2016 will make 100 years in America, btw :)

No, I do not believe a person is tied to his birth nation--- however, I do believe you should take the proper measures in naturalisation.
 
gonzojournals said:
Yes, that is the same opinion I have on all laws--- the law should be changed, perhaps, but as long as it is there it should be enforced.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take this position with the consitution (i.e., if you want congress to do something outside their constitutional power then change the constitution).

2016 will make 100 years in America, btw :)

No, I do not believe a person is tied to his birth nation--- however, I do believe you should take the proper measures in naturalisation.
Click to expand...

But those measures should not be prejudiced based on race or economic class and they should not be overly burdensome.

I can understand you think the law should be enforced, fair or unfair, but it makes little sense that you should advocate that it be enforced by such draconian means. Do you advocate that potheads be executed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top