Loading ...I respectfully disagree with the statement that Islam is a religion. Islam is an unrepentant politico-expansionist movement clothed in the trappings of religion and bent on universal conquest by whatever means it can mobilize: deception, social and cultural infiltration, or bloody violence, as its millennial history and authoritative scriptures have proven.
macroman @ 10:42
“At his age, with his wealth, there isn’t much left to experience before he checks out and people wonder why he took on the monumental task of President…”
Which is exactly why he took on the monumental job…to experience service to others, something foreign to him in his privileged life thus far. From an astrological standpoint, his Sun – his essence and drive for significance – has recently progressed into Virgo @ 0 degrees (about the time of the Inauguration). Virgo is the sign of service and zero degrees means something new and unfamiliar with which his soul requires experience.
There is nothing sinister in his run for the presidency, no agenda other than to serve. Although I don’t agree with everything he is doing and I certainly am not pleased with his Goldman sucks picks, he is exactly what this country and its people need at this moment in time.
SnG @ 18:34 on Feb. 3rd
I love Joe but as far as the Webbot Report Summaries go, The Silver Antidote guy does a better job…much more consistent. I have been listening to both for some time…just my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlKLVidGmXk
Another state thats a slap in the face to legal immigrants. The swamp it bigger than many thought. Hope voters remember that on election day.
Oregon Governor Forbids State Employees From Aiding ICE Agents – Formally Declares Oregon A Sanctuary State
http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/2017/02/03/sanctuaryoregon/
Buygold
Judges will interpret laws many times based on their own biases or sometimes if they want to be appointed. That’s why it’s so important that Judges are appointed for interpreting the consfitution as it was meant to be. If a judge shows bias is can be appealed. We have corrupt judges that in courts will get rid of evidence and should be impeached.
The Judge who overthrew his order can be appealed maybe based on argument those who may be considered dangerous is not in the best interest to the constitutional rights of the citizens.
I don’t agree with pulling visas from people vetted and who risk their lives helping us fight terrorism as wellas professionals like doctors who pose no threat can’t go home and see their family. Perhaps some did it so they can immigrate here but that’s the deal they made and we should honor it. I have a feeling the reason is if hey let some go back and forth others would then claim discrimination. This claim discrimination based on religion has no basis because it’s a political religion that aligns with overthrowing any Gov that does not practice Shaira and discriminates against others. So in effect its a act of war against that country. They have leaders that say that our laws don’t overide their Shajra laws that are suddenly quiet onethat Obama is gone. Trouble on the making. If we don’t have a strong leader AND Gov including Judges it would be a threat to our country. So yes a religion should be vetted if that religion poses a threat to our country and constiturion and would seek once in numbers to overthrow it.
Keep Politics out of Football !!
Subject: FW: Keep Politics out of Football !!
I took the pledge.
36hrs to go – I hope this goes viral
Keep Politics out of Football !!
Commissioner Goodell
I watch football because I love the sport and the competition.
I look forward to a 3 hour break from the aggravations of the real world.
Colin Kaepernick was bad enough, but now rumor has it that some two-bit Hollywood Progressive mouthpiece is going to spew her crap at halftime.
IF she does, I promise you I will TURN OFF my TV until 2nd half kickoff.
In my dream there will be 10 million TVs clicking off the second she opens her mouth.
Maybe your sponsors will give you the message.
They are the only ones you care about.
A Football Fan
TAKE the PLEDGE ! she speaks – turn off the tv
If you agree – pass it on
Liberals Hipocracy to the constitution
Was watching Tucker last night. He had someone on who was advocating immigrating 1-2 hundred thousand muslims.
A Year
For one how long do they expect that war to go on? Two where does he get off telling us how many migrants we let in or trying to say what is happening to Europe wont happen here?
Trying to quote we have a moral obligation.
We have a moral obligation to our citizens first both constitutionally and financially.
Constitutionally when you have a Religion that promotes overthrowing our gov over Shaira.
Now we have a Judge who sees Christans under persecution as less important than the religious group persecuting them.
Law
Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.
http://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2015/11/islam-by-law-is-prohibited-from-us.html?m=1
.Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States.
claims that the only way to prevent immigrants from having negative effects on public policy is to keep them out of the country entirely.
This is a guest post by Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University and blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy (posts by Somin only). Somin has argued for substantially freer immigration, particularly in the context of immigration to the United States, on both moral and practical grounds. A list of some of his writings relevant to open borders can be found at the Open Borders page about Somin.
The US Constitution does not in itself tell us what kind of immigration policy is right and just. But it is relevant to debates over immigration in at least three important ways. First, some opponents of increased immigration mistakenly argue that the Preamble and other parts of the Constitution commit the US government to ignoring the potential benefits of immigration to would-be migrants themselves. Second, there is a strong case that the original meaning of the Constitution restricts Congress’ power to limit migration, though it does give Congress broad power to deny citizenship to migrants. Finally, some structural aspects of the Constitution help limit the potential “political externalities” of open immigration, thereby weakening claims that the only way to prevent immigrants from having negative effects on public policy is to keep them out of the country entirely.
I. The Constitution does not Justify Ignoring the Benefits of Immigration for Immigrants.
The Preamble to the Constitution states that the document’s purpose is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Some opponents of immigration claim that the inclusion of the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” suggests that the Constitution was only meant to benefit present US citizens and their descendants, thereby justifying the US government in ignoring the rights and welfare of potential migrants in making decisions on immigration policy. However, the term “posterity,” as used in the Preamble, is probably metaphorical rather than literal – denoting future residents of the United States in general rather than merely just those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants. In the 18th century, as today, the word “posterity” was often used to denote “future generations” in general rather than merely the biological descendants of a particular group of people. In 1787, and for almost a century thereafter, the US had a virtual open borders policy, and the Framers of the Constitution had no intention of changing that. They knew that millions of immigrants would be among the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble.
Even if we assume that the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble really does refer only to those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants, it does not follow that that the Constitution justifies ignoring the effects of immigration restrictions on would-be immigrants. As the Founding Fathers well knew, there are moral limits on what governments are allowed to do in pursuit of the interests of their citizens. For example, the United States has no right to invade Mexico and enslave its people – even if doing so would enhance “the general welfare” of Americans. Similarly, there are moral constraints on the extent to which the US government is justified in forcibly consigning would-be immigrants to lives of poverty and oppression in Third World countries. Neither the Preamble nor any other part of the Constitution states that the US government is entitled to ignore moral constraints on the means it uses to achieve the goals of the Constitution.
A closely related restrictionist argument is the claim that aliens are not entitled to the various constitutional rights enumerated in the Constitution. In reality, most of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are extended to all persons who enter areas governed by the United States, whether citizens or not. As James Madison put it at the Virginia ratifying convention for the Constitution, “[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection.” In the few cases where the Constitution really does protect only citizens, the term “citizens” is explicitly used, as in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2. Such explicit references to citizens would be unnecessary if there was an implicit understanding that all constitutional rights are limited to citizens alone.
II. Congress’ Power to Restrict Immigration.
The detailed enumeration of congressional powers in Article I of the Constitution does not include any power to restrict migration as such, even though it does include the power to make laws concerning the “naturalization” of foreigners and “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” The Naturalization Clausedoes not create a power to prevent foreigners from entering the country. It merely allows Congress to set conditions for the grant of citizenship.
The scope of the power to regulate “commerce” has long been a source of controversy. But at the time of the Founding and for many decades thereafter, the dominant interpretation was that it merely gave Congress the power to restrict trade and other commercial transactions, not to forbid movement as such. The Commerce Clause also gives Congress the power to regulate interstate as well as international commerce. Yet few if any eighteenth and nineteenth century jurists would have argued that Congress therefore had the power to forbid Americans from moving from one state to another.
In recent years, some leading legal scholars have argued that the original meaning of the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate all “social interaction” that affects multiple states or foreign nations. But this interpretation would give Congress nearly unlimited power, and is inconsistent with the dominant original understanding that congressional power was intended to be strictly limited in order to limit infringements on the power of the states. For a more detailed critique of the interaction theory, see this article by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett.
Congress can restrict the entry of someforeigners by using its other enumerated powers. For example, the power to declare war and to spend money for the “common defence” includes a power to forcibly restrict entry by enemy spies, terrorists, and soldiers. The power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations” presumably allows Congress to restrict the movement of pirates and other violators of international law. But there is no general enumerated power giving Congress the authority to ban the entry of people simply because they are foreign nationals.
Not until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 did Congress adopt a significant law banning migration as such, as opposed to restricting eligibility for citizenship or excluding individuals who posed a specific threat that Congress could address under one of its other enumerated powers. And, even then, there was considerable controversy over the law’s constitutionality, despite the fact that the Act was popular due to widespread anti-Chinese prejudice.
Modern Supreme Court decisions such as Gonzales v. Raich hold that Congress has the authority to regulate virtually any “economic activity” (defined broadly enough to cover most migration) and that it has “plenary” power to restrict immigration. It is unlikely that these doctrines will be reversed any time soon. Adherents of “living constitution” theories of constitutional interpretation can, consistent with their commitments, support this overriding of the text and original meaning. But professed originalists – who include many anti-immigration conservatives – are in a more difficult bind. This is especially true in light of the fact that conservative originalists have been in the forefront of those arguing for a narrow interpretation of Congress’ powers under interstate Commerce Clause. If the term “commerce” has a narrow definition when it comes to interstate commerce, the same applies to foreign commerce, since the Constitution literally uses the same word to cover both, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.”
A possible way out of this bind for originalists is the claim that the federal government has an “inherent” power to restrict international migration, regardless of whether it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That was in fact the basis on which the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of Chinese in 1889. But if the Constitution presumes such an inherent power to restrict migration, surely there is an equally inherent power to control naturalization. Yet Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Finally, even if Congress does have the power to exclude migrants for any reason it wants, nothing in the Constitution requires it to do so. The Constitution allows federal and state governments to do many things that are ill-conceived or unjust, and large-scale restrictions on immigration could be among them.
III. The Constitution and Potential Political Externalities of Immigration.
Sophisticated critics of immigration – particularly conservative and libertarian ones – often emphasize the problem of “political externalities:” the danger that immigrants will use the power of the vote to cause harmful changes in government policy. Several parts of the Constitution help restrict such dangers.
First, as noted above, the Naturalization Clause gives Congress the power to restrict migrants’ eligibility for citizenship. Under current law, most legal immigrants are eligible for citizenship only after five years, and only if they speak a modicum of English and can pass a citizenship test that many native-born Americans would fail. This ensures that immigrants will be at least partially assimilated before getting citizenship rights, and makes it less likely they would support laws that undermine core American values. If necessary, Congress could lengthen the waiting period for citizenship, make the test harder, or both. Living for many years in a nation that denies them citizenship rights may be unfair to immigrants. But most would prefer living as a non-citizen in a relatively free and prosperous society to life as a full citizen in poor and often oppressive Third World nations.
Second, the Constitution’s requirement that each state has two senators leads to overrepresentation of states with small populations. Most such states are relatively rural states far from the East and West coasts, and they tend to have few immigrants. The resulting overrepresentation of native-born citizens diminishes the relative power of immigrant voters, and thereby helps alleviate any political externalities they might cause. The Constitution also restricts most powerful elected offices to citizens, and allows Congress to restrict non-citizen eligibility for federal welfare programs.
The political effects of the Naturalization Clause and the Senate are double-edged swords. In some cases, immigrant voters might use their influence to improve American public policy rather than make it worse. When that happens, restrictions on eligibility for citizenship and overrepresentation of native-born citizens in the Senate turn out to be harmful rather than beneficial. But those who worry about the political externalities of immigration are likely to be pessimists rather than optimists in their assessment of the influence of of immigrant voters. Such pessimists should welcome the fact that the Constitution has many mechanisms for controlling such externalities without resorting the more draconian approach of banning migrants from entering in the first place, and thereby consigning many to a lifetime of misery in the Third World.
UPDATE: At the Originalism Blog, University of San Diego Law Professor Michael Ramsey raises an objectionthat has also been advanced by some commenters on this site:
Professor Somin argues, among other things, that the Constitution’s original meaning does not give Congress general power to restrict immigration…
I think his argument may well be correct. But if it is, I think it quite plainly leads to a result Professor Somin does not mention, and which the folks at Open Borders do not want hear: it would leave to the states the power to restrict immigration.
I agree that the states had the power to restrict immigration under the original 1787 Constitution. But matters are far less clear after the Fourteenth Amendment, which, among other things, restricts state government discrimination against aliens. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Plyler v. Doe (admittedly in an opinion written by non-originalist Justice William Brennan), several of the framers of the Amendment specifically stated that one of its purposes was to curb such discrimination.
But if it turns out that the price of limiting congressional power to restrict immigration is increasing state power to do so, that’s a tradeoff I’m more than happy to accept. Some states might choose to severely limit immigration, but – thanks to interjurisdictional competition – others will embrace it. And life in any American state is a far better deal for immigrants than being consigned to the Third World, which is the effect of federal laws banning migration.
UPDATE #2: Michael Ramsey’s colleague and co-blogger Mike Rappaport comments on this post here. Mike agrees with me that “the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate immigration as such.” But he also argues that Congress does have the power to regulate some other types of international movement, such as crossing international boundaries for commercial purposes. I largely agree. But such restrictions are a far cry from being able to ban mere migration across international lines.
Mike also raises the issue of state authority to impose migration, barriers, but concludes (as I do above) that state migration laws are unlikely to impede immigration as much as federal ones do, given interstate variation and competition. He does not address my point about the ways in which the Fourteenth Amendment might restrict state governments’ power to regulate migration.
Finally, Mike suggests that if the Supreme Court had struck down the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s, Congress might have been given the power to ban immigration by constitutional amendment. That is certainly possible. But the Constitution is extremely hard to amend, and it is far from clear that the supporters of the Exclusion Act had the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, plus winning the support of three quarters of state legislatures.
Related reading
These links have been edited by the Open Borders: The Case editorial staff and were not vetted by the author.
Other related material by the author: Obama, immigration, and the rule of law [updated with additional material on precedents for Obama’s action, and a response to Timothy Sandefur] by Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy (Washington Post), November 20, 2014.
Related Open Borders: The Case blog posts:
The Constitution, Citizenism, and the Natural Right of Migration by Chris Hendrix, November 13, 2012.
Constitutionally entrenching migration as a fundamental human right: Argentina and open borders by John Lee, November 25, 2014.
Is There a Downside to Presidential Nullification? by Nathan Smith, June 19, 2012.
Citizenism and open borders by Michael Huemer, February 18, 2013.
Immigration to US for whites only? by Chris Hendrix, July 18, 2013.
Relevant background material coverage on Open Borders: The Case:
Relevant background material coverage on Open Borders: The Case:
Obama November 2014 deferred action announcement, made November 20, 2014. This blog post received a lot of attention in the wake of the announcement.
Obama June 2012 deferred action announcement (de facto DREAM Act), made June 15, 2012, the preceding major immigration announcement by Obama.
The painting featured at the top of this post depicts the signing of the United States Constitution, and is available in the public domain.
What if the mystery of Trump’s success and motivation to become the world’s most important individual is more than narcissistic?
At his age, with his wealth, there isn’t much left to experience before he checks out and people wonder why he took on the monumental task of President other than being the ultimate boss. Sure he is patriotic, probably what America needs to right herself, especially with his non conventional “style”.
The only experience left is the secrets of the deep state he doesn’t have total access to, such as the goings on in Area 51. Or the woo woo surrounding Antarctica. His legacy may be he wants to be THE historical figure that exposes truth and sets the world on a different path.
The new messiah.
Thank you Goldcountry and Buygold, but…
Isn´t it possible that after the Supreme Court toss out the judgement, a new judge can twist the original judgement just a tad and start the whole thing over…. from the beginning.
NEMO
NEMO @ 6:48
I’m pretty ignorant myself, but in broad outlines, we have state courts and federal courts and both systems have appellate courts. A judgement can be appealed and work its way through the system to the highest court which is the Supreme Court. The whole system is very politicized. This will probably make it’s way higher very quickly, possibly to the Supreme Court. Then the tsunami stops.
Good Morning Nemo
As an ignorant American, I honestly don’t understand how a federal judge in Seattle can block an order from the President either.
Truth is, our legal system is a joke.
I need some help in understanding…
As an ignorant swede, I can not understand what is happening in USA regarding President/judges.
Is it so that any judge can stop (for a while) EO:s from the president?? There are many judges in US… so there could then be a tsunami of “Stops and Go” in the country, that rupture the efficiency of the system. In that case it is a little to close to “banana”…. in my wiew.
TIA
NEMO
Buygold @ 18:23 Re President Trump
I saw the beginning of the USA decline right after John Lenin and Yoko Ono’s song “Imagine” came out.
That trend ended for those dreamers with the 2008 real estate crash, and now Trump getting involved. I think 9/11 also pissed off a lot of people, that found out good guys finish last. No more Mr. Niceguy.
What I found out about the Exec order signed by Trump regarding Dodd-Frank
Even though this is from WaPo, it is info nonetheless.
COT Report
Crazy for silver. Not so much for gold. Can anyone figure it out?
Mr. Copper!!!
Donald is now President! Buy fracking, Uranium, oil, and now with his override of Dodd-Frank, buy banks!
America first! Hopefully no war though…
Donald, please eliminate the Fed and the UN and take us back to the gold or even silver standard…America first!
I’m Very Disappointed
I just found out all those fracking stocks are in nice up-trends, and nobody here says anything??? Geez. Ones like EMES SLCA HCLP.
Ipso facto
re Climate change……Wow that is a very big deal, I guess she is so dumb that she thinks she can admit it and I would suspect she is a Commie from South America…..and happy to boast about ending capitalism, while ignoreing it’s vile legacy, the 100’s of millions who died under communism.
The Donald will love that, as will Mark Steyn.
Trump scrapping Dodd Frank?
Anybody have the real deal on this?
A good week
Even Bitcoin is strong at $1,017. Must be the beginning of the weekend… Farmboy flew the coop, Buygold threatening to turn tail… what could go wrong?
Time for this rabid non-fan to ignore the Superbowl insanity and have a weekend, too. Great time to go shopping and avoid the crowds that are all at home glued to the flatscreen.
Volcano Watchers: Yesterday a building-sized block of the cliff at the lava ocean entry broke off and fell into the sea. The ‘firehose’ of lava is no more. It has been partially obstructed by rubble and no longer shoots out like before. But lava continues to flow into the ocean, building the newest land on earth.
https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/multimedia/
Mr. Copper
Yeah we have crony capitalism, quasi-capitalism but most everything is under gov’t. control.
I do agree though that the whole climate change, is a huge money grab intent on destroying business, with the exception of the large corporate entities owned by the elite globalists who promote the phony climate hoax. Also promoted by the UN.
The US is just the last western nation to fall, and that’s what Trump is all about. He’s the resistance, the insurgent.