Immigration

[In2ition]

Should this be worrisome?

[Mori Chu]

I mean, anything is possible, but "this guy looks like this guy" is pretty weak evidence. Those photos aren't very conclusive.

[In2ition]

I agree with you on that. I think there was a lot of sleuthing happening, but it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that this isn't the same guy.

[Nodack]

BREAKING NEWS

Local law enforcement trumps citizens. State trumps local. Feds trump state.

You can’t make this up!

[In2ition]

Define the US Constitution. Why was it written and who was it written for? I think your answer will be enlightening.

[Mori Chu]

In2: Do you support what TX is currently doing in regards to the border and their defiance of the federal government's attempts to intervene? What are your thoughts on the situation?

[Nodack]

Really?

con·sti·tu·tion
/ˌkänstəˈto͞oSH(ə)n/
1. a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

We the People of the United States, in Order 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution

It’s basically a set of rules/guidelines governing a society. It was written for the people by the people. It was written over 200 years ago. It’s not a perfect document. We have had to amend it several times to reflect changes in our society. Slavery was written right into the Constitution. We decided later on that maybe slavery isn’t so good and changed it. In 1791 they added the second amendment which stated “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That amendment has probably caused the most controversy of all in modern times.

I think you were mostly trying to focus on state versus federal powers since you are commenting on my post about that. States versus federal powers is a complicated subject. Some people want a strong federal government and some people want the states to retain all the power and this argument on who has jurisdiction on matters will be argued forever.

While the Constitution thus grants broad powers to the federal government, they are limited by the 10th Amendment, which states that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Sometimes state laws conflict with federal laws. Smoking pot is a federal crime but, is legal in a lot of states. The federal government has obviously taken the stance that they will let the states decide for themselves and not prosecute.

We have Texas that has forever been a reluctant state in the union. They have never really wanted to be part of the US. They were founded on getting out of the US and starting their own country without taxes. Unfortunately for them Mexico owned Texas and wasn’t too keen on this flood of illegal immigrants flooding their country. Mexico said you can live here but you have to pay taxes. The Texans said FU, we aren’t paying you any taxes. Mexico sent their military to enforce their laws. The Texans vowed to fight to the last man and sent word to the US asking for help against the Mexican army. The US said screw you, you abandoned your country and now you want us to start a war with our neighbor and spill blood on your behalf so you can start your own country right next to ours? No help came. The Texans fought to the death and everyone remembers the Alamo.

Then the US said, Hey you killed our fellow countrymen in cold blood and we will exact revenge. The US army came in crunches Santa Anna’s army and gave him a choice. Sign over all the Mexican land from Texas to California and we will let you live. He signed the paper and the US achieved its manifest destiny. The Texans got their land but it came with a price. They had to be a state in the US and pay taxes. They have reluctantly been a state ever since. They always seem to consider themselves a separate country and have threatened to break away many times. Their power grid isn’t even connected to the US power grid.

In todays US/Texas stand-off we have the border issue and who has jurisdiction over that, the US or Texas and that I suspect is what your post asking me to define the Constitution is all about. It’s a Texas Mexico border but, it’s also a U.S. Mexico border and who has jurisdiction is obviously being questioned again there with their (no pun intended) Mexican standoff between the feds and Texas.

What do I think? I think they are supposed to be on the same team. I think when it all comes down to it the feds have jurisdiction over a border with another country if they choose to. Texas calling in the National Guard to potentially fight the federal government and the US military is certainly upping the ante. If the US and the Supreme Court says the Feds have jurisdiction, then the Feds have jurisdiction. How this plays out is anyone’s guess.

[In2ition]

In2: Do you support what TX is currently doing in regards to the border and their defiance of the federal government's attempts to intervene? What are your thoughts on the situation?

Do I support TX trying to stop, slow and control the flow of immigration through their borders? Yes. The federal government doesn't want to slow the amount of illegal immigrants flowing into the country. They are doing their best to disrupt any attempt to secure the border. The Supreme Court only ruled on the feds right to cut the barbed wire. It didn't rule on whether or not the TX National Guard can keep them away from these pain points, and it looks like it's not stopping TX from just putting more and more barbed wire there.

Ken Paxton is going to be arguing the right of the state of TX to keeping their own border secure, and I'm guessing using the 9th or 10th amendments on the rest of the issue that's currently in the Supreme Court.

This going to be a long discussion on immigration and what's happening at the border.

[In2ition]

Really?

con·sti·tu·tion
/ˌkänstəˈto͞oSH(ə)n/
1. a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

We the People of the United States, in Order 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution

It’s basically a set of rules/guidelines governing a society. It was written for the people by the people. It was written over 200 years ago. It’s not a perfect document. We have had to amend it several times to reflect changes in our society. Slavery was written right into the Constitution. We decided later on that maybe slavery isn’t so good and changed it. In 1791 they added the second amendment which stated “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That amendment has probably caused the most controversy of all in modern times.

I think you were mostly trying to focus on state versus federal powers since you are commenting on my post about that. States versus federal powers is a complicated subject. Some people want a strong federal government and some people want the states to retain all the power and this argument on who has jurisdiction on matters will be argued forever.

While the Constitution thus grants broad powers to the federal government, they are limited by the 10th Amendment, which states that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Sometimes state laws conflict with federal laws. Smoking pot is a federal crime but, is legal in a lot of states. The federal government has obviously taken the stance that they will let the states decide for themselves and not prosecute.

We have Texas that has forever been a reluctant state in the union. They have never really wanted to be part of the US. They were founded on getting out of the US and starting their own country without taxes. Unfortunately for them Mexico owned Texas and wasn’t too keen on this flood of illegal immigrants flooding their country. Mexico said you can live here but you have to pay taxes. The Texans said FU, we aren’t paying you any taxes. Mexico sent their military to enforce their laws. The Texans vowed to fight to the last man and sent word to the US asking for help against the Mexican army. The US said screw you, you abandoned your country and now you want us to start a war with our neighbor and spill blood on your behalf so you can start your own country right next to ours? No help came. The Texans fought to the death and everyone remembers the Alamo.

Then the US said, Hey you killed our fellow countrymen in cold blood and we will exact revenge. The US army came in crunches Santa Anna’s army and gave him a choice. Sign over all the Mexican land from Texas to California and we will let you live. He signed the paper and the US achieved its manifest destiny. The Texans got their land but it came with a price. They had to be a state in the US and pay taxes. They have reluctantly been a state ever since. They always seem to consider themselves a separate country and have threatened to break away many times. Their power grid isn’t even connected to the US power grid.

In todays US/Texas stand-off we have the border issue and who has jurisdiction over that, the US or Texas and that I suspect is what your post asking me to define the Constitution is all about. It’s a Texas Mexico border but, it’s also a U.S. Mexico border and who has jurisdiction is obviously being questioned again there with their (no pun intended) Mexican standoff between the feds and Texas.

What do I think? I think they are supposed to be on the same team. I think when it all comes down to it the feds have jurisdiction over a border with another country if they choose to. Texas calling in the National Guard to potentially fight the federal government and the US military is certainly upping the ante. If the US and the Supreme Court says the Feds have jurisdiction, then the Feds have jurisdiction. How this plays out is anyone’s guess.

I didn't ask for a diatribe, but that's my fault. I wasn't clear and I understand your thought that it might have something to do with state rights vs. federal rights.

Just what was your thought on the Constitution. I'll help you out and make it easier. Do you think that the Constitution gives us our rights? Or, do you think that the Constitution was created to limit government overreach on our rights?

[Nodack]

Do you think that the Constitution gives us our rights? Or, do you think that the Constitution was created to limit government overreach on our rights?

I think it does spell out some personal rights. It does spell out some limits on state and federal government overreach. Like I said in my long diatribe, there will always be people who want more state rights and some who want more government control. The fight between those two things will never end.

The Constitution is basically a handbook for governing the US. What says or doesn’t say is certainly up for interpretation.

[Nodack]

I see both side argue for both sides depending on the issue and who is in charge at the time.

[In2ition]

Do you think that the Constitution gives us our rights? Or, do you think that the Constitution was created to limit government overreach on our rights?

I think it does spell out some personal rights. It does spell out some limits on state and federal government overreach. Like I said in my long diatribe, there will always be people who want more state rights and some who want more government control. The fight between those two things will never end.

The Constitution is basically a handbook for governing the US. What says or doesn’t say is certainly up for interpretation.

Maybe this is where we differ. The Constitution doesn't give the people it's rights. The rights were given by our creator and are inherent as you are born with them. The Constitution is the agreement and sets the limits to which the government can go. The government doesn't give rights. It's completely on it's head to think that the government grants rights to people. The government is specifically prohibited from infringing on your rights to assembly, to free speech, to owning a firearm, to religion, to autonomy, to privacy, etc.

There are a lot of people in Congress that think that the government is supposed to be the supreme power and is only granting you and I to have these certain rights, and can take them away whenever at their pleasure.

[Nodack]

There are those in power now that think when they say freedom of religion it means freedom to be a Christian and that the country was founded on Christianity and definitely not any other religion and should be run by only Christians basing their decisions on the Bible says. Ask the new Speaker of the House. Is that written in the Constitution? Some say yes. Some say no.

Who decides what freedoms are. Are they god given rights? God didn’t say anything in the Ten Commandments about owning an assault rifle. Trump thinks a President has the freedom to assassinate his rivals. Does just the President have those rights or does everyone? Why don’t I have the right to kill? It’s not written in the Constitution, so maybe I only have the rights the Constitution says I have.

I don’t have any more time to discuss this today. A large country cannot function without a central government. I prefer our Democracy over one strong guy that decides what rights you have or don’t have like the GOP seems to be pushing us towards.

[In2ition]

There are those in power now that think when they say freedom of religion it means freedom to be a Christian and that the country was founded on Christianity and definitely not any other religion and should be run by only Christians basing their decisions on the Bible says. Ask the new Speaker of the House. Is that written in the Constitution? Some say yes. Some say no.

Who decides what freedoms are. Are they god given rights? God didn’t say anything in the Ten Commandments about owning an assault rifle. Trump thinks a President has the freedom to assassinate his rivals. Does just the President have those rights or does everyone? Why don’t I have the right to kill? It’s not written in the Constitution, so maybe I only have the rights the Constitution says I have.

I don’t have any more time to discuss this today. A large country cannot function without a central government. I prefer our Democracy over one strong guy that decides what rights you have or don’t have like the GOP seems to be pushing us towards.

I don't know, Dack. The stuff you say here that you believe make you sound a little out there. It's hard to even attempt to respond to each one.

[Nodack]

I was talking about what Maga has been talking about. Of course it is crazy.

[In2ition]

You are distorting things in a really weird and depraved way. It's completely nuts, your perception and beliefs of maga. Why don't you get out and go to a Trump rally and talk to the people attending it? You'll find that they are perfectly sane and level headed people, and not the monsters you built up in your imagination.

[Mori Chu]

I think the Speaker of the House is radically Christian, but Trump only pretends to be Christian to appease his base. He doesn't know anything about the Bible or the Christian faith.

[Nodack]

That can’t be true. He is gods chosen one.

[Mori Chu]

I appreciate that Mitt Romney has had the courage to speak out against Trump/MAGA. He's right about the border issue. It's a pity he only found the courage to do so after exiting from politics.

[Mori Chu]

"Open defiance of federal authority" is a good way to describe TX behavior in this situation.