GUADALUPE GARCIA, living in USA for 22 years, arrested last night at ICE meeting, deported.

[Samori Toure]

I'm not saying they should secure national borders. I'm saying the States should handle immigration to their respective states. They give out the licenses and other things needed to live in the state.

Americans can move freely between the States of the union. So I don't see a problem with someone immigrating from Minnesota to South Carolina if that is what they want to do.

Btw, Everyone has an opinion on the matter, but I think that the Federal government is in the best position to speak on the issue of immigration for people that would like to enter the USA.

 

[David_TheMan]

you're missing the point





on a side note if it were left to the states I'm sure you would end up with freedom of movement issues between states

the constitution guarantees freedom of movement between states, if you are a citizen of california you are protected in traveling through any and every state of the union.

 

[the cac mamba]

I'm not saying they should secure national borders. I'm saying the States should handle immigration to their respective states. They give out the licenses and other things needed to live in the state.

how do they do it in canada?

 

[David_TheMan]

Americans can move freely between the States of the union. So I don't see a problem with someone immigrating from Minnesota to South Carolina if that is what they want to do.

Btw, Everyone has an opinion on the matter, but I think that the Federal government is in the best position to speak on the issue of immigration for people that would like to enter the USA.

Why is the federal government the best position?

 

[88m3]

the constitution guarantees freedom of movement between states, if you are a citizen of california you are protected in traveling through any and every state of the union.

that's nice in theory

 

[David_TheMan]

that's nice in theory

Not theory actual case law
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

 

[88m3]

Not theory actual case law
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

No.

 

[Samori Toure]

Why is the federal government the best position?

Because they may have knowledge of peoples and populations that might be entering the country for purposes of attempting to overthrow the government. States would not likely have knowledge about groups and organizations that intend to do our country harm. The federal government's national interests; Trumps individual State's interests.

 

[David_TheMan]

Because they may have knowledge of peoples and populations that might be entering the country for purposes of attempting to overthrow the government. States would not likely have knowledge about groups and organizations that intend to do our country harm. The federal government national Trumps State interests.

The federal government have repeatedly shown they do not in fact have knowledge or people or populations entering the country that seek to engage in criminal behavior.
That said you act like states don't have access or can't be granted access to people of interest that the federal intelligence has flagged.

There is no power granted to the federal government via constitution to dictate immigration, only naturalization.

 

[Samori Toure]

The federal government have repeatedly shown they do not in fact have knowledge or people or populations entering the country that seek to engage in criminal behavior.
That said you act like states don't have access or can't be granted access to people of interest that the federal intelligence has flagged.

There is no power granted to the federal government via constitution to dictate immigration, only naturalization.

The States don't have the intel needed to know what type of plots are being planned by foreign governments against the USA. Moveover, you don't want some Governor Dumbasses like Sarah Palin having access to such information.

Since this the formation of the USA the Federal government has been vigilant to protect the nation from all threats foreign and domestic. You don't want State dumbasses in the process.

 

[Worthless Loser]

whos breaking them up? they're free to join her

So they should go to Mexico with her? They have a home here in the United States. That's not fair to them.

 

[the cac mamba]

So they should go to Mexico with her? They have a home here in the United States. That's not fair to them.

its 'not fair' to everyone who applied to that water park and didnt hear back because they gave the job to an illegal immigrant with a fake SS number

now multiply that scenario by 5 million and what do you get? i dont give a fukk about this woman

 

[Worthless Loser]

its 'not fair' to everyone who applied to that water park and didnt hear back because they gave the job to an illegal immigrant with a fake SS number

now multiply that scenario by 5 million and what do you get? i dont give a fukk about this woman

That's not really the point though. You basically told the kids to go to Mexico to live with her even though they were born here. The mother herself has been living in the US since she was 14 so it's not like the kids are going to be familiar with Mexico.

It reads kinda harsh. "Hey kids you mad your mommy got deported? How about you get out this country too if you want to be with her."

Do you see how you come across?

 

[the cac mamba]

That's not really the point though. You basically told the kids to go to Mexico to live with her even though they were born here. The mother herself has been living in the US since she was 14 so it's not like the kids are going to be familiar with Mexico.

It reads kinda harsh. "Hey kids you mad your mommy got deported? How about you get out this country too if you want to be with her."

Do you see how you come across?

yep

 

[luvaznpoon]

hispanics are self hating, disjointed and weak - thats why Trump went after them.

once they're out black people next.

TLR-tier posting. Shameful what this sub has become.