Why dont they,,, wouldn't every thing theyv'e past since and including the immigration act of 1965 be unconstitutional?
2007-09-05 04:25:43 · 5 answers · asked by csn0331 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
I'll bring the tea! I would love to return to immigration laws prior to 1965.
2007-09-05 06:27:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
News Flash: According to Lou Dobbs last night Our Congress and Senate has to answer to some unknown board that has jurisdiction over our Congress and Senate that can overide any and all Immigration legislation! They have given up United States sovereignty, being the reason they are just puppets, aligned with the North American Union. That's why Calderon said on Sunday that America has been annexed to Mexico! Now that's a mind blower. If that's the case Irs should be the first to go. The Boston Tea Party started because of No taxation without Representation of the People it governs!
See AlsoThe Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, 48 STAT.1, Public Law 89-719 signed by the 73rd Congress on June 5th, 1933. Does that make all of us Mexican citizens now? Or are those just our collective imaginations running amuck?
2007-09-05 11:41:35 · answer #2 · answered by ShadowCat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The immigration act of 1965 is the uniform law of naturalization in this case. Your presumption that naturalization is completely different from immigration laws is mistaken. The solution to immigration matters is not about legislation to shut down or modify illegal immigration. It is about modification of public policy and laws to accommodate our changing world and our changing country. Just like it has been since the country was founded. By the way, closing the borders is a partial solution, you can not protect our entire border and all it takes to defeat our system of protection is creative minds, but we still need to improve the border security situation.
2007-09-05 11:33:35 · answer #3 · answered by tk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it gives them the power to establish a uniform law, it means uniform among the states, not uniform for all countries or skill levels.
While it doesn't actually require them to do so, it does pretty much deny the states the power to act unilaterally on foreign nationals.
Isn't it amazing, one of the very few powers specifically given to Congress, and they neglect to exercise it.
2007-09-05 11:32:02 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO.
2007-09-05 11:46:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋