quote:


Clearly, the USNA 1790 was no longer in force, and it never once limited immigration.

quote:


Since I never said they were I fail to see your point.



You continue to imply that an act regulating naturalization was also regulating immigration clearly showing that you do think they are the same.

quote:



Nowhere did I claim there were no immigration policies.

quote:

My claim (and the claim of an article) was that immigration wasn't limited, which was, and still is, your claim.

quote:


If you have citations that dispute my citations, or add information regarding this subject, please have at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

his law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

I am sure we can agree that one cannot be naturalized without immigration.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Clearly, the USNA 1790 was no longer in force, and it never once limited immigration.

Since the successive bills did not change the restrictions on naturalization what is your point. The restrictions of 1790 remain in the 1802 bill. By limiting who can be naturalized it pretty effectively limits immigration.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:


Since I never said they were I fail to see your point.
You continue to imply that an act regulating naturalization was also regulating immigration clearly showing that you do think they are the same.

Immigration means to go from one country to another with the purpose of taking up residency.
Naturalization is the process of changing that residency into citizenship. The point is that since citizenship is not allowed how could immigration be allowed?
I believe it was Virginia which had a law that any free black man in Virginia could be captured and enslaved. Thus that if a black sailor on a ship in the harbor were to go ashore and have a beer he could be enslaved.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

his law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

I am sure we can agree that one cannot be naturalized without immigration.

There is no limitation on immigration there. There is only a limitation on naturalization. How are you not computing this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Clearly, the USNA 1790 was no longer in force, and it never once limited immigration.

Since the successive bills did not change the restrictions on naturalization what is your point. The restrictions of 1790 remain in the 1802 bill. By limiting who can be naturalized it pretty effectively limits immigration.

Bullshit. There is no requirement that one be a naturalized citizen, or that you become a naturalized citizen to immigrate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:


Since I never said they were I fail to see your point.
You continue to imply that an act regulating naturalization was also regulating immigration clearly showing that you do think they are the same.

Immigration means to go from one country to another with the purpose of taking up residency.
Naturalization is the process of changing that residency into citizenship. The point is that since citizenship is not allowed how could immigration be allowed?
I believe it was Virginia which had a law that any free black man in Virginia could be captured and enslaved. Thus that if a black sailor on a ship in the harbor were to go ashore and have a beer he could be enslaved.

Read the Ark decision. The parents were legal residents, but were not citizens. Residency and citizenship are not the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Clearly, the USNA 1790 was no longer in force, and it never once limited immigration.

Since the successive bills did not change the restrictions on naturalization what is your point. The restrictions of 1790 remain in the 1802 bill. By limiting who can be naturalized it pretty effectively limits immigration.

Bullshit. There is no requirement that one be a naturalized citizen, or that you become a naturalized citizen to immigrate.

Where have I suggested that one could be naturalized without immigrating?
It is a physical requirement to immigrate to become naturalized.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

The only way immigration be limited is if naturalization is required to remain here. Obviously, one has to have immigrated here before one can be naturalized, but immigration is not limited only to those who are going to be naturalized.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Why not send Trump off to fight IS in Iraq? Or even better, negotiate with them. Both of them have bad hair fetishes, so there wouldn't be too much trouble finding common ground. Who knows, if the Mop brings the right hair products as gifts, he could generate some serious goodwill ......

I can see the GOP warming to this idea....... or any idea that gets Trump off their hands before the human wrecking ball screws it up for the GOP forever.

Here the other day YOU were defending ISIS, wailing about how horrible it would be werent they in Syria / Iraq to govern the territory they hold...

Sanity you are hallucinating again.

I've never said a good word about IS and never will. If as you claim I was "defending ISIS", then it will be a matter of simplicity for you to cite the relevant post, if it exists.

So produce the post or withdraw your offensive lies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

All of that would be needed to follow my suggestions.
I would hope that generals would be able to improve on them.

The plan - harass them, disable them, kill them. Let the guys who we pay to do that stuff figure out the details

Is this what you call a plan.: 'Let's do the killing and all the fun stuff and leave all the boring bits like running the country afterwards to the clowns we have bought'??? Even by your usually abysmal standards, this might be a new low. This is just a crude version of BamaD's 'thought-out plan' which keeps the violence and dumps all the rest - not that "the rest" of Bama's plan amounts to much.

Mind you it does reveal that there was a rational reason behind your persistent refusal to outline your 'action plan' against IS - you simply have't got a clue what might work other than spill lots of blood and bomb anything that moves.

I can see that this 'strategy' (if that's not too much of a stretch) would appeal to psychopaths but what about the rest of us? It has the same chance of success as Trump has of getting the latino vote.....

Run the country?

It speaks volumes about you, about how radical of an Islamist that you are, that your main worry is finding someone as qualified as ISIS to run things over there

I've always suspected as much, thanks for the confirmation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Here you go

(Youre really into humiliation arent you)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I am beginning to think, and he has alluded to this as well, --- that responding to / challenging him is a waste of time. You, I, and anyone is:

throwing peals before swine
pissing in the wind

----

pearls before swine
Wasting something that is not appreciated. In Matthew 7:6, Jesus warned his followers not to waste time by throwing pearls of wisdom before ungodly swine. When writers Claire Booth Luce and Dorothy Parker simultaneously arrived at a door, Luce stepped back to allow Parker to precede her by saying with a smile, “Age before beauty.” As she walked through the door, Parker replied, “And pearls before swine.”

piss in the wind
Doing something that is a complete waste of effort and time for which you can expect no results and may even backfire on you.

When has he ever advanced a discussion with facts, analysis, or insight? When has he responded to challenges as an adult?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
I post news, and I post about the news, that drives knuckle dragging little moron leftists like you insane

Why does it drive you insane? Because it destroys the false narratives that you depend on to get you through your make-believe la-la land days

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
I post news, and I post about the news, that drives knuckle dragging little moron leftists like you insane

Why does it drive you insane? Because it destroys the false narratives that you depend on to get you through your make-believe la-la land days

Another blatant shameless lie.

You post cretinous and outrageous lies about people such as the lie that I "defend ISIS". When asked to back up your claims with evidence, you go into whinge mode and complain about others directing personal attacks at you.

Why do you act so mindlessly, so hypocritically? Because you never have any facts to back up your idiotic extremist rants. If you are unhappy with the tone of the discussion, why don't you post some evidence to support your claims or better still, refrain from advancing such self evidently false accusations towards others?