Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think Ripcannon asks a good question here:

10 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

i dont understand why the fight on the wall...if we just leave a crack in the wall at cali wouldnt it still be constitutional? considering there the only state effected/connected that opposed it???i ask because i do think about this more and more

California had built the barriers long before the "wall" idea was even suggested.




But in many ways a preview for a wall, and what it can and cannot accomplish, has been here for nearly two decades. Stretching roughly 20 miles along the southern edge of California and into the Pacific Ocean are two layers of steel and concrete, the toughest barrier in the country.

The state has long been at the center of the debate over how to stop illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. Now, the rest of the country is once again turning to the region that has long grappled with border security to see what the future of enforcement might look like.

This part really makes an impact


Indeed, illegal immigration here has slowed to barely a trickle. The number of migrants apprehended in the region while trying to cross illegally is now about 5 percent of what it once was: roughly 32,000 a year compared to a peak of nearly 630,000 in 1986, according to the United States Border Patrol.


As to the Constitutionality of a wall, The US is a sovereign nation and has the right to protect it's borders from illegal intrusion, Constitutionally the Govt is bound to protect it's people from illegal entrants. For the Nations recognition of Sovereignty you can look at the case of the Schooner Exchange from 1812.




The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.

All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself.

A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although not expressly plighted, which should suddenly and without previous notice exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the civilized world.

The full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereignty and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power, does not contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign can be supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent, sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication and will be extended to him.

A sovereign entering a foreign territory with the knowledge and license of its sovereign, that license, though containing no stipulation exempting his person from arrest, is universally understood to imply such stipulation.


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WMD said:

The US is a sovereign nation and has the right to protect it's borders from illegal intrusion

isnt it up to the state 100%...im not arguing at all i mostly agree with you i think

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

isnt it up to the state 100%...im not arguing at all i mostly agree with you i think

The States became a Union when the US Constitution was ratified, thus they relinquished some of their rights and the Federal Govt became the arbiters of Sovereignty. The US Govt is responsible for foreign trade, so lets look at the case that ignorant people claims gave Plenary Powers (the phrase or words "Plenary Power" is not used in Chy Lung by the court) to the US Govt, Chy Lung V Freeman.




While the occurrence of the hypothetical case just stated may be highly improbable, we venture the assertion, that, if citizens of our own government were treated by any foreign nation as subjects of the Emperor of China have been actually treated under this law, no administration could withstand the call for a demand on such government for redress.

Or, if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can any one doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California; for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war, or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the [92 U.S. 275, 280]   injury, would California pay it, or the Federal government? If that government has forbidden the States to hold negotiations with any foreign nations, or to declare war, and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the States to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the States the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations: the responsibility for the character of those regulations, and for the manner of their execution, belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single State can, at her pleasure, embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.

We are not called upon by this statute to decide for or against the right of a State, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad; nor to lay down the definite limit of such right, if it exist. Such a right can only arise from a vital necessity for its exercise, and cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity. When a State statute, limited to provisions necessary and appropriate to that object alone, shall, in a proper controversy, come before us, it will be time enough to decide that question. The statute of California goes so far beyond what is necessary, or even appropriate, for this purpose, as to be wholly without any sound definition of the right under which it is supposed to be justified. Its manifest purpose, as we have already said, is, not to obtain indemnity, but money.

Note the questions the court asks and it's answers.

Edited by WMD
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Texan (4 generations) & I had no issue with Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics... whatever the current politically correct term is, until the La Raza/Aztlan militant groups started THEIR BS! 


Texas whipped Mexico’s arse fair & square. We didn’t steal it and we ain’t giving it back. 


What their beef is with New Mexico, Arizona and California is between them but they can keep their hands off Texas! 


Build the wall and I vote 50 feet tall... 100 is better. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    9 members have viewed this topic:
    Dav Harzin SPECTRE 6 WMD Shammer ImTexan Let_Freedom_Ring Megatron The Resister Ripcannon

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy