US plans to require COVID-19 shots for foreign travelers

[DDT 65]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

What part of the Constitution,  guarantees the right of USC to bring a non USC to this country?

 

 

I'm not talking about a non USC I'm talking about a citizen's spouse.  For one, the 10th Amendment. The federal government was not given the privilege  to discriminate against your wife, for instance, in the Constitution. Therefore they do not have it! It is a right reserved for, you the citizen. The government can't just 'say' they have that as a right... The government can not take it upon themselves to get involved with your family. And the 10th Amendment affirms this.   

 

In the USA, proof of guilt must be the burden of the accuser. The government must first have some kind of proof that a man's wife is guilty of something that she should live in exile from her citizen husband. There are several Amendments in the Bill of Rights which cover this.

 

Just the way you phrased that question tells me that you don't understand the Constitution. The government has no rights that are not specifically spelled out for it.

The fact that it is not mentioned in the Constitution that government could prevent a citizen's spouse from living in the country with him is the proof that it does not have a right or privilege to do so. That is a Right which remains with the citizen.

[DDT 65]

1 hour ago, LIBrty4all said:

Thank you for bringing up Ft. Detrick.  I was sworn to never speak of this, and never have.  But since you mention it... I am well aware of that which ye speak.  And you are not wrong.

Dr Richard Flemming, in this interview, mentions that he was asked to do some work for Ft Detrick, which he turned down. 

 Brighteon

I would suggest that everyone watch this interview, especially those who think that all the information they need can be found by watching TV.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 minutes ago, DDT said:

 

 

I'm not talking about a non USC I'm talking about a citizen's spouse.  For one, the 10th Amendment. The federal government was not given the privilege  to discriminate against your wife, for instance, in the Constitution. Therefore they do not have it! It is a right reserved for, you the citizen. The government can't just 'say' they have that as a right... The government can not take it upon themselves to get involved with your family. And the 10th Amendment affirms this.   

 

In the USA, proof of guilt must be the burden of the accuser. The government must first have some kind of proof that a man's wife is guilty of something that she should live in exile from her citizen husband. There are several Amendments in the Bill of Rights which cover this.

 

Just the way you phrased that question tells me that you don't understand the Constitution. The government has no rights that are not specifically spelled out for it.

The fact that it is not mentioned in the Constitution that government could prevent a citizen's spouse from living in the country with him is the proof that it does not have a right or privilege to do so. That is a Right which remains with the citizen.

It doesn't work that way in the United States, maybe in Russia is does but it appears the constitution you are debating is Russia 

[DDT 65]

1 minute ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

It doesn't work that way in the United States, maybe in Russia is does but it appears the constitution you are debating is Russia 

Then we have a big problem in the USA then don't we? ... We have a Constitution that the people and politicians ignore.

[DDT 65]

9 hours ago, laylalex said:

Sorry, it is a privilege. I'm assuming you haven't been on here very long because that is stated over and over again. None of us USCs had a right to bring our non-USC loved ones here. It is a privilege. I suggest you make this statement in the general immigration section and see how quickly you get shot down.

 

Please tell me where you read that vaccines have had nothing to do with reducing human mortality and misery. If you've "looked into it," perhaps you could share your deep research.

Brighteon

Brighteon

Brighteon

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

13 minutes ago, DDT said:

Brighteon

Brighteon

Brighteon

 

Mind control? Australian police taking out heads of state? Depopulation strategy? plandemic?  Do you believe this?

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

13 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Mind control? Australian police taking out heads of state? Depopulation strategy? plandemic?  Do you believe this?

People tend to mock that which they are unable to comprehend.  Are you one of those?  (Asking for a friend)

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

46 minutes ago, DDT said:

Then we have a big problem in the USA then don't we? ... We have a Constitution that the people and politicians ignore.

No you have it wrong. As others have explained: marriage does not extend a guarantee of immigration to the United States. Once they have moved here and maintained residency they do have constitutional rights but even adjusting a status  requires proof of an bona fide marriage.   

I not sure what any of this has to do with the original post.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 hours ago, DDT said:

I'm not talking about a non USC I'm talking about a citizen's spouse.  For one, the 10th Amendment. The federal government was not given the privilege  to discriminate against your wife, for instance, in the Constitution. Therefore they do not have it! It is a right reserved for, you the citizen. The government can't just 'say' they have that as a right... The government can not take it upon themselves to get involved with your family. And the 10th Amendment affirms this.   

***

Just the way you phrased that question tells me that you don't understand the Constitution. The government has no rights that are not specifically spelled out for it.

The fact that it is not mentioned in the Constitution that government could prevent a citizen's spouse from living in the country with him is the proof that it does not have a right or privilege to do so. That is a Right which remains with the citizen.

Oh, hello friend. You may not be aware that when the United States Constitution is invoked on VisaJourney, a small bell rings on my desk. Occasionally I answer the call. Tonight the topic is: does the Tenth Amendment reserve the power to citizens to regulate the admission of aliens? In short, no.

 

“Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354–55 (1976), citing Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849); Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893). “‘It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. In the United States this power is vested in the national government, to which the constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the president and senate or through statutes enacted by congress.’” Fong, 149 U.S. at 705, quoting Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892).

 

It is accepted law that the regulation of admission of aliens is a plenary power reserved to the federal government. This is not to say that all laws relating to immigration are reserved to the purview of the federal government. Indeed, courts have ruled that certain state laws relating to the traditional police powers of the states that touch upon the regulation of the activities of aliens within those states and do not conflict with those powers reserved to the federal government (i.e., preempted) are not unconstitutional. E.g., Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011); DeCanas, supra. It does not matter whether the alien is seeking admission as a tourist, a worker or -- gasp! -- a spouse.

 

It is simply incorrect, both logically and legally, to assert that the power to admit an alien – whether the spouse of a United States citizen or otherwise – is somehow reserved to the people. The Tenth Amendment is not a magical talisman that imbues those of us who are citizens with mystical powers to exercise whatever free will we have “just ‘cuz there ain’t a law agin’ it!” Consider this hypothetical: if you were correct (which you are not), and the Tenth Amendment does imbue individual citizens with the power to determine the admissibility of aliens (which we are not), I might on my own decide that I do not like the cut of your fiancee’s jib. (I assume you are a he from your other posts, which insinuate that a woman should submit to the television choices of her husband.) Accordingly, I deem your fiancée inadmissible because much like He-Man, I Have The Power. That is the logical end to your assertion. Legally, the assertion is also incorrect, as I set forth above. While there are certain aspects of immigration which fall outside sole federal control, admission is squarely within the plenary power of the federal government.

 

Furthermore, let's address this non-point:

2 hours ago, DDT said:

In the USA, proof of guilt must be the burden of the accuser. The government must first have some kind of proof that a man's wife is guilty of something that she should live in exile from her citizen husband. There are several Amendments in the Bill of Rights which cover this.

While the burden of proof does fall on the party making an accusation in a court of law, an immigration petition such as an I-130, or an application such as an I-485, is not a court proceeding. It is part of an administrative process, and it is incumbent upon the petitioner or applicant to make their case to USCIS that the applicant should be admitted. Why? Because aliens -- even those married to us fantabulous US citizens -- are not guaranteed admission. Green card holders are not guaranteed admission. The only persons guaranteed admission to the United States are citizens. I regret to inform you that there is no "let not my foreign wife live in exile from these fair shores!" amendment in the Bill of Rights. Not one, not several. 

 

Further, there is no "guilty" or "not guilty" in such an administrative proceeding -- those terms are reserved for criminal proceedings. 

 

This thread is bananapants in so many regards and I need a drink. Also, it really is not the done thing to insist a female poster's husband direct anything in her life, not least her television choices. For now, the federal government does not intrude upon a woman's right to select her own televisual entertainment.

 

I see another poster demanding that we show our work; I do hope I have shown mine. Peace to (most of) you all. 

[TBoneTX 44,669]

9 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

the rest of us, upon hearing that news at the end of your post, are firing up chain saws so we can prune our individual family trees...........

Insulting NB!  Reported!!!

[TBoneTX 44,669]

6 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

it is a recycled Tbone joke

Very seriously, it is too lame to be a T-B. joke, and we disclaim it.

6 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I thought it was him. Dear god, you pimping T Bone jokes. Dude 

Believing false information!  Reported!!!

6 hours ago, Neonred said:

So you are the suck up that keeps him with the big numbers with your upvotes.

NB's good taste is not just in his mouth.

And platinum status can be tenuous unless, uh, "insurance" is purchased...

[millefleur 5,043]

**One post removed for TOS violations. Remember to post constructively and heed the TOS.**

 

VJ Moderation

Edited August 17, 2021 by millefleur

[Dashinka 24,109]

10 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Some people have more education than the rest of us.  No need to ask.

 

It's kind of like the joke,  How do you know who is the fighter pilot in the room?  No need to wonder, they will tell you..."

A lot of highly educated people voted for our current President, and as NB has told us, education does not necessarily equate to intelligence.

[Dashinka 24,109]

10 hours ago, laylalex said:

I... wasn't talking about that. I was trying to make a joke? I guess only NB got it.

 

That's... not how things work. I'm not here to do your research. If you've done it, show your work. 

 

Again I suggest you ask in the General Immigration forum whether immigration to the US is a right or a privilege. Or maybe in General Polls. There is nothing I know of in the US Constitution that provides a right to US citizens' family members to enter the US. We have a right to file a petition on their behalf, which USCIS has no obligation to approve. Look at VJ -- plenty of people don't get their visas. 

Channeling TBone?  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,366]

8 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Oh, hello friend. You may not be aware that when the United States Constitution is invoked on VisaJourney, a small bell rings on my desk. Occasionally I answer the call. Tonight the topic is: does the Tenth Amendment reserve the power to citizens to regulate the admission of aliens? In short, no.

 

“Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354–55 (1976), citing Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849); Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893). “‘It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. In the United States this power is vested in the national government, to which the constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the president and senate or through statutes enacted by congress.’” Fong, 149 U.S. at 705, quoting Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892).

 

It is accepted law that the regulation of admission of aliens is a plenary power reserved to the federal government. This is not to say that all laws relating to immigration are reserved to the purview of the federal government. Indeed, courts have ruled that certain state laws relating to the traditional police powers of the states that touch upon the regulation of the activities of aliens within those states and do not conflict with those powers reserved to the federal government (i.e., preempted) are not unconstitutional. E.g., Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011); DeCanas, supra. It does not matter whether the alien is seeking admission as a tourist, a worker or -- gasp! -- a spouse.

 

It is simply incorrect, both logically and legally, to assert that the power to admit an alien – whether the spouse of a United States citizen or otherwise – is somehow reserved to the people. The Tenth Amendment is not a magical talisman that imbues those of us who are citizens with mystical powers to exercise whatever free will we have “just ‘cuz there ain’t a law agin’ it!” Consider this hypothetical: if you were correct (which you are not), and the Tenth Amendment does imbue individual citizens with the power to determine the admissibility of aliens (which we are not), I might on my own decide that I do not like the cut of your fiancee’s jib. (I assume you are a he from your other posts, which insinuate that a woman should submit to the television choices of her husband.) Accordingly, I deem your fiancée inadmissible because much like He-Man, I Have The Power. That is the logical end to your assertion. Legally, the assertion is also incorrect, as I set forth above. While there are certain aspects of immigration which fall outside sole federal control, admission is squarely within the plenary power of the federal government.

 

Furthermore, let's address this non-point:

While the burden of proof does fall on the party making an accusation in a court of law, an immigration petition such as an I-130, or an application such as an I-485, is not a court proceeding. It is part of an administrative process, and it is incumbent upon the petitioner or applicant to make their case to USCIS that the applicant should be admitted. Why? Because aliens -- even those married to us fantabulous US citizens -- are not guaranteed admission. Green card holders are not guaranteed admission. The only persons guaranteed admission to the United States are citizens. I regret to inform you that there is no "let not my foreign wife live in exile from these fair shores!" amendment in the Bill of Rights. Not one, not several. 

 

Further, there is no "guilty" or "not guilty" in such an administrative proceeding -- those terms are reserved for criminal proceedings. 

 

This thread is bananapants in so many regards and I need a drink. Also, it really is not the done thing to insist a female poster's husband direct anything in her life, not least her television choices. For now, the federal government does not intrude upon a woman's right to select her own televisual entertainment.

 

I see another poster demanding that we show our work; I do hope I have shown mine. Peace to (most of) you all. 

You done good debunking the hoarse feathers