Keep it up.
Endeavor to Perservere and when the day is over and the kids tucked in their beds. Give 'em a hug, grab a mug and pour yourself a ...Tecate, Dos XXs, Pacifico!

Unalienable not Inalienable.

I was happily successful in hooking up to Radio Free North America in now to go find a headset with a speaker and see if that works though I think I will speak only when spoken too. Objectively speaking with some subjective hopes.

Nor would much of the north it was after all the north that was using indentured servants in much the same way and demanded the 3/5ths rule.

They also gave us the way to effect change. Amendment. Not shyster trickery nor dictatorial edicts. We ought to try that sometime.

Why not write up your proposed amendment for immigration for consideration?

I would favor inserting those born of one or more US parent out of the country who have taken out a Certificate of Citizenship should be allowed to run for President. And changing the census requirement from people to citizens and visitors for apportionment purposes. I might also think about immigrants and refugees as two separate issues to address.

the source of authority is "

§ 2-1 THE SOURCE OF THE FEDERAL POWER

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power."

So there are no 9th and 10th Amendment issues.

There are several others pertaining 14th Amendment is one of them.

As for my own opinion the answer is no. It there is No. That means the most heinous criminals could be automatically allowed in?

What am I saying they are including a five times serial killer.

I would expect it to be enforced by more than a slap on the wrist and temporary deportation.

As for regulating the amount yes, giving preference to those with job skills we need yes, but regulating and having different standards for each country or ethnic group no that's where it crosses the line from the practical to the impractical. as for your last sentence Subjectivists could never have founded a country anywhere. The mindset is saying is the same a doing and that doesn't grow carrots for the stewpot.

A useful blend as we learned in high school Civics however usually will carry the day in any effort.

nothing on immigration or emigration in the immediate list of quotes

She said something about being thankful for the ability to move out of Russia and specifically to the USA but nothing else comes to mind on immigration. I'll review my source material.

If it were my ideas? I rewrote the Constitution once to suit me. The effort ended up being used by Toastmasters of Las Vegas NV as material for debate and speeches. With my ideas it would have been different but then I have hindsight. For their time they did better than pretty good effort. It was more in the realm of a miracle of foresight