then tear down the symbol of Lady Liberty. bomb it. that is what you support. own it and work toward its demise

Please show. I am interested

In regards to the questions posed above:
1. I disagree with the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to any who are merely born on US soil. I don't believe the original author of the Fourteenth Amendment nor those who ratified it at the time subscribed to such an interpretation with the exception of the blacks - and that because they had no nationality of origin other than the US. As such, I don't believe Malkin should have been granted citizenship status until she had been legally naturalized.
2. I see nothing in either the first Ten Amendments, the Constitution itself nor specifically the Commerce Clause which touch on immigration other than to delegate Immigration policy to Congress. If you would care to elaborate on how you arrive at your inferred immigration readings from any such, I would appreciate the perspective.
3. I don't care what religion they are from. They need to come here legally. I'm not going to universally accept Catholics any more than I am going to universally ban Muslims. What I want to know is if you intend on coming here to live by the laws and ideals of the United States or your home country. That to me will determine whether you may apply to become a citizen or remain a visitor. That Catholics are certainly going to be more amenable to living by the Constitution than Muslims may certainly factor in, however.
4. Sorry, but I can't help you here. I would say that there is tremendous confusion about Islam and it's acceptability not only in the US, but in the World in general and our current President has done little but attempt to persuade everyone to ignore the true fundamentals of Islam.
5. Not going to speak for anyone else, but if this is a reference to #2, you're going to have to demonstrate to me where in the Constitution or which of our Founders were specifically in favor of unqualified, unrestricted immigration as you seem to claim.

Personally, I don't support anyone who thinks they have a "right" to emigrate the United States - no matter where they come from and for what reason they wish to come here. I echo the words of both Madison and Washington who called for immigration policy that betters our country and encourages those who come to assimilate to the standards of this nation: principally individual liberty and personal responsibility. Those who attempt to come here but wish to live by their own values especially when those values conflict with the values of Americans should be turned away.

so if you are poor, and a refugee, wanting to make something out of your life-you are dirt. If you have wealth and can sustain in the US, we throw open our arms. that is not the Constitution. nor will it ever be. re-write it. get votes. ok

I never advocate picking winners and losers. and who took away a point. show yourself

They actually did, if you read the Constitution. They expressly placed the rules about Immigration in the hands of Congress to form and adjust as necessary.

Not all who cross our borders against the law are peaceful Mexican agricultural workers. One of the world's most dangerous gangs, MS-13, from Honduras, has established a presence in most large American cities. They terrorize our native Hispanic communities and conduct gun battles with the Crips and Bloods over drug turf. Because many of these gangsters start as young teens, many arrive as unaccompanied "children", and are allowed to stay. If you see a 14 year old with several tears tattooed on his cheek, that's telling you this "child" has already murdered three people. Expecting these invaders to become model, hardworking citizens is a delusion.

The reason the Founders weren't too concerned with immigration was because they realized how big this country could grow, and that it needed a growing population to make that growth productive. Newcomers were welcome then. If they could have looked into the future and seen the problems of unfettered immigration/invasion, I have no doubt they would have placed firm restraints on the immigration process.

We disagree on the meaning K.

America is a collection of ideas and ideals.

It is not represented by any single or panopoly of symbols. It is represented by the sum of its people, living together peacefully under the umbrella of its Constitution and evolved law.

The Constiution and laws are the framework to protect our individual rights. (Misused at times granted)

Without the underpinning of law, people tend toward chaos. Much like the universe at large tends to go from order to chaos.

The line forms over there >>>

Also if you would invoke the Statue of Liberty, recall that the tablet in her left arm represents Law.

The point of the whole picture being free under the law. Entering illegally flouts that law.

That is a line from a French poem.

Not an actual policy or right.

Statue of Liberty was erected after the country was founded. A modern colossus of Rhodes gifted by a friendly power.

Your point is well taken, as long as the right to travel does not violate another person's right to property. In other words someone cannot enter my property if I deny him access.

Rule 1. Agreed.
Rule 2. Agreed also - especially those persons whose religion enjoins them to hate us.
Rule 3. Don't agree - allow them to enter, but do not support them in any way using the public coffers.

Respectfully disagree K.

Humans are social animals, we identify as "group" at a fundamental level. Evolution of society goes from small groups to ever larger groups. For example Family to Clan to locality to region to state. At every level within society people self identify as part of a group.

What matters is how much of a person's loyalty is to group as opposed to individual. Sadly, there is no way to determine that ratio from the outside.

When an individual's primary loyalty is to a group that opposes the society they are "entering" either they have to transfer their loyalty or they act against society at some point.

The welfare state magnifies this effect because it removes the "self support" filter from the process. You get a horde of people coming for the free ride rather than wanting to assimilate.

prof; The 'individual right of freedom to travel', sometimes referred to as 'freedom of movement', began receiving notice and recognition with Magna Carta and considered as 'Common Law'. It is understood to be a necessary Right to exercise the Rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the US Constitution and further protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause, the 5th Amendment "due process", and the 14th and some think the 10th as well. The US Supreme Court has addressed the Right numerous times and it's still being addressed positively by Federal Courts as late as 2013 in reference to 'Do Not Fly Lists.'

the US should accept individuals. they should not be making decisions on "groups" unless we actively declare war. ok. declare war. you need legislature for that

if we want to say the flag means everything. ok. what about Lady Liberty? if we do not support what the statue of Liberty represents. BLOW IT UP. it is not the US do it-that's what many of you advocate. get rid of the symbol.

only the rich would be selected. is that the country of bring your tired your poor those yearning to be free?

The right might be implied by or inferred from the 9th Amendment. The framers knew that the enumeration of rights would result in those who would argue that if it is not listed, then it need not be a right of the individual.

I agree, except-what would you say to fleeing cubans? hmmm

I can understand the founders' inability to predict the future in all respects, considering what they started with the result was amazing.

Cross border travel at that time was not the trivial exercise (relatively speaking) it is today. I think this was an area of very unanticipated change. Travel from Europe to North America was measured in weeks/months, not hours. Travel from the Spanish and Portugese colonies in South America also weeks/months.

Had travel been significantly easier at the time, immigration would have been more directly addressed. The effort and slowness of travel is one of the contributors to having an democratic/republic - indirect democracy.

Cool heads and common sense usually supply the solutions to tough problems. If you consider the nation as your home, a few simple rules apply.
Don't invite or allow criminals to enter.
Don't allow persons who show hatred for you or yours in any way to enter.
Don't allow anyone who cannot show the ability to support themselves to enter.
If you want to help the impoverished or disabled, raise the money yourself.
You can ask for help but you cannot demand it.
Well, that would be a start.

Is there a reason for your sarcasm? Why not explain what you mean instead of citing references that are irrelevant? The Commerce Clause says nothing about travel. One does not have to travel in order to conduct commerce! And what on earth do the 4th and 5th Ammendements say about travel... nothing!

???

concrete bound imperialist? If I told you 2 +2 =4 and then I said 4+4=8, you would say, I never saw where that was said.
Re-read Commerce Clause. When written, it was all about travel. nothing virtual in those days! and 4th and 5th Amendment. c'mon!