Some perspective on "immigration"?

That's true, there is no such thing as a national citizen who is a citizen of all 50 States that belong to the Union. However, the Constitution tasks Congress with developing "an universal rule of naturalization" as it was decided that all of the States should be represented outside of the Union by a single voice. Now, how a rule which protects some illegal immigrants and not others, which is what Obama's recent activity results in, can be construed as "universal" in nature is a discussion we can have if you wish, but it only adds substance to the argument that he is acting outside of the Constitution, so I'm thinking you'd rather not pursue that any further either.

I was referencing some of your comments, both here and in other threads, that, in effect, specify, talk about, and give the appearance of recognizing "national/U.S citizenship". The rest, I believe, is merely a continuation of your pursuit of semantics convolution.

No Z, you're trying to derail the discussion about having perspective on immigration by introducing a tangential subject that isn't relevant to the discussion once again. No one is a citizen of all 50 States simultaneously, which is what a so called "national citizen" would have to be in order to be a "national citizen". Federal law renders citizens of all 50 States subject to that law, but it is federal law, not "national" law.

Now, when one gets down to the brass tacks of the Constitution, what it empowers the federal government to do is develop "an universal rule on naturalization" and stop the migration of people a State may think proper after 1808. Nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, in the Constitution does it say anything about States not having the ability to act when both the federal government and the State one view migration which is occurring as improper, which is essentially another area in which the federal government has decided for itself what the limits of its delegated powers are.

Another bit of perspective comes from the very beginnings of the Union. From the very first naturalization law forward to today the Union has sought people of good moral character who were willing to assume our habits and customs regarding government, language and culture. Citizenship, then, has always been dependent first upon application for it and second on demonstrating over the long term good moral character and ability to enhance the Union with their presence. Those who migrate here in violation of the laws governing naturalization do not deserve citizenship, they have demonstrated already that they are willing to ignore the rule of law in pursuit of their own desires. How that demonstrates good moral character escapes me. How that demonstrates a willingness to assume our habits of government and culture escapes me as well. How it demonstrates that they are beneficial to the Union overall is something I struggle to comprehend.

PrintSmith wrote: No Z, you're trying to derail the discussion about having perspective on immigration by introducing a tangential subject that isn't relevant to the discussion once again. No one is a citizen of all 50 States simultaneously, which is what a so called "national citizen" would have to be in order to be a "national citizen". Federal law renders citizens of all 50 States subject to that law, but it is federal law, not "national" law.

Now, when one gets down to the brass tacks of the Constitution, what it empowers the federal government to do is develop "an universal rule on naturalization" and stop the migration of people a State may think proper after 1808. Nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, in the Constitution does it say anything about States not having the ability to act when both the federal government and the State one view migration which is occurring as improper, which is essentially another area in which the federal government has decided for itself what the limits of its delegated powers are.

Another bit of perspective comes from the very beginnings of the Union. From the very first naturalization law forward to today the Union has sought people of good moral character who were willing to assume our habits and customs regarding government, language and culture. Citizenship, then, has always been dependent first upon application for it and second on demonstrating over the long term good moral character and ability to enhance the Union with their presence. Those who migrate here in violation of the laws governing naturalization do not deserve citizenship, they have demonstrated already that they are willing to ignore the rule of law in pursuit of their own desires. How that demonstrates good moral character escapes me. How that demonstrates a willingness to assume our habits of government and culture escapes me as well. How it demonstrates that they are beneficial to the Union overall is something I struggle to comprehend.

No, P, I believe you are incorrect regarding citizenship. Look it up.

I've read the Constitution. I've studied the Constitution. Your "lessons" regarding the Constitution aren't lost on me. What is lost is your continued obfuscation of what U.S. citizenship actually is.

What US citizenship actually is is a term of art. One is only ever a citizen of one of the 50 States and never all of them. A citizen of Colorado living in Germany looks to the federal government for their protection because our Constitution delegates to the federal government sole authority to represent the States in foreign affairs, but they remain a citizen of the State of Colorado. You will always be a citizen of one of the United States Z, never all of them. Despite how you view yourself, you are not a citizen of California, or Washington, or Nevada, or Tennessee, or Florida or any of the other 46 States while you are a citizen of Colorado and there is no dual citizenship that exists that makes you a citizen of Colorado and all the rest of the States at the same time. You get the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of Texas when you travel to Texas because you are a citizen of one of the States that belong to the same Union, but you aren't a citizen of Texas while you are there, you are still a citizen of Colorado. You may migrate to Texas and become a citizen of Texas simply by packing your things and going there, but you will no longer be a citizen of Colorado if you do that, you will instead be a citizen of Texas.

You are now, have always been, and will forever be a citizen of one of the United States, not all of them. That is simply a matter of fact.

And you need to actually provide us with something to back up your claim other than your own definition of what constitutes "citizenship". If, or until, that happens, I maintain my skepticism of your definition. Provide a link to a verifiable site that actually defines "citizenship" in your terms.

Still waiting, P.

That you seem incapable of recognizing arguments bottomed on logic and reason is not my problem to solve Z. I can demonstrate that you are not a citizen of Tennessee and in so doing demonstrate that you cannot possibly be a citizen of all 50 States simultaneously. This I have done already, on numerous occasions. An argument can be proven false by demonstrating it is false in but a single instance.

PrintSmith wrote: That you seem incapable of recognizing arguments bottomed on logic and reason is not my problem to solve Z. I can demonstrate that you are not a citizen of Tennessee and in so doing demonstrate that you cannot possibly be a citizen of all 50 States simultaneously. This I have done already, on numerous occasions. An argument can be proven false by demonstrating it is false in but a single instance.

I wouldn't have expected anything different from you, P. You have nothing, so you persist in your fallacy.

Can you vote for the representatives of any State or just the State in which you are a citizen Z? You can't vote in the congressional elections in the State of New York because you aren't a citizen of the State of New York and only citizens of the State of New York may vote in the congressional races which decide the representation of the State of New York.

Since you are not a citizen of the State of New York, you cannot be a citizen of all of the States simultaneously, which means you aren't a "national" citizen.

QED