Invite Friends

Topic: US Politics

US voters say immigration top issue, economy close second. What's yours?

  • Comments: 136 |
  • Votes: 29
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Tok Staff:
Republicans put the President's favority issue strongly in 1st place helping it edge out others - what's your top issue when voting (Trump is not an 'issue'!).
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Immigration 38% - Economy/jobs 19% - Health Care 5% - Intl./other 38%
Picture?type=square
  • 52
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
  • 11
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 30
Picture?type=square
By Guy SaintOnge Actually it is the ILLEGAL IMIGRATIN that is # One with U.S. Citizens!! WE don't care if they come here, do it legal, learn to be a U.S. Citizens so you can be proud of your accomplishments instead of hanging your head in shame for doing everything illegal and becoming just another leech!!
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Anonymous-user
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The Constitution doesn't give the Feds authority over immigration, only citizenship. The 10th amendment leaves all things not given to the Feds goes to the States like immigration.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the immigration laws passed by Congress. The doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation's right to define its own borders. Courts generally refrain from interfering in immigration matters.[4] Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a hands-off approach when asked to review the political branches' immigration decisions and policy-making. The Center for Immigration Studies, an organization with a slant toward isolationism, suggests there is a movement to "erode" political-branch control over immigration in favor of a judge-administered system and that the results have created national security concerns.[4] The U.S. Supreme Court case Zadvydas v. Davis is cited as an example of the U.S. Supreme Court not following plenary power precedent.[4][5]
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Any laws giving the Feds that power dont ver their authorization from the Constitution.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman so we ignore the constitution who cares about that old rag
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You are against undocumented worker immigration, what kind of liberal are you?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman did i ever say i was? dont label me i am what i am and that all what i am
i'm popeye the revolutionary man
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Just sharing what you claim.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman feel free but dont let me catch you in a lie about me
you wont like me when i'm angry
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman well ten we have an agreement
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman a positive
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman thats silly of course it does Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” ... By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Wrong silly, Naturalization is citizenship NOT immigration. The Feds have no authority over immigration, but the States have no set restriction. It is up to their individual Constitutions.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you split hairs
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, it's not splitting hairs. Its distinct definitions. We go by what the meant, not by what we want it to mean.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman forty million french man cant be wrong ad they say you are
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris 40 million French don't count. This is an American Constitution. And the French are wrong most of the time.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman old obsolete constitution written by long dead white men
burn it i say
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, it is used to protect your rights. We would all be dead or in jail without it.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman it protected the "rights" of slaveowners
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You are ignorant. The main Founders who came up with all the stuff in the Constitution wanted to end slavery and tried to at the Constitutional Convention.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman did they? for 1789 it was a very progressive document
230 years later it nothing but a relic
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris They needed all the newly independent States to join, so they compromised and allowed it to stay. They should have told the one hold out state to kiss off and ended slavery. The rest of the document especially the Bill of Rights is a freedom and liberty document.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman do you know the history of the document? it was not to protect liberty as you say it was in fact to strenthen the power of the federal government, now if you are honest and know history you know that to be fact. and the bill of rights? merely an after thought they were not going to include it till anti federalists got hot under the collar, its basciall a doctrine written by big govt federalists in response to the shays rebellion and the fiasco of trying to put it down, by an aen feebled confeeration
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris William, the document was to strengthen the Federal government over the Articles, BUT was still a limiting and freedom document. It was a correction from the top weak Articles and the authoritarian crown. Hamilton wanted it stronger. Glad he failed.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris William, the document was to strengthen the Federal government over the Articles, BUT was still a limiting and freedom document. It was a correction from the top weak Articles and the authoritarian crown. Hamilton wanted it stronger. Glad he failed. The anti-Federalists weren't necisarily against having a federal government, they just wanted protections against over-reach. Hence, the BOR added to it being a freedom documents.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The anti-Federalists weren't necisarily against having a federal government, they just wanted protections against over-reach. Hence, the BOR added to it being a freedom documents.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris William, the document was to strengthen the Federal government over the Articles, BUT was still a limiting and freedom document. It was a correction from the top weak Articles and the authoritarian crown. Hamilton wanted it stronger. Glad he failed. The anti-Federalists weren't necisarily against having a federal government, they just wanted protections against over-reach. Hence, the BOR added to it being a freedom documents.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris False, the document is still usable today. The basic laws of government dont change.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i hope they deport you back to mars
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris What? Your from Mars?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i'm going back to saturn where the rings all glow
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Please hurry.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i'm already back
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman resistance is futile we will absorb you
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Like Captain Picard I will destroy the borg.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman chuckle well you can but try
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman go for it
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Not me Capt Picard.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman he vote labour you know
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The actor does, not the captain.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the captian isnt real you do know that
there are no parties in the future
transmat communism has eliminated the state and parties
robots dont need to be greedy
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman yeah i know jean luc picard is the sh*&