NeoRayden
02-23-2008, 03:18 AM
A Real Look at Immigration Reform
By: Michael Strauss
Community Writer - http://cityoflaporte.in News Column
mstrauss@cityoflaporte.in
To "PROPERLY" look at Immigration Reform we must go through the following process.
First we must decide if we are a country founded on rights given to us by our creator or if our rights were given to us by our constitution and our government.
Without getting into that discussion and charging you for the full book lets say that the constitution states that these rights are inalienable and given by our creator.
Since that is the case then "all humans" no matter where they are from have the same inalienable rights as we do. Because of this we must next look to the founding documents mainly the constitution to determine what authorization congress has and where we draw the line.
From Princton's WordNet:
Naturalization: (n), the proceeding whereby a foreigner is granted citizenship.
Immigration: (n), migration into a place especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there
If Naturalization was listed as a verb (which some dictionaries do since it is an action) You could simply define it as: The "process" by which a foreigner is allowed to become a native.
If Immigration was listed as a verb (which some dictionaries do since it is an action) You could simply define it as: The "process" by which a foreigner migrates (or otherwise physically travels) to settle there.
Now that we see that Naturalization and Immigration have two distinct meanings lets see how they fit into the constitutional rule of law that current "Immigration" Law is based on.
Article One, Section 8 U.S. Constitution States: "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
If naturalization is the process by which a person becomes a citizen then they may not regulate the process by which a person enters or exits the country. Congress may provide a method for only the process of becoming a citizen.
Some say that the constitution also states; "and provide for the common Defence". Yes it does but that clause does not authorize immigration law. It is however a sub-clause of the clause "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence general Welfare of the United States" It authorizes what a tax may be collected for (to support any means of defensive war or now days expanded into the Dept. of Defense since we can't keep our nose at home).
So what can congress really do within the constitution. They can state that a person that wishes to become a citizen must follow a curtain process which may include; an oath, resending other alliances, and only according to common sense a monetary requirement along with some means of support (employment) and provisions of a stable home. These common sense provisions are the same even for those that move out on their own when they reach adulthood and a base for emancipation. This to help ensure a person will accept responsibility and provide for themselves instead of others providing for them through a system of social services.
Now, under this understanding anyone can reside here without applying for citizenship but that would mean that they are not privileged to the benefits of citizenship. Those may include voting and social services.
So now that we understand what can and can't be done we must look back to see if this solves the problem. If the problem is unrightful use of tax dollars in socialized programs then we must focus on that not the aspect of sending a person home because they came here rightfully. If a person wishes to be a citizen in order to receive these benefits then they must follow a naturalization process. Failure to follow that process will then result in no benefits.
Now if we wanted to get on the libertarian side of things we could say that government has no place in socialized support and that socialized support encourages this immigration to occur more readily. However we do not even have to go that deep to see that the problem is not them being here and working since they have every right to travel freely and support their families just as we do, it is however a problem to allow them access to taxes paid by taxpayers for the purposes of channeling that money back into the taxpayers pockets in the form of socialized government benefits. This places an unjust burden on the taxpayers.
I hope that you now understand the proper role of our government in Naturalization process and understand that they do not have a role in the immigration process. This is because everyone has the right to travel freely without restriction and the right to support themselves and their family as they see fit.
By: Michael Strauss
Community Writer - http://cityoflaporte.in News Column
mstrauss@cityoflaporte.in
To "PROPERLY" look at Immigration Reform we must go through the following process.
First we must decide if we are a country founded on rights given to us by our creator or if our rights were given to us by our constitution and our government.
Without getting into that discussion and charging you for the full book lets say that the constitution states that these rights are inalienable and given by our creator.
Since that is the case then "all humans" no matter where they are from have the same inalienable rights as we do. Because of this we must next look to the founding documents mainly the constitution to determine what authorization congress has and where we draw the line.
From Princton's WordNet:
Naturalization: (n), the proceeding whereby a foreigner is granted citizenship.
Immigration: (n), migration into a place especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there
If Naturalization was listed as a verb (which some dictionaries do since it is an action) You could simply define it as: The "process" by which a foreigner is allowed to become a native.
If Immigration was listed as a verb (which some dictionaries do since it is an action) You could simply define it as: The "process" by which a foreigner migrates (or otherwise physically travels) to settle there.
Now that we see that Naturalization and Immigration have two distinct meanings lets see how they fit into the constitutional rule of law that current "Immigration" Law is based on.
Article One, Section 8 U.S. Constitution States: "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
If naturalization is the process by which a person becomes a citizen then they may not regulate the process by which a person enters or exits the country. Congress may provide a method for only the process of becoming a citizen.
Some say that the constitution also states; "and provide for the common Defence". Yes it does but that clause does not authorize immigration law. It is however a sub-clause of the clause "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence general Welfare of the United States" It authorizes what a tax may be collected for (to support any means of defensive war or now days expanded into the Dept. of Defense since we can't keep our nose at home).
So what can congress really do within the constitution. They can state that a person that wishes to become a citizen must follow a curtain process which may include; an oath, resending other alliances, and only according to common sense a monetary requirement along with some means of support (employment) and provisions of a stable home. These common sense provisions are the same even for those that move out on their own when they reach adulthood and a base for emancipation. This to help ensure a person will accept responsibility and provide for themselves instead of others providing for them through a system of social services.
Now, under this understanding anyone can reside here without applying for citizenship but that would mean that they are not privileged to the benefits of citizenship. Those may include voting and social services.
So now that we understand what can and can't be done we must look back to see if this solves the problem. If the problem is unrightful use of tax dollars in socialized programs then we must focus on that not the aspect of sending a person home because they came here rightfully. If a person wishes to be a citizen in order to receive these benefits then they must follow a naturalization process. Failure to follow that process will then result in no benefits.
Now if we wanted to get on the libertarian side of things we could say that government has no place in socialized support and that socialized support encourages this immigration to occur more readily. However we do not even have to go that deep to see that the problem is not them being here and working since they have every right to travel freely and support their families just as we do, it is however a problem to allow them access to taxes paid by taxpayers for the purposes of channeling that money back into the taxpayers pockets in the form of socialized government benefits. This places an unjust burden on the taxpayers.
I hope that you now understand the proper role of our government in Naturalization process and understand that they do not have a role in the immigration process. This is because everyone has the right to travel freely without restriction and the right to support themselves and their family as they see fit.