Anyone got tips countering Ellis Island argument for illegal immigration??

[socialize_me]

It seems as though anytime you get into a debate with someone who supports illegal immigration, they bring up the whole Ellis Island excuse (which is funny they compare the 19th century to today...in that case, shouldn't they be in favor of a gold standard??). Does anyone have some good counterpoints for this argument??

[Truth Warrior]

Ellis Island was legal.

[cjhowe]

If it weren't for activist judges in 1889, immigration would still be a power reserved to the states.

[MozoVote]

Ellis Island was an -ahem- ISLAND. It wasn't on the mainland, people were not just hopping the border like today. It was also a processing center, and many people were sent back due to failing health requirements. It was not a free-for-all-anyone-can-come era.

[socialize_me]

More details please

[cjhowe]

Ellis Island is actually an argument in favor of national immigration laws as the facility opened in 1892 as a federal installation and thus processed people with regard to federal law.

The plenary powers doctrine was created in 1889 by the SCOTUS in a ruling regarding the Chinese Exclusion Act. It simply says that immigration and naturalizations are areas to be decided entirely by the Congress. However, I read no where in the Constitution that mentions immigration. Therefore the tenth amendment reminds us that it is a power reserved to the states or to the people.

[socialize_me]

Ellis Island is actually an argument in favor of national immigration laws as the facility opened in 1892 as a federal installation and thus processed people with regard to federal law.

The plenary powers doctrine was created in 1889 by the SCOTUS in a ruling regarding the Chinese Exclusion Act. It simply says that immigration and naturalizations are areas to be decided entirely by the Congress. However, I read no where in the Constitution that mentions immigration. Therefore the tenth amendment reminds us that it is a power reserved to the states or to the people.

How can the states declare someone to be a US citizen?? Naturalization laws aren't intended for people who are already living in the United States which didn't immigrate here. We have birth-right citizenship, so what point would there be for Congress to make naturalization laws which are explicitly for immigrants?? I think Congress does have the power to regulate immigration and declaring whether they can be citizens or not. I'm a states' rights guy too, but some people in this movement drift too far from logic. The Federal Government does have its purpose, and this is one of them. Nebraska can't declare someone to be a US citizen. This was always understood throughout history. There's a reason why in the Constitution states cannot prohibit US citizens from moving between states. If Nebraska said you were a US citizen yet you immigrated there and then you decided to move to Kansas where they would nullify that, then the states would be violating the Constitution by preventing you free movement between states.

If Congress has power to make naturalization laws, which it explicitly does, then how does that exclude immigration? Naturalization laws can ONLY apply towards immigrants, because anyone born here is automatically a citizen!! If you're born in the USA, you are NOT a naturalized citizen, you are a natural born citizen and there is a difference. The Constitution doesn't spell everything out, and even a strict constructionist would have a hard time supporting your radical standpoint. Naturalization is the same damn thing as an immigrant becoming a citizen.

[constitutional]

Ellis Island is actually an argument in favor of national immigration laws as the facility opened in 1892 as a federal installation and thus processed people with regard to federal law.

The plenary powers doctrine was created in 1889 by the SCOTUS in a ruling regarding the Chinese Exclusion Act. It simply says that immigration and naturalizations are areas to be decided entirely by the Congress. However, I read no where in the Constitution that mentions immigration. Therefore the tenth amendment reminds us that it is a power reserved to the states or to the people.

Congress shall have Power:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

[cjhowe]

Immigration is not naturalization. Naturalization is becoming a citizen and enjoying the rights and benefits that come with citizenship. Immigration is simply the movement of people. By the Constitution, it is the power of the individual states to determine who may and who may not cross their borders.

[tropicangela]

Ellis Island was legal.

This is the argument I used last year. The other person said we stole this land from the Indians so what gives us the right to decide who can stay? Obama supporter.

[Jodi]

Ellis Island was an -ahem- ISLAND. It wasn't on the mainland, people were not just hopping the border like today. It was also a processing center, and many people were sent back due to failing health requirements. It was not a free-for-all-anyone-can-come era.

The people coming in also had to have someone sponsor them and they learned the english language.

[micahnelson]

People had to cross an ocean. People now only have to cross a border.

That said, I am not afraid of people with different skin tones. I am just concerned about the drain on the welfare state. This isn't a problem with immigration, but with welfare. Would the European immigrants have been as industrious if Welfare was offered to them?

[JaylieWoW]

People had to cross an ocean. People now only have to cross a border.

That said, I am not afraid of people with different skin tones. I am just concerned about the drain on the welfare state. This isn't a problem with immigration, but with welfare. Would the European immigrants have been as industrious if Welfare was offered to them?

Same here.... I'm more appalled by welfare. After all, it is the carrot on the stick that brings some here to begin with.

[socialize_me]

Immigration is not naturalization. Naturalization is becoming a citizen and enjoying the rights and benefits that come with citizenship. Immigration is simply the movement of people. By the Constitution, it is the power of the individual states to determine who may and who may not cross their borders.

Really?? Last I read, the Constitution said states cannot restrict US Citizens from moving from one state to another; THAT was the great deal behind this union was that we had the option of recourse. If you didn't like Nebraska's laws, you could move to Kansas.

You cannot be naturalized without being an immigrant. What good is it for Congress to make laws for a purpose that you say should not have the ability to make law for?? So you would rather have Nebraska determine whether you're a US citizen or not if you come to America?? Then what happens when you move to a state where they don't recognize that?? That's violating the Constitution. States are then in the position to determine whether or not you can or cannot be held under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. That's bullshit and a bastardization of the Constitution. You're a ridiculous strict Constructionist to the point where it's completely illogical. If Congress, and Congress alone, can determine naturalization of citizens, then how the HELL can they do that without managing immigration as well?? Ron Paul doesn't even bring up this point because it defies Constitutional logic.

You CAN'T be naturalized without being an immigrant first.

[Xchange]

If your have the chance show them this...
It pretty much ends all discussion on the matter...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

[cjhowe]

Really?? Last I read, the Constitution said states cannot restrict US Citizens from moving from one state to another; THAT was the great deal behind this union was that we had the option of recourse. If you didn't like Nebraska's laws, you could move to Kansas.

You cannot be naturalized without being an immigrant. What good is it for Congress to make laws for a purpose that you say should not have the ability to make law for?? So you would rather have Nebraska determine whether you're a US citizen or not if you come to America?? Then what happens when you move to a state where they don't recognize that?? That's violating the Constitution. States are then in the position to determine whether or not you can or cannot be held under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. That's bullshit and a bastardization of the Constitution. You're a ridiculous strict Constructionist to the point where it's completely illogical. If Congress, and Congress alone, can determine naturalization of citizens, then how the HELL can they do that without managing immigration as well?? Ron Paul doesn't even bring up this point because it defies Constitutional logic.

You CAN'T be naturalized without being an immigrant first.

States cannot restrict citizens from movement between states, but states, from a literal reading of the Constitution, have the power to regulate all other movement across their borders. If the person is not seeking to become a U.S. citizen, the Constitution does not provide power to the Congress. Just because someone crosses the border looking for work does not mean they intend to become a citizen. These are two entirely separate concepts. You can provide arguments for merit on whether a non citizen should be able to immigrate into a state without the intention of becoming a citizen, but the sovereignty in that decision rests with the state, not the Congress.

[lynnf]

It seems as though anytime you get into a debate with someone who supports illegal immigration, they bring up the whole Ellis Island excuse (which is funny they compare the 19th century to today...in that case, shouldn't they be in favor of a gold standard??). Does anyone have some good counterpoints for this argument??


from the FAIR publication "How to Win the Immigration Debate":
(paraphrased exerpts)

People have a romantic notion of the frontier days when population was sparse and room was plentiful. They are affected by the flattery related to other people wanting to come to this country - it makes being from here seem better, sort of like when your football team wins, you share in the glory.

The reality is that immigration now causes overcrowding and more pollution. Immigrants have more problems than the general population and that means they need more government services, at our expense. But studies show they don't carry their full weight in taxes. Now our country is increasingly congested and communities pass ordinances to limit growth. Due to the eligibility of relatives of immigrants, there is a waiting list of 3 million aliens waiting and eligible for entry here.

(end excerpts)

Sound like a government program that's out-of-control? That's exactly what it is!

lynn

[Truth Warrior]

from the FAIR publication "How to Win the Immigration Debate":
(paraphrased exerpts)

People have a romantic notion of the frontier days when population was sparse and room was plentiful. They are affected by the flattery related to other people wanting to come to this country - it makes being from here seem better, sort of like when your football team wins, you share in the glory.

The reality is that immigration now causes overcrowding and more pollution. Immigrants have more problems than the general population and that means they need more government services, at our expense. But studies show they don't carry their full weight in taxes. Now our country is increasingly congested and communities pass ordinances to limit growth. Due to the eligibility of relatives of immigrants, there is a waiting list of 3 million aliens waiting and eligible for entry here.

(end excerpts)

Sound like a government program that's out-of-control? That's exactly what it is!

lynn The bogus government ploy of 'We can't find and deport them.", was just a part of the NAU implementation scam.<IMHO>

[Deborah K]

This is the argument I used last year. The other person said we stole this land from the Indians so what gives us the right to decide who can stay? Obama supporter.

This argument always gets my goat. It is sooo freakin lame! The 'Indians' aren't indigenous either. They migrated over from the Ukrane. Besides, the Europeans didn't steal anything, they warred over it, the way all conquerors throughout history and on virtually every continent have done. :rolleyes:

In addition, many of us who live here now, don't have descendants that go back to the founding so it is ridiculous to place that kind of blame on today's Americans.

[lynnf]

The bogus government ploy of 'We can't find and deport them.", was just a part of the NAU implementation scam.<IMHO>

of course they "couldn't" -- they didn't want to!

lynn

[Truth Warrior]

of course they "couldn't" -- they didn't want to!

lynn Too many of the "big guys" were making too much easy money off of the criminal alien's labor.

The situation also assists the Federal government in the ongoing "War on the Middle Class". :p

[PatriotLegion]

Ellis Island and Angel Island (www.angelisland.org) were 2 "single" ports of entry for immigrants who wanted the "America Dream". Both locations documented, quarantined and "naturalized" anyone wanting to join this great young nation. The great thing about these entry points is that we see what is coming into the country. In my opinion the millions that illegally crossed the border are all criminals and should be arrested and arraigned by our current laws in place.

[angelatc]

It seems as though anytime you get into a debate with someone who supports illegal immigration, they bring up the whole Ellis Island excuse (which is funny they compare the 19th century to today...in that case, shouldn't they be in favor of a gold standard??). Does anyone have some good counterpoints for this argument??


Tell them that if they'll give up all the entitlement programs we're forced to pay into these days, you'll gladly reopen the borders.

The borders weren't really all that open. People were sent back home from Ellis Island, usually for health reasons, in those days too.

The people that came through Ellis Island wanted to be Americans. They didn't want to be Arab-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans or any of that self-serving cultural division nonsense. They wanted to be Americans.

They came here loving America and what she stood for.

People that come here today only want to undercut American wages, and they are openly hostile. They feel entitled to be here, not honored.

[angelatc]

The bogus government ploy of 'We can't find and deport them.", was just a part of the NAU implementation scam.<IMHO>

Let 12 million of us stop paying our taxes. You'll see how fast they can find and round up 12 million people.

[PatriotLegion]

Let 12 million of us stop paying our taxes. You'll see how fast they can find and round up 12 million people.

Love to, but I think is more like 20 million. ;)

[lynnf]

Love to, but I think is more like 20 million. ;)


some say more like 30-40 million

lynn

[RonPaulVolunteer]

It's 2008.

[Deborah K]

Let 12 million of us stop paying our taxes. You'll see how fast they can find and round up 12 million people.

LOL!! Love this!! Soooo true!