PDA

View Full Version : Is a LibertyForest consensus on immigration possible?




axiomata
07-20-2010, 02:49 PM
This issue is divisive, and I too am tired of these threads, but I hope this one might actually be productive. Can the "pure" libertarians and "nationalistic" conservatives agree on these premises?

A key ingredient will require us all to minimize our use of normative characterizations. These are characterizations that attempt to explain how things ought to be; these are value statements.

A couple examples that we should try to avoid are statements such as:
1. The U.S. ought preserve its western European cultural makeup.
2. The U.S. ought to be a boiling pot of many cultures.

Instead, we should speak in economic terms, and not make specific value judgements. For example, the following two statements do not contain normative claims, economic theory and empiricism holds them both true, and they are usually used on complete opposite sides of the immigration debate.
1. The birthright citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment provides incentive for illegal immigration.
2. In a free market, free immigration increases the net productivity of the country. (source (https://freemarketmojo.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/the-effect-of-immigration-on-productivity-evidence-from-us-states/))

I've created a poll with a few planks that I hope we call all agree on. For each plank place a check if you AGREE. Also check the first box so that we can keep a total of how many people participated in this poll.


Lax enforcement of current immigration rules undermines the rule of law
The birthright citizenship clause provides an incentive for illegal immigration
Those who have broken immigration statutes should be punished in accordance with the penalty on the books
The process for legal migration (not necessarily citizenship) should be streamlined and liberalized
States have the right to evict illegal immigrants from within their boundaries
States do not have the right to "ask for papers" based on race/ethnicity
People have the Natural Right to migrate as they wish (exceptions for terrorists/felons/infected etc.)
A legal immigrant has the right to take a job from a citizen if he is willing to do it at lower pay
Even with the welfare state, the net benefit of immigration on productivity is positive
The welfare state is an incentive for illegal immigration, and should be abolished


I'm open to suggestions for additional planks and can remove unpopular ones. If you must debate in this thread, please keep it civil and to the point.

low preference guy
07-20-2010, 02:53 PM
consensus? what the fuck?

fisharmor
07-20-2010, 03:11 PM
"A legal immigrant has the right to take a job from a citizen if he is willing to do it at lower pay "

I would have checked this if it had said:

"An employer has the right to fire a citizen and give his job to an immigrant (of unspecified legality) if he is willing to do it at lower pay"

teacherone
07-20-2010, 03:14 PM
here's your fucking consensus in three easy steps.

1) secure the border.
2) dismantle the welfare state.
3) unsecure the border.

got it?

Elwar
07-20-2010, 03:14 PM
No

torchbearer
07-20-2010, 03:14 PM
from my life experience, you put 4 libertarians in a room, you will end up with 5 completely different opinions.

Noob
07-20-2010, 03:20 PM
So is the North American Union right around the corner?

dannno
07-20-2010, 03:23 PM
Hmmm, clearly not.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 03:23 PM
"Nationalist" conservatives are people who want to secure the border and eliminate the welfare state before letting 300 million uneducated people into the country?

I don't think so.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 03:25 PM
41% believe in the rule of law, enforcing the law which is on the books?

Wow, this place has gone a long way from Ron Paul.

heavenlyboy34
07-20-2010, 03:30 PM
There will never be a consensus on anything as long as I'm around! lolz! ;)

jmdrake
07-20-2010, 03:33 PM
LOL at the 12.5% who didn't check "EVERYONE CHECK THIS OPTION". :D

http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq165/junah42/Snark/Funny/HerdingCats.jpg

axiomata
07-20-2010, 03:33 PM
This is very preliminary, since I'm hoping for a lot more feedback but:

"States have the right to evict illegal immigrants from within their boundaries"

I am happy to scratch that one. I thought it might be a "state's rights" middle ground but in the end I don't think state's rights should be used to violate the individual right to live where you wish.

"Those who broken immigration statutes should be punished in accordance with the penalty on the books"

Instead of punishing to the full extend of the law, or giving them a free pass, would there be more support in commuting the penalty to something less severe? I do not know enough about immigration law to think of an example. But I was expecting to have more support on the first point (the rule of law one) since it doesn't make any claims on whether this particular law is "good".

"People have the Natural Right to migrate as they wish (exceptions for terrorists/felons/infected)"

For the nays on this one is it because of the exception, the invocation of Natural Rights, or some other reason?


"A legal immigrant has the right to take a job from a citizen if he is willing to do it at lower pay "

I would have checked this if it had said:

"An employer has the right to fire a citizen and give his job to an immigrant (of unspecified legality) if he is willing to do it at lower pay"

The hope is that a simultaneous liberalization and enforcement of immigration rules will economically speaking, make the cost of legal immigration much less than the cost of illegal immigration. I do think your right to fire is a better perspective than the right to work.


from my life experience, you put 4 libertarians in a room, you will end up with 5 completely different opinions.

My intent is not to make a consensus among libertarians as much as it is to present a mostly agreed upon set of talking points to the broader public. One that in its sensibility, could attract support from both sides of the debate.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 03:37 PM
This is very preliminary, since I'm hoping for a lot more feedback but:

"States have the right to evict illegal immigrants from within their boundaries"

I am happy to scratch that one. I thought it might be a "state's rights" middle ground but in the end I don't think state's rights should be used to violate the individual right to live where you wish.
.

States have the POWER. Only individuals have rights. Governments have powers which are granted by the people to the government, for the defense of the individuals' rights.

FrankRep
07-20-2010, 03:39 PM
41% believe in the rule of law, enforcing the law which is on the books?

Wow, this place has gone a long way from Ron Paul.

Ron Paul supports Immigration Laws.

dannno
07-20-2010, 03:41 PM
41% believe in the rule of law, enforcing the law which is on the books?

Wow, this place has gone a long way from Ron Paul.

Ron Paul would pardon all non-violent drug offenders if he could...

The "rule of law" is a dumb concept when applied in a tyrannical way, however, I did check the statement that said having these tough immigration laws and not enforcing them undermines the "rule of law", because, well, it does.

Actually I checked most of the boxes because most of them are true.

dannno
07-20-2010, 03:42 PM
Ron Paul supports Immigration Laws.

He used to support open borders, and he likely would support open borders if we didn't have a welfare state.

Would you support open borders if we didn't have a welfare state?

axiomata
07-20-2010, 03:45 PM
Even with the welfare state, the net benefit of immigration on productivity is positive

This one is also not getting much support. Most economic empirical evidence supports the statement, even with the assumption of the existence of the welfare state. There is no doubt a drain the illegal immigration pulls on the welfare state, but by most analyses the benefits outweigh the costs. Would it get more support if it was just changed to: "The net benefit of immigration on productivity is positive"?

Vessol
07-20-2010, 03:45 PM
The main question I have is that of our natural rights.

Do you believe that our rights are God-given/inherant, or are they granted to us by the government.

If the former, does God discriminate who has rights and who doesn't based on nationality?

BuddyRey
07-20-2010, 03:46 PM
Hey Lookit! We all agree on the last one!

Glorious consensus, at long last!!!

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 03:49 PM
Ron Paul supports Immigration Laws.

I know it! I'm with you and him on this.

Secure the border, staving in the supply of pro-redistributionist voters for the left, and destroy the warfare/welfare state, prior to allowing untold millions of people into the country.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 03:50 PM
He used to support open borders, and he likely would support open borders if we didn't have a welfare state.

Would you support open borders if we didn't have a welfare state?

I would.

Brian4Liberty
07-20-2010, 03:51 PM
LOL at the 12.5% who didn't check "EVERYONE CHECK THIS OPTION". :D


:D

Vessol
07-20-2010, 03:51 PM
I know it! I'm with you and him on this.

Secure the border, staving in the supply of pro-redistributionist voters for the left, and destroy the warfare/welfare state, prior to allowing untold millions of people into the country.

The redistributionists have a big enough voting bloc already, even without illegal immigrants.

However I am in agreement. I'd rather secure the borders and then end the welfare state before we allow open immigration/

brandon
07-20-2010, 03:52 PM
I can't believe "Even with the welfare state, the net benefit of immigration on productivity is positive" has the least amount of votes. How productive do you think the people of the Americas would be if our species never emigrated from Africa?

Fredom101
07-20-2010, 03:53 PM
here's your fucking consensus in three easy steps.

1) secure the border.
2) dismantle the welfare state.
3) unsecure the border.

got it?

No.

1) Dismantle the government

Problem solved. ;)

Humanae Libertas
07-20-2010, 03:53 PM
I would support open borders if the immigrants coming across were actually for private-property, gun ownership - which they're clearly not.

teacherone
07-20-2010, 03:54 PM
No.

1) Dismantle the government

Problem solved. ;)

not all of us want to end the nation state.

although some of us entertain the idea from time to time.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 03:56 PM
No.

1) Dismantle the government

Problem solved. ;)

Right, because the redistributionists wouldn't start going around acting like Strelnikov or anything...

YouTube - Strelnikov, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hCczioWiZk)

Vessol
07-20-2010, 03:57 PM
I would support open borders if the immigrants coming across were actually for private-property, gun ownership - which they're clearly not.

People should not be controlled just because of their political idealogy, by doing that we make ourselves just as bad as them in my opinion.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 04:00 PM
People should not be controlled just because of their political idealogy, by doing that we make ourselves just as bad as them in my opinion.

But Vessol, if we don't sift the ideological make-ups of new voters, well be swamped with people who wish to use the power of the state to deprive us of our property... We already have enough people like that here, we shouldn't be bringing in more redistributionists at this late hour.

Humanae Libertas
07-20-2010, 04:04 PM
People should not be controlled just because of their political idealogy, by doing that we make ourselves just as bad as them in my opinion.

I just firmly believe that we should have a secured border, and I don't mean a '1984 style' border either. However, I'm with Ron Paul on how we shouldn't penalize individuals who want to help them out.

But the reason I said that is because those are the kind of folks that are crossing our borders as we speak, it's the truth.

LibertyEagle
07-20-2010, 04:04 PM
No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

We've had this conversation over and over again. Our Founders talked about this. Once upon a time Americans had a lot of common beliefs about liberty. Those common beliefs or principles are needed, if we ever hope to have liberty again in this area of the world we call the U.S.. We cannot save the world. The best we can do is to regain liberty in our little corner of the world and sustain it. As imperfect as it may have been, the U.S. used to be a beacon of liberty to millions around the world. We were the example of what they could create in their own countries. If anyone thinks we can just open the floodgates and allow unlimited people into our country and maintain those principles, I think you are being very naive. We have our hands full trying to get Americans back to foundational principles, without compounding the issue and flooding our borders with people who have never lived in a country with one vestige of liberty.

It's just a guess, but I would think that the vast amount of people who want unlimited immigration, don't really care about national sovereignty, or if we even have a country.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 04:06 PM
No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

It's just a guess, but I would think that the vast amount of people who want unlimited immigration, don't really care about national sovereignty, or if we even have a country.

I think your suspicions are likely correct.

Vessol
07-20-2010, 04:13 PM
sigh. On a few other sites I visit, in the comments on immigration issues, I hear all these people talking about how we should machine gun down illegals, force them to starve in the deserts, etc etc. Glad we don't have any of this non-sense here.

John Taylor
07-20-2010, 04:18 PM
sigh. On a few other sites I visit, in the comments on immigration issues, I hear all these people talking about how we should machine gun down illegals, force them to starve in the deserts, etc etc. Glad we don't have any of this non-sense here.

The illegals and their coyotes aren't starving in the 120 degree desert here in AZ, they die of heat-exhaustion...

People aren't going out to help them much now, especially after they've begun gunning down ranchers giving assistance to them.

Brian4Liberty
07-20-2010, 04:19 PM
I would support open borders if the immigrants coming across were actually for private-property, gun ownership - which they're clearly not.


People should not be controlled just because of their political idealogy, by doing that we make ourselves just as bad as them in my opinion.

So you support bringing in a ton of totalitarians of some kind who will implement their brand of government as soon as they get a chance?

FrankRep
07-20-2010, 04:43 PM
He used to support open borders, and he likely would support open borders if we didn't have a welfare state.

Would you support open borders if we didn't have a welfare state?

Read Ron Paul's State on Immigration. He doesn't support Open Borders, at least not in 2006.

On "Open Borders," I follow the Constitution and follow the Rules of Naturalization as defined in the Constitution. As a Constitutionalist, I don't support Open Borders.


Ron Paul on Immigration:

The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)


Ron Paul
April 4, 2006


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html



YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg&feature=related)

Noob
07-20-2010, 04:51 PM
Hmmm, clearly not.


A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon. This is what DHS more than likely mean when they say they are securing the border.


http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2010/01/north-american-security-perimeter-on.html

Southron
07-20-2010, 07:38 PM
I support a complete halt in all immigration for the time being and do not support open borders under any circumstance.

I would love to create 2 libertarian nations. One with strictly guarded borders and the other with completely open borders just to see how long they last.

My bet is that once 500 million Chinese immigrate over a couple years that the open borders libertarian nation would be quickly a fading memory.

Anti Federalist
07-20-2010, 07:42 PM
Could not agree more.

+1776



No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

We've had this conversation over and over again. Our Founders talked about this. Once upon a time Americans had a lot of common beliefs about liberty. Those common beliefs or principles are needed, if we ever hope to have liberty again in this area of the world we call the U.S.. We cannot save the world. The best we can do is to regain liberty in our little corner of the world and sustain it. As imperfect as it may have been, the U.S. used to be a beacon of liberty to millions around the world. We were the example of what they could create in their own countries. If anyone thinks we can just open the floodgates and allow unlimited people into our country and maintain those principles, I think you are being very naive. We have our hands full trying to get Americans back to foundational principles, without compounding the issue and flooding our borders with people who have never lived in a country with one vestige of liberty.

It's just a guess, but I would think that the vast amount of people who want unlimited immigration, don't really care about national sovereignty, or if we even have a country.

constituent
07-21-2010, 06:48 AM
On "Open Borders," I follow the Constitution and follow the Rules of Naturalization as defined in the Constitution

No you don't...

BTW, it's "uniform rule of Naturalization," which has nothing to do with immigration and ISN'T defined in the constitution.

You might bother reading the constitution before citing it. :)

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 06:53 AM
here's your fucking consensus in three easy steps.

1) secure the border.
2) dismantle the welfare state.
2.1) Repeal NAFTA
2.2) End the phony drug war
2.3) End the phony war on terror
2.4) Restore the original meaning of the "commerce clause" are roll back most federal regulations.
3) unsecure the border.

got it?

Fixed it for ya. ;)

FrankRep
07-21-2010, 07:01 AM
BTW, it's "uniform rule of Naturalization," which has nothing to do with immigration and ISN'T defined in the constitution.

You might bother reading the constitution before citing it. :)

Thank you for proving that Arizona's New Immigration laws are Constitutional under the 10th Amendment.


FYI:

Many people agree that mass Illegal Immigration is a form of Invasion.


Article Four of the United States Constitution, Clause 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_2:_Protection_from_invasion_and_domestic_viole nce


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


-------

Immigration vs Naturalization (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/28/immigration-vs-naturalization/)


Michael Boldin | Tenth Amendment Center (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/)


Over the last couple days, I’ve received a number of emails about Arizona’s new immigration law – and thought it was worthy of some constitutional consideration.

To start – we must keep adherence to the 10th Amendment as a top priority. This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. These are often called the enumerated powers (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” – or, more simply stated, to make universal rules about giving foreign-born residents of the United States the “privileges of native” born residents.

The most important thing to consider at this point are the words “immigration” and “naturalization” themselves. While most of us would consider them strongly related, we have to keep in mind that in any 18th Century law dictionary, they would have been seen as two wholly different words, with two separate meanings.

And, if like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean the exact same thing today as they meant the moment it was signed (barring amendments, of course), it’s imperative that we understand the meanings of such words at the time of the founding.

For example, a common 18th century definition of naturalization was “The act of investing aliens with the privileges of native subjects”, while emigrate had a common meaning of “to move from one place to another.”

Such a delegated power over “naturalization” then, does not specifically address the power over immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/misunderstanding-necessary-and-proper/)) to find authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.

But, I’m sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I’m all ears! Otherwise, such power is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments or not – as they see fit.

If this analysis is correct, then Arizona’s new immigration law would be acceptable under the federal constitution. It would then need to be scrutinized for compliance under the Arizona State Constitution (which I have heard almost no mention of in this debate).

At the same time, if my state of California (or any other state for that matter) were to then pass a law allowing more immigration than what Arizona or D.C. or anyone else has allowed, this would also be acceptable under the Constitution – and then would need to be scrutinized for compliance under the State Constitution of that state.

Such “marketplace competition” between states would certainly allow us to see which policy worked best, not only for the economy, but for the amount of freedom vs restriction that people want in their lives. That’s the system that was set up by the founders and ratifiers under the Constitution. It’s called federalism.

The key, of course, would be to remove any federal funding of social programs for people who weren’t “naturalized” under the rules of the federal government. (discussions on the constitutionality of those programs aside for the time being) States, however, could enact their own social programs should they choose – or none at all.

There is one other extremely important point in all this – just because something is “constitutional” does not mean it’s good policy.


SOURCE:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/28/immigration-vs-naturalization/

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 07:05 AM
A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon. This is what DHS more than likely mean when they say they are securing the border.


http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2010/01/north-american-security-perimeter-on.html

Yep. But some would rather ignore what the globalists themselves have to say on the issue. They're perfectly fine with "open borders" between our current nation states (U.S., Mexico and Canada) because they want to create a European Union style "super state" complete with a common currency. Rather than arguing among ourselves about whether open borders is in theory a good idea, we need to focus on the reality of the need to repeal NAFTA, the RealID Act, the welfare state, the federal war on drugs, the crippling regulation that pushing American industry offshore and all of the other issues that make the "open borders" movement play right into the globalists hands. Both extremist positions on the issue are wrong. We shouldn't give the government more power to monitor us through RealID or "instant employer check" in the name of fighting illegal immigration. But going along with Obama/Bush plans for "pathways to citizenship" or "amnesty" or whatever isn't the solution either. This immigration debate is becoming an internal distraction more than anything else.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

YouTube - Vicente Fox hints about a North American Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGrn0hZlCQ)

YouTube - Vicente Fox - North American Union? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrLFYaX75-0)

YouTube - WeAreChange confronts Mexico's ex-President Vicente Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AasdjfbdTM)

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 07:10 AM
Thank you for proving that Arizona's New Immigration laws are Constitutional under the 10th Amendment.


Immigration vs Naturalization (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/28/immigration-vs-naturalization/)


LOL. That was quick.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 07:23 AM
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.

But, I’m sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I’m all ears! Otherwise, such power is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments or not – as they see fit.

Don't insult my intelligence when I have cited it and repeated it over several threads. I have touched on so much crap on this topic starting with Blackstone's Commentaries, the history of border patrol under taxing powers, where borders are defined, founding history about allegiance between colonials and english, court rulings, and a whole bunch of other shit.

If you are going to cite people who are going to rattle off bullshit opinion when they can't even cite how the government created the power to regulate immigration 100 years after the document was signed you deserve no respect what so ever for advancing intellectually dishonest propaganda bullshit.

In addition to the immigration bullshit I cited the case against "papers please" and people are repeating "Am I being detained" all over the place. Why? Because I am right about the 5th and 6th amendments.

Pony up and counter the mountain of evidence that has been presented, answer the list unanswered questions posed, or shut the hell up until you have something intellectual to contribute to the discussion.

JBS should be laughed at for your inability to make a historical argument that jives with the Constitution.

fisharmor
07-21-2010, 07:41 AM
The hope is that a simultaneous liberalization and enforcement of immigration rules will economically speaking, make the cost of legal immigration much less than the cost of illegal immigration. I do think your right to fire is a better perspective than the right to work.

But there is no right to work, so it is not a matter of perspective.
Look, words have meanings, and when you string words together to make sentences, you are either conveying the message you want to convey, or you're failing to communicate.

The messages you're conveying are:

1) People have a right to work. This implies that the state, a monopoly on the use of force, protects that right. Thus, the state is now involved in making sure people who wish to work are able to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that's the high dive into straight-up tyranny, as we are now expected to dole out fines and prison time for turning workers away.

2) People of legal status have a right to take a job from another person of a legal status. The employer didn't even enter the equation in your scenario. Thus, if a legal immigrant waltzes into my place of employment and informs my employer that despite being totally unqualified to do what I do, he'll do it for $1 a year less, he has a right to that job. Further, as this is a right, again, government has a role in protecting that right, meaning that my employer is now forced to employ this idiot by law.


I didn't say these things, you did. And they are truly fucked up ideas, aren't they?
It's not a matter of perspective.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626


Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from “the religious societies to which they belonged” that testified to their good character. King proposed that something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.

And the list goes on.

The problem here is not that the question -- “Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?” -- is usually answered incorrectly or badly. The problem is that it is never raised in the first place. (That’s why it’s the very first entry in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.)

The Founding Fathers were not infallible, of course, and they were sometimes wrong. But on a matter as critical as this one, shouldn’t we at least be aware of what they thought?

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
The unavoidable and inevitable reality of believing the government is the solution to the "immigration problem"... More bureaucracy, more taxes, more favoritism, and far more stealing from the dreams of good people.

I'd Like to Share a Personal (and True) Immigration Story With Everybody... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253855)

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 07:54 AM
But there is no right to work, so it is not a matter of perspective.
Look, words have meanings, and when you string words together to make sentences, you are either conveying the message you want to convey, or you're failing to communicate.

The messages you're conveying are:

1) People have a right to work. This implies that the state, a monopoly on the use of force, protects that right. Thus, the state is now involved in making sure people who wish to work are able to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that's the high dive into straight-up tyranny, as we are now expected to dole out fines and prison time for turning workers away.

2) People of legal status have a right to take a job from another person of a legal status. The employer didn't even enter the equation in your scenario. Thus, if a legal immigrant waltzes into my place of employment and informs my employer that despite being totally unqualified to do what I do, he'll do it for $1 a year less, he has a right to that job. Further, as this is a right, again, government has a role in protecting that right, meaning that my employer is now forced to employ this idiot by law.


I didn't say these things, you did. And they are truly fucked up ideas, aren't they?
It's not a matter of perspective.

People have a natural right to contract. It is Constitutionally guaranteed in that states are Constitutionally prohibited from infringing on the obligation of contracts.

The government would lead you to believe you do not have a natural right to contract only a privilege of employment.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:01 AM
Could not agree more.

+1776

:(

You disappoint me AF...

Read this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253855), and think hard about your belief that government can solve these kinds of problems.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 08:07 AM
:(

You disappoint me AF...

It is the lack of consistency that irks me.

Let's advocate the Constitution. Ok let's...

Well the Constitution is not realistic with regards to immigration. It won't work in reality.

Let's advocate Voluntaryism. Ok let's...

Well Voluntaryism is not realistic with regards to ________. It won't work in reality.

Apparently you have to have unknown, special, magical, or wise overlord qualities to discern reality and principles, philosophy, or the rule of law has nothing to do with it.

BW2112
07-21-2010, 08:11 AM
I don't know much about this issue. So, this will be my dumb guy opinion.

I want closed borders for the sake of damage control. If the entitlements are done away with, the drug war is abolished, NAFTA is repealed, etc., then we can open the borders. In the mean time, along with securing the borders, we should make the process of acquiring legal immigration status much easier.

Btw, I don't want a fence being built. Not even if it is privately funded. I have too much fear of one day, those walls that are being used to keep people out will be used to keep people in.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:11 AM
Does anyone else besides me find it rather frustrating that instead of spending our time strategizing or working towards accomplishing what is laid out in our forum Mission, instead we spend our time arguing with others who do not agree with the forum Mission and would like nothing more than to see the U.S. fall and the last vestiges of the Constitution ripped to shreds?

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it sure does curtail any forward momentum.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:15 AM
No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

Translation: Government will always and forever be the solution to my pet issue!

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:17 AM
Does anyone else besides me find it rather frustrating that instead of spending our time strategizing or working towards accomplishing what is laid out in our forum Mission, instead we spend our time arguing with others who do not agree with the forum Mission and would like nothing more than to see the U.S. fall and the last vestiges of the Constitution ripped to shreds?

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it sure does curtail any forward momentum.

As someone who participates in these threads as much as anyone else, I think you should be asking yourself.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:17 AM
Translation: Government will always and forever be the solution to my pet issue!

No, Clay. With you, it is all or none. There is a middle ground, you know. We have discussed this numerous times before. But, you seem to think if you can repeat a false claim often enough, that people will believe you.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:19 AM
No, Clay. With you, it is all or none. There is a middle ground, you know.

A balance between liberty and tyranny?



We have discussed this numerous times before. But, you seem to think if you can repeat a false claim often enough, that people will believe you.

It's not a false claim.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:20 AM
As someone who participates in these threads as much as anyone else, I think you should be asking yourself.

Asking myself, what, Clay?

I support the forum Mission. I support Ron Paul and his strategy.

Can you say the same?

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:21 AM
A balance between liberty and tyranny?

Start a new thread if you want to re-hash this for the 99th time. Maybe we can go dig up the 100 or more threads where this has been discussed before. :cool:


It's not a false claim.

Oh yes, it is.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 08:22 AM
Does anyone else besides me find it rather frustrating that instead of spending our time strategizing or working towards accomplishing what is laid out in our forum Mission, instead we spend our time arguing with others who do not agree with the forum Mission and would like nothing more than to see the U.S. fall and the last vestiges of the Constitution ripped to shreds?

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it sure does curtail any forward momentum.

I am extremely irritated by people who have the audacity to pose as constitutional advocates who are personal issue hypocrites. If you can't cite the Constitutional authority under original intent for any power you advocate the government should have you should be booted from the forum as a Constitutional advocate fraud.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:25 AM
Asking myself, what, Clay?

Think about it.



I support the forum Mission.

I don't, and have made that clear since it's inception. I was a member long before that bullshit was written.


I support Ron Paul and his strategy.


I do.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."


Can you say the same?

Do I support that ridiculous forum mission statement? Not as written, fuck no.

Do I support individual Liberty? Yup

Do I support Ron Paul and his efforts? Yup

Do I support Natural Law? Yup

Do I support the Non aggression principle?? Yup

Do I support Free-market Capitalism? Yup.

Do I support Grassroots efforts? Yup
:)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:27 AM
I am extremely irritated by people who have the audacity to pose as constitutional advocates who are personal issue hypocrites. If you can't cite the Constitutional authority under original intent for any power you advocate the government should have you should be booted from the forum as a Constitutional advocate fraud.

Since you posted this in the immigration thread, is it safe to assume you believe that anyone who thinks that individuals have the right to enable their state governments to defend their borders, are somehow "frauds"?

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:28 AM
Start a new thread if you want to re-hash this for the 99th time. Maybe we can go dig up the 100 or more threads where this has been discussed before. :cool:
Can't simply answer the question eh?

No need to start a new thread, it was just a simple question that you failed to answer. My point is rational and obvious.




Oh yes, it is.

If you say so ;)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:35 AM
Clay, you have just about stretched that one little interview beyond all recognition. :rolleyes:

Dr. Paul has given numerous speeches and written many articles about his belief that we need to reinstate the Constitution. I don't think anyone has said that we have to stop there, but it most certainly is the first step. If we do not take it, we most certainly won't have the opportunity to get to anywhere else.

But, instead of spending our time trying to make any progress, we instead have to spend our time arguing with those who are supposedly on our side. It just makes no sense. Sure, you may wish that my country went beyond the Constitution, but can't we work together until at least that point? Why waste all this time beating the shit out of one another? I can only imagine how confused a newbie to this site must be. They read the Mission statement and say ok, and then they come on in here and see Constitution-bashing, Christian-bashing, etc. If you do not think this reflects on Ron Paul, you have another thing coming.

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 08:37 AM
I am extremely irritated by people who have the audacity to pose as constitutional advocates who are personal issue hypocrites. If you can't cite the Constitutional authority under original intent for any power you advocate the government should have you should be booted from the forum as a Constitutional advocate fraud.

Yes or no question. Do you think the Arizona law is unconstitutional?

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:37 AM
As someone who participates in these threads as much as anyone else, I think you should be asking yourself.

LE, I admit this was a bit of a stupid remark. I misread your point a little bit. My bad, and my apologies for that. :o

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:41 AM
Can't simply answer the question eh?

No need to start a new thread, it was just a simple question that you failed to answer. My point is rational and obvious.

Bullshit.

You want a free for all. A mob rule. I don't. And until you can change the nature of man, which is to amass power over others, then yes, I believe the best way to defend individual liberty is to have extremely and strictly limited Constitutional governments, with a very active and knowledgeable citizenry.

And Clay, I graduated from grade school a long time ago. I'm not interested in your games. If you want to truly have a discussion about this, as I said before, start a new thread.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:41 AM
Clay, you have just about stretched that one little interview beyond all recognition. :rolleyes:

Regardless, They are his words not mine. They do seem to challenge your worldview.


Dr. Paul has given numerous speeches and written many articles about his belief that we need to reinstate the Constitution.
I never denied that.


I don't think anyone has said that we have to stop there, but it most certainly is the first step. If we do not take it, we most certainly won't have the opportunity to get to anywhere else.

The idea of taking steps to return the constitution is no more realistic than taking steps to voluntaryism.



But, instead of spending our time trying to make any progress, we instead have to spend our time arguing with those who are supposedly on our side. It just makes no sense.
I argue against people who advocate increased government intervention as a rational solution to their pet issues.



Sure, you may wish that my country went beyond the Constitution, but can't we work together until at least that point? Why waste all this time beating the shit out of one another?

I agree... to take it further... why waste time asking the government to beat the shit out of "illegal" mexicans and people who employ them, when the welfare state and WOD are the clear problems?


I can only imagine how confused a newbie to this site must be. They read the Mission statement and say ok, and then they come on in here and see Constitution-bashing, Christian-bashing, etc. If you do not think this reflects on Ron Paul, you have another thing coming.

Yea, that mission statement will produce much confusion and controversy.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 08:44 AM
Since you posted this in the immigration thread, is it safe to assume you believe that anyone who thinks that individuals have the right to enable their state governments to defend their borders, are somehow "frauds"?

Nope. Here are a few additional constitutional tips:

If people in a state want to enforce trespassing at their borders, great as long as states do not impair the obligation of contracts while doing it.

If people want to advocate for a constitutional amendment regulating immigration, fine.

If people want to advocate for states petitioning the federal government for redress of grievances for the failure of federal government to deport trespassers of state borders caught in the act, fine.

On the other hand if you claim regulating immigration is a delegated power under original intent and not some constitutional perversion like the commerce clause... prove it.

If you claim ID, social security numbers, or papers are required to live or work in the United States... prove it. I heard some jackass Congressman on C-SPAN this morning make a claim about social security numbers and he obviously doesn't have any Amish people in his district or he wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.

If you claim any specific circumstances government can infringe upon 5th Amendment constitutional guarantees compelling you to witness against yourself.... prove it.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:46 AM
Bullshit.

You want a free for all. A mob rule. I don't.

You want a mob to tax and rule your borders and population. ;) I want a lawful society, where no man is above the law. ;)



And Clay, I graduated from grade school a long time ago. I'm not interested in your games.

:confused:



If you want to truly have a discussion about this, as I said before, start a new thread.

You don't have to keep responding, I have no desire to start a new thread on this. I'm just pointing out the obvious, in regards to what you're saying in this thread.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:48 AM
Regardless, They are his words not mine. They do seem to challenge your worldview.

No, they don't, Clay. See, I've actually read the things he has written over the years. I don't rely on one little interview. ;)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:54 AM
You want a mob to tax and rule your borders and population. ;) I want a lawful society, where no man is above the law. ;)
We both want the same end result, Clay. You and I just disagree about how to obtain it.

Once upon a time, I thought we agreed that the first step was to get the Constitution reinstated. With full knowledge that some people would want to go further than that. But that most could work together until that time. That no longer seems to be the case.


You don't have to keep responding, I have no desire to start a new thread on this. I'm just pointing out the obvious, in regards to what you're saying in this thread.

If you are going to misconstrue my beliefs, then yes, I will respond. I trust one of the Mods will just split out our conversation, anyway.

The obvious is that you are a Canadian who hates the U.S. Constitution and has admitted that they don't agree with the Forum Mission. I have no doubt that we can work together if Dr. Paul runs again, but on achieving any of the other intermediate goals, sorry, I just don't see it. Which makes us NOT on the same side. It's just the reality of the situation.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:54 AM
No, they don't, Clay. See, I've actually read the things he has written over the years.

So have I, maybe not all of it, but I've read hours upon hours of Ron Paul material.



I don't rely on one little interview. ;)

"We like open borders, let the people and the goods flow over the borders" - Ron Paul

AuH2O
07-21-2010, 08:55 AM
Upon very brief review, I agree with all the options in the poll, I think. None were "directly" contradictory, right?

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 08:57 AM
Clay, Dr. Paul is not for open borders. Surely, you must know that by now. Sheesh.

There's a whole other thread about this and it is current. Go read it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253833

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 08:59 AM
We both want the same end result, Clay. You and I just disagree about how to obtain it.

I'm not so sure...


No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

"We like open borders, let the people and the goods flow over the borders" - Ron Paul



Once upon a time, I thought we agreed that the first step was to get the Constitution reinstated. With full knowledge that some people would want to go further than that. But that most could work together until that time. That no longer seems to be the case.


The constitution didn't even stop Washington, Jefferson and Adams from Abusing it. Working towards the constitution is not realistic, it never worked.



If you are going to misconstrue my beliefs, then yes, I will respond. I trust one of the Mods will just split out our conversation, anyway.


I didn't misconstrue anything.



The obvious is that you are a Canadian who hates the U.S. Constitution and has admitted that they don't agree with the Forum Mission.

The collectivism is strong in thee...

I am an individual who believes in individual liberty.



I have no doubt that we can work together if Dr. Paul runs again, but on achieving any of the other intermediate goals, sorry, I just don't see it. Which makes us NOT on the same side. It's just the reality of the situation.

I've realized for some time that you're interested in politics and democracy more than the liberty.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:01 AM
Clay, Dr. Paul is not for open borders. Surely, you must know that by now. Sheesh.


That's his words, not mine.



There's a whole other thread about this and it is current. Go read it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253833

If you read it, you would already know that I actively participated in that thread.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:02 AM
Cite your source, Clay.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:06 AM
I've realized for some time that you're interested in politics and democracy more than the liberty.

I will ignore your insult, Clay.

Again, you and I both believe in liberty. We just disagree on how to best achieve it and hold onto it.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:10 AM
Cite your source, Clay.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

No problem... :)

Go to 6:30, but he talks about open borders multiple times in the interview if you watch the whole thing.

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw&feature=player_embedded)

"Inflationism and corporatism, engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating, blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities and too often, freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that results." - Ron Paul (go to 4:30-5:00)

YouTube - Statist/Racism Blame VS Liberty/Federal Reserve Blame For Economic Turmoil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UmlR0CwEtU)

I think someperson nailed it in a thread that you are very likely to ignore.



If one listens to Dr. Paul objectively, from both long ago and recently, as shown in that video, it becomes quite clear what his true goals are, with regard to borders, trade, and immigration. Epic mental gymnastics might obscure the picture, though... for a while ;)

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 09:10 AM
Cite your source, Clay.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

To that I'll add a quote from Federalist paper # 24. It seems the founders were concerned about the borders too. ;)

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed24.htm
Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:15 AM
Again, you and I both believe in liberty. We just disagree on how to best achieve it and hold onto it.

Right... I believe in free-markets and free trade, you believe in government regulated markets and trade. (minimal of course)

Anyways LE, obviously we both understand that nothing is being accomplished in this conversation that we've had a million times before. I guess we should just agree to disagree, i really need to get some shit done... :p What'dya say?

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:18 AM
Clay, the first video is decades old. Nice try, but no prize. lol.

The 2nd video you are misconstruing. There are a lot of people and issues being scapegoated for the situation my country is in right now. The attempt is to keep our eyes off of who created the problems -- the government. It does not mean that those things the government is doing, such as blatantly allowing our borders to be overrun, doesn't fall into their plans for subverting our liberty. Because they most certainly do. Dr. Paul has been clear. He is not for open borders.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:20 AM
Anyways LE, obviously we both understand that nothing is being accomplished in this conversation that we've had a million times before. I guess we should just agree to disagree, i really need to get some shit done... :p What'dya say?

That's what I suggested to you 2 or more pages ago. But, you would have none of it. So, of course, I still agree.

live liberty
07-21-2010, 09:22 AM
Right... I believe in free-markets and free trade, you believe in government regulated markets and trade. (minimal of course)

Always be suspicious of someone who claims to know what someone else believes in. :(

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:23 AM
Clay, the first video is decades old. Nice try, but no prize. lol.

You got all defensive when I cited a much more recent example...

"What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."



The 2nd video you are misconstruing. There are a lot of people and issues being scapegoated for the situation my country is in right now. The attempt is to keep our eyes off of who created the problems -- the government.

I didn't misconstrue at all. This is exactly why I posted the video! I 10000% agree with what u just said, after the first sentence. Illegal immigrants is just another scapegoat, to keep your eyes off of who created the problems!



It does not mean that those things the government is doing, such as blatantly allowing our borders to be overrun, doesn't fall into their plans for subverting our liberty. Because they most certainly do.

The source of the problem the welfare state, the FED and War on Drugs. Everything else is a scapegoat to the real problem. Government is the problem, not the solution. ;)

"The time has come, let's end the fed"- Ron Paul.

I'm gonna end on that note, since I'm sure we both agree with that final quote. :)

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:25 AM
Always be suspicious of someone who claims to know what someone else believes in. :(

Her words, not mine.


No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:25 AM
That's what I suggested to you 2 or more pages ago. But, you would have none of it. So, of course, I still agree.

You certainly didn't lead by example ;)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:36 AM
You certainly didn't lead by example ;)

As I told you, Clay, if you insisted on lying about my stances or Ron Paul's, I would not just sit there and let you do it. Nor will I ever.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:40 AM
As I told you, Clay, if you insisted on lying about my stances or Ron Paul's, I would not just sit there and let you do it. Nor will I ever.

I didn't lie... I cited all of the claims you asked for, and it was never enough.

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Nope. Here are a few additional constitutional tips:

If people in a state want to enforce trespassing at their borders, great as long as states do not impair the obligation of contracts while doing it.


Ah. So you do think the Arizona law is constitutional. Cool. I think most people on the "other side" of this debate would agree with you. Take the authority for border control from the federal government which isn't doing a very good job and give it (back?) to the states.



If people want to advocate for states petitioning the federal government for redress of grievances for the failure of federal government to deport trespassers of state borders caught in the act, fine.


Ummm....if the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce immigration law than how can the states petition for redress for the federal government not doing something it doesn't have the authority to do? :confused:



On the other hand if you claim regulating immigration is a delegated power under original intent and not some constitutional perversion like the commerce clause... prove it.


Article I section 8 gives the federal government the power to call up the militia to "repel invasions". In federalist paper # 24 this concept was expounded on by saying there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier and These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. So the founding fathers were apparently "intent" on having secure borders.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed24.htm




If you claim ID, social security numbers, or papers are required to live or work in the United States... prove it. I heard some jackass Congressman on C-SPAN this morning make a claim about social security numbers and he obviously doesn't have any Amish people in his district or he wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.


Straw man. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone at RPF who support the social security system. And having secure borders versus requiring "papers to live or work in the U.S." are to different things.



If you claim any specific circumstances government can infringe upon 5th Amendment constitutional guarantees compelling you to witness against yourself.... prove it.

You don't have to witness against yourself if you're seen swimming across the Rio Grande.

osan
07-21-2010, 09:43 AM
A key ingredient will require us all to minimize our use of normative characterizations. These are characterizations that attempt to explain how things ought to be; these are value statements.

Says who? Normative positions usually signify some underlying principle. It is a lack of clear principles that has the world in the shit in which it currently finds itself. Without the normative, all that remains is the positive, in which case there is nothing to discuss. The world is what it is, accept it, get over it, kaput. Therefore, as you can see, elimination of the normative removes all basis for discussion. If you pose one positive "fact" against another, the normative returms to the fore by implication at the very least.


Instead, we should speak in economic terms, and not make specific value judgements.

Nonsense. That is precisely the root of our troubles these days - so many people are unwilling to take a stand on so-called "values". I will assert that those values should be very low-level, but they must be there nonetheless or we have what practically amounts to nihilism.




For example, the following two statements do not contain normative claims, economic theory and empiricism holds them both true, and they are usually used on complete opposite sides of the immigration debate.
1. The birthright citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment provides incentive for illegal immigration.

Yes, and in order for any discussion to have meaning, much less value, there is a normative value against which your example must beat.

As to your "planks", most are seriously flawed, but please do not take this as any statement against you personally - such things are very difficult to write in a manner that is concise, complete, relevant, and not misleading. You took on a fairly onerous task, difficulty-wise, and ran into the predictable problems.


I'm open to suggestions for additional planks and can remove unpopular ones. If you must debate in this thread, please keep it civil and to the point.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:47 AM
Right... I believe in free-markets and free trade, you believe in government regulated markets and trade. (minimal of course)



Please cite where I spoke in favor of government regulated markets and government regulated trade.

I will be waiting....

I warned you, Clay.

As I told you, Clay, if you insisted on lying about my stances or Ron Paul's, I would not just sit there and let you do it. Nor will I ever.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:55 AM
Please cite where I said one thing about government regulated markets and government regulated trade.

I will be waiting....

I thought you wanted to end this conversation 2 pages ago? :rolleyes:

And as for your request...


No unlimited immigration even after ending the welfare state.

Is this something that requires no government regulation on the market?

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 09:56 AM
I warned you, Clay.

I don't take your warnings seriously, I think you're confused.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:58 AM
I thought you wanted to end this conversation 2 pages ago? :rolleyes:

And as for your request...


Is this something that requires no government regulation on the market?

Yes, I can see your point. And on that we will have to agree to disagree.

osan
07-21-2010, 09:59 AM
[/QUOTE]

This one looks OK.




Those who have broken immigration statutes should be punished in accordance with the penalty on the books



This one also presupposes much about the law. Answering YES may imply that one agree with the law in question. Answering NO may be taken to imply that one agrees with illegal immigration. I would say that the item should be further qualified to clear up such potential ambiguities.



The process for legal migration (not necessarily citizenship) should be streamlined and liberalized



No definition of what "liberalized" means.



States have the right to evict illegal immigrants from within their boundaries


All else taken as equal (a possible catcha ll-qualifier), this seems OK.



States do not have the right to "ask for papers" based on race/ethnicity


Same as above



People have the Natural Right to migrate as they wish (exceptions for terrorists/felons/infected etc.)


I'd call this one good.



A legal immigrant has the right to take a job from a citizen if he is willing to do it at lower pay


What is the point of the "lower pay" qualifier? Again, this injects wiggle room for plenty of misinterpretation of the answer. "Yes" may be taken as meaning "only if he iw willing to do it at lower pay". "No" could be interpreted more broadly to say that the belief is that immigrants are not within their rights to take any job.



Even with the welfare state, the net benefit of immigration on productivity is positive


Seems OK as posited.



The welfare state is an incentive for illegal immigration, and should be abolished



You have included a normative element "should". :)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 09:59 AM
I don't take your warnings seriously, I think you're confused.

That's ok. I don't take anything you say, seriously. You've already made it clear that you want my country dissolved and my Constitution burned. That puts you in the same camp as the one-worlders, in my book.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 10:02 AM
Yes, I can see your point. And on that we will have to agree to disagree.

:)

Thanks for being honest. I agree, we need to just agree to disagree at this point and get off eachothers throats... :)


That's ok. I don't take anything you say, seriously. :D

haha, i actually lol'd when reading that. :D

You know, we have our differences but a part of me still loves ya. :)

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 10:03 AM
You've already made it clear that you want my country dissolved and my Constitution burned. That puts you in the same camp as the one-worlders, in my book.

Right... you believe government intervention is a big part of the solution, and I believe free markets are the only rational solution. It's our fundamental difference.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 10:03 AM
We are on different sides, Clay. You have made that abundantly clear. Anyone who wants to see my country die and my Constitution burned is my enemy.

See ya.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 10:07 AM
We are on different sides, Clay.

Right, you side with government intervention and nationalism, I side with free-markets and individual liberty.



You have made that abundantly clear. Anyone who wants to see my country die and my Constitution burned is my enemy.

I want to see individual liberty flourish, which is why I am in favor of free-markets, Natural Law and the Non-aggression principle..



See ya.

Bye! (something tells me this wont be the last i hear from you) ;)

fisharmor
07-21-2010, 10:09 AM
Anyone who wants to see my country die and my Constitution burned is my enemy.

Then there are those of us who realize it already happened a long time ago.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 10:11 AM
Then there are those of us who realize it already happened a long time ago.

Ahhh... that is the perfect response. :)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 10:14 AM
Then there are those of us who realize it already happened a long time ago.

Yes, it's been going on for a very long time. But, it's not dead yet. Not unless we roll over.

But, that is a very different thing than the people who celebrate its destruction and that is the issue to which I am speaking.

Travlyr
07-21-2010, 10:15 AM
Then there are those of us who realize it already happened a long time ago.

Explain please... when?

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 10:18 AM
Explain please... when?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam


etc.

JeNNiF00F00
07-21-2010, 10:18 AM
I am extremely irritated by people who have the audacity to pose as constitutional advocates who are personal issue hypocrites. If you can't cite the Constitutional authority under original intent for any power you advocate the government should have you should be booted from the forum as a Constitutional advocate fraud.

I agree.

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 10:19 AM
But, that is a very different thing than the people who celebrate its destruction and that is the issue to which I am speaking.

If I believed it could work and actually limit the government, I would support it 1000%. I don't celebrate it's destruction, it's already destroyed. I simply criticize what it created. (the foundation for the oppressive state that exists today)

fisharmor
07-21-2010, 10:27 AM
Explain please... when?

In 1791 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_the_United_States),
1798 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts),
1811 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States),
1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter),
1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion),
also in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act),
also in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution),
1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917)...

This is just a smattering going back to when the ink on the constitution wasn't even dry.
None of these things have any place happening in the nation that that document describes, and we really haven't even gotten into the 20th century.

So I guess if we had to pick a year, I'd say 1913 - that's when America died.

Travlyr
07-21-2010, 11:00 AM
In 1791 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_the_United_States),
1798 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts),
1811 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States),
1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter),
1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion),
also in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act),
also in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution),
1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917)...

This is just a smattering going back to when the ink on the constitution wasn't even dry.
None of these things have any place happening in the nation that that document describes, and we really haven't even gotten into the 20th century.

So I guess if we had to pick a year, I'd say 1913 - that's when America died.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. A virtual silent coup d'état occurred in 1913, and most Americans are only recently finding out about it. Our republic is alive, not well, but alive. The constitutional principals are not being followed or respected, but that is about to change. The internet provides us with unprecedented revolutionary ability. Liberty has been promised for Americans. We can keep it.

America is not the same as other republics as Tocqueville pointed out.


"Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville (http://www.answers.com/topic/alexis-de-tocqueville)


Despite his aristocratic upbringing, Tocqueville believed that the spread of democracy was inevitable. By analyzing American democracy, he thought to help France avoid America's faults and emulate its successes. Chief among his many insights was to see equality of social conditions as the heart of American democracy. He noted that although the majority could produce tyranny its wide property distribution and inherent conservatism made for stability. American literature, then still under European influence, he felt would become independent in idiom and deal with plain people rather than the upper classes. The American zeal for change he connected with a restless search for the ideal. Noting the permissiveness of democracy toward religion, he anticipated denominational growth. Discerning natural hostility to the military, he foresaw an adverse effect of prolonged war on American society. He anticipated that democracy would emancipate women and alter the relationship of parents to children. He saw danger in the dominance of American politics by lawyers.

JeNNiF00F00
07-21-2010, 11:24 AM
<:-P

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:31 AM
frankrep:

FYI:


Many people agreeing that mass Illegal Immigration is a form of Invasion does not, in fact, make it an invasion. Particularly not in the eyes of the law.

BTW, that being the case, why aren't you advocating dismantling the current federal immigration regime and replacing it with the militia combating invasion?

WaltM
07-21-2010, 11:33 AM
frankrep:

FYI:


Many people agreeing that mass Illegal Immigration is a form of Invasion does not, in fact, make it an invasion. Particularly not in the eyes of the law.


So it must be government sponsored & organized to be invasion?




BTW, that being the case, why aren't you advocating dismantling the current federal immigration regime and replacing it with the militia combating invasion?

because he's not an anarchist

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:35 AM
The most important thing to consider at this point are the words “immigration” and “naturalization” themselves. While most of us would consider them strongly related, we have to keep in mind that in any 18th Century law dictionary, they would have been seen as two wholly different words, with two separate meanings.

And, if like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean the exact same thing today as they meant the moment it was signed (barring amendments, of course), it’s imperative that we understand the meanings of such words at the time of the founding.

For example, a common 18th century definition of naturalization was “The act of investing aliens with the privileges of native subjects”, while emigrate had a common meaning of “to move from one place to another.”

Such a delegated power over “naturalization” then, does not specifically address the power over immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause) to find authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.


That part I agree with. The rest from that point down is crap b/c the arizona law is designed to enforce unconstitutional legislation. It is not, however, Arizona asserting its right to regulate immigration. People who tow that line are riding for a fall. Coincidentally, many of those who've suddenly conveniently started advancing this argument (The John Birch Society and their publication the New American included), are the very same ones attempting to make this doomed-to-fail argument in support of the abominable legislation in Arizona.

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:36 AM
lol, they unbanned you again, eh JoshLA?


So it must be government sponsored & organized to be invasion?

Can you quote me on that?

(At the very least it should be organized. Not that I haven't quoted you the definition of "invasion" from
a legal dictionary before...) :rolleyes:



because he's not an anarchist

No, because he's not a constitutionalist.

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:38 AM
Our republic is alive, not well, but alive.

And yet you insist that the 51% have the right to dictate who the other 49% may or may not allow on their property, may or may not hire, rent to, etc.

If the republic is still alive, it ain't 'cuz of all the help it's receiving from the anti-immigration, pro-democratic rule crowd at ronpaulforums.

WaltM
07-21-2010, 11:41 AM
lol, they unbanned you again, eh JoshLA?



Can you quote me on that?

(At the very least it should be organized. Not that I haven't quoted you the definition of "invasion" from
a legal dictionary before...) :rolleyes:


sorry, i missed that.



No, because he's not a constitutionalist.

ok

Travlyr
07-21-2010, 11:43 AM
When? How, when voting seems to have been taken over by the elite? Its like putting little league up against the majors.

Very observant JeNNiF00F00. :)

The liberty movement is just getting started... to suggest that we've made the little league is optimistic. There is much ground to make up, but like Ron Paul said, "Freedom is Popular."
And like the quote on RonPaulHawaii's signature says,
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
~ C.Coolidge

The liberty movement is not going away.

When? It is happening before our very eyes. Nullification, RPF, Tea Parties, Liberty Candidates, fall of the Federal Reserve, internet media, liberty radio, more, etc.

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:46 AM
fall of the Federal Reserve

do what now?

Travlyr
07-21-2010, 11:46 AM
And yet you insist that the 51% have the right to dictate who the other 49% may or may not allow on their property, may or may not hire, rent to, etc.

If the republic is still alive, it ain't 'cuz of all the help it's receiving from the anti-immigration, pro-democratic rule crowd at ronpaulforums.

You're thinking of someone else. I've not said anything of the sort. :confused:

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:48 AM
You're thinking of someone else. I've not said anything of the sort. :confused:

Must be. I thought you were arguing for federal immigration control the other day...

Travlyr
07-21-2010, 11:48 AM
do what now?

Oh yeah... I guess I shouldn't have mentioned that. :eek:

constituent
07-21-2010, 11:55 AM
I am extremely irritated by people who have the audacity to pose as constitutional advocates who are personal issue hypocrites. If you can't cite the Constitutional authority under original intent for any power you advocate the government should have you should be booted from the forum as a Constitutional advocate fraud.

Absolutely! Very well said!

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:07 PM
Absolutely! Very well said!

Indeed, +1776.

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:09 PM
Must be. I thought you were arguing for federal immigration control the other day...

I'm converted, I know agree with you that the several states have plenary power over the issue, and can discover and deport anyone illegally within the state.

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm converted, I know agree with you that the several states have plenary power over the issue, and can discover and deport anyone illegally within the state.

anyone?

and how would you define "illegally within the state?"

that's certainly never the case I've made...

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:17 PM
anyone?

and how would you define "illegally within the state?"

that's certainly never the case I've made...

If the federal government does not have constitutional power over immigration, then that power resides with the states and their people, and if not forbidden to the states through their several constitutions, it is a power which may be excercised by them. If it is held by the states, as you suggest, it is a plenary power, and may be excercised as all plenary powers by the states to defend the rights of their citizens. So then, since the federal government has no authority to enter, supercede and preempt the states within the field, then the states can pass as draconian anti-illegal immigration laws as they see fit. Popular sovereignty if you will.

That's what your position inevitably must result in....as I understand it.

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:27 PM
For reference, but in response to the post immediately above this:


I'm converted, I know agree with you that the several states have plenary power over the issue, and can discover and deport anyone illegally within the state.

You're attempting to move the goalposts. I didn't say that the states don't constitutionally have the potential to regulate immigration, nor did I say that they do have "plenary power" (which suggests they can do as they please, much as the customs agents have "plenary authority" to search anyone returning to the US as they desire) to "discover and deport" individuals at will.

Furthermore, your construct of an individual "illegally" present in a given state has yet to be fully defined or shown to be in any way relevant to the topic at hand. And again, what does "illegally within the state," even mean in the context of present legitimate constitutional law?

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 12:29 PM
If the federal government does not have constitutional power over immigration, then that power resides with the states and their people, and if not forbidden to the states through their several constitutions, it is a power which may be excercised by them. If it is held by the states, as you suggest, it is a plenary power, and may be excercised as all plenary powers by the states to defend the rights of their citizens. So then, since the federal government has no authority to enter, supercede and preempt the states within the field, then the states can pass as draconian anti-illegal immigration laws as they see fit. Popular sovereignty if you will.

That's what your position inevitably must result in....as I understand it.

I think states have been regulating property ownership of aliens for quite a long time and this is nothing new.

States grant privileges and immunities via residency and the federal government does the same via citizenship.

If we are going to get into the privileges and immunities of the several states for citizens, interstate travel and the ability to relocate to any other state is one of them. Do aliens enjoy this same privilege as a constitutional guarantee or only because states do not enforce trespassing at state borders?


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does state citizens not persons in two places. Article IV and the shady 14th Amendment.

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:32 PM
States grant privileges and immunities via residency and the federal government does the same via citizenship.

If we are going to get into the privileges and immunities of the several states for citizens, interstate travel and the ability to relocate to any other state is one of them. Do aliens enjoy this same privilege as a constitutional guarantee or only because states do not enforce trespassing at state borders?

Which cuts right to the heart of what a real constitutional debate concerning immigration would be all about. Thanks. :)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2010, 12:34 PM
If I believed it could work and actually limit the government, I would support it 1000%.
Who cares? This is not your country. Your country is Canada.


I don't celebrate it's destruction, it's already destroyed.
Nope. Not unless we roll over.


I simply criticize what it created. (the foundation for the oppressive state that exists today)
Following your train of thought, drinking milk leads to heroin addiction. Ok, got it. :rolleyes:

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:34 PM
It does state citizens not persons.

Citizens of the United States...

So here's the question. As one can be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of fedgov, does "United States" in the part you quoted refer to citizens of the single entity the United States of America, or does it refer to the individual "United States?"

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:36 PM
Who cares? This is not your country. Your country is Canada.

Is this real?

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:37 PM
For reference, but in response to the post immediately above this:



You're attempting to move the goalposts. I didn't say that the states don't constitutionally have the potential to regulate immigration, nor did I say that they do have "plenary power" (which suggests they can do as they please, much as the customs agents have "plenary authority" to search anyone returning to the US as they desire) to "discover and deport" individuals at will.

Furthermore, your construct of an individual "illegally" present in a given state has yet to be fully defined or shown to be in any way relevant to the topic at hand. And again, what does "illegally within the state," even mean in the context of present legitimate constitutional law?

If the states have not granted the power to regulate and control immigration to the federal government, that is a power retained by the states. Powers retained by the states are plenary powers. That's it. States have plenary power over areas not granted through a constitutionally enumerated delegation to the federal government.

Illegally present cannot be defined by me, because it can be defined in 50 different ways by the 50 several states, all with plenary power over the issue.

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:39 PM
Citizens of the United States...

So here's the question. As one can be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of fedgov, does "United States" in the part you quoted refer to citizens of the single entity the United States of America, or does it refer to the individual "United States?"

Or, does the phrase "United States" actually mean, the "federal union of the United States" OR, does it mean, the "several states united..." In essence, does it refer to the entire collected "nation" which never existed prior to President Lincoln, or does it refer to the "united States" of the framers.

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:40 PM
I think states have been regulating property ownership of aliens for quite a long time and this is nothing new.

States grant privileges and immunities via residency and the federal government does the same via citizenship.

If we are going to get into the privileges and immunities of the several states for citizens, interstate travel and the ability to relocate to any other state is one of them. Do aliens enjoy this same privilege as a constitutional guarantee or only because states do not enforce trespassing at state borders?


It does state citizens not persons in two places. Article IV and the shady 14th Amendment.

I agree with this post in its entirety.

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:41 PM
If the states have not granted the power to regulate and control immigration to the federal government, that is a power retained by the states. Powers retained by the states are plenary powers. That's it.

Using your logic, seeing as the power to regulate medicines is not granted to the federal government, the states have plenary authority to halt the purchase, sale or use of tylenol. That includes actions that violate the constitutionally guaranteed protections outlined within the constitution of the United States. With or without approval from the voting citizens within that state.

Needless to say, I don't agree...



States have plenary power over areas not granted through a constitutionally enumerated delegation to the federal government.

For information's sake, I'd be interested in reading your source on that.

Thanks. :)

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:41 PM
Or, does the phrase "United States" actually mean, the "federal union of the United States" OR, does it mean, the "several states united..." In essence, does it refer to the entire collected "nation" which never existed prior to President Lincoln, or does it refer to the "united States" of the framers.

exactly, but worded much better than mine. :)

ClayTrainor
07-21-2010, 12:44 PM
Who cares?

I do. I am interested in individual liberty, and if the constitution worked to protect that, I would want one to protect me.


This is not your country. Your country is Canada.


The collectivism is strong in thee...



Nope. Not unless we roll over.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Wa.../wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


etc.


In 1791 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_the_United_States),
1798 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts),
1811 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States),
1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter),
1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion),
also in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act),
also in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution),
1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917)...






Following your train of thought, drinking milk leads to heroin addiction. Ok, got it. :rolleyes:

No I'm saying, Doing heroin leads to a heroin addiction. ;)

Show me an organization funded by extortion that doesn't breed crime, corruption and violence, and maybe we can talk seriously.

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Using your logic, seeing as the power to regulate medicines is not granted to the federal government, the states have plenary authority to halt the purchase, sale or use of tylenol. That includes actions that violate the constitutionally guaranteed protections outlined within the constitution of the United States.

Needless to say, I don't agree..

I have never suggested that a state may constitutionally interfere with the federal excercise of a constitutionally enumerated power delegated to the federal government. What I have said is that if a power is not delegated to the federal government, it is retained by the states... immigration appears to be one such area, as Article 1, as you so powerfully demonstrated to me, only refers to the naturalization of foreigners, and does not speak to regulation of immigration whatsoever.

Considering that a federal suit against a state ban on Tylenol would likely be made under a supremacy clause argument of federal preeminence in an area implicating the commerce clause, I would actually say that, in that scenario, constitutionally speaking, (excepting the possibility of resuscitating the substantive due process freedom of contract from the 14th amendment) the states are free to prohibit such actions, as the commerce clause was never designed to allow the federal government to regulate and control everything in inter (or intra) state commerce.



For information's sake, I'd be interested in reading your source on that.

Thanks. :)

"The powers not delegated... are reserved".

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 12:50 PM
Using your logic, seeing as the power to regulate medicines is not granted to the federal government, the states have plenary authority to halt the purchase, sale or use of tylenol. That includes actions that violate the constitutionally guaranteed protections outlined within the constitution of the United States. With or without approval from the voting citizens within that state.

Needless to say, I don't agree...



For information's sake, I'd be interested in reading your source on that.

Thanks. :)

Federal government has powers that are expressly delegated in the federal constitution.
States retain all powers not delegated.
People retain power expressly denied the state in state constitutions.
People retain power to adopt new constitutions

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:53 PM
I have never suggested that a state may constitutionally interfere with the federal excercise of a constitutionally enumerated power delegated to the federal government. What I have said is that if a power is not delegated to the federal government, it is retained by the states... immigration appears to be one such area, as Article 1, as you so powerfully demonstrated to me, only refers to the naturalization of foreigners, and does not speak to regulation of immigration whatsoever.

Forgive me for being imprecise. I do not agree that the FDA is a legitimate use of the constitutional authority granted under the interstate commerce clause, much as I do not agree that food stamps promote the general welfare. From the rest of your post, I'm glad to say that we agree.

That said, apply my example to any authority not granted to fedgov, it still describes the logic behind your argument concerning plenary power. :)



"The powers not delegated... are reserved".

Ahhh the dangers of a partial quote taken out of context. ;)

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Federal government has powers that are expressly delegated in the federal constitution.
States retain all powers not delegated.
People retain power expressly denied the state in state constitutions.
People retain power to adopt new constitutions

You nailed it.

Frame that and put it up on your wall.

If we enforced the first two, the remaining two would be, how did Dickens say it..."recalled to life"?

constituent
07-21-2010, 12:55 PM
Federal government has powers that are expressly delegated in the federal constitution.
States retain all powers not delegated.
People retain power expressly denied the state in state constitutions.
People retain power to adopt new constitutions

That's how I always envisioned it going down too. Though, I'm not sure that this situation lends any credence to John Taylor's claim that the states can do as they please to persons "illegally in the state."

Also, it still hasn't been established how exactly one goes about making their presence "illegal" in a given state. Nor that such a situation exists anywhere in the U.S. at present.

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 12:58 PM
Using your logic, seeing as the power to regulate medicines is not granted to the federal government, the states have plenary authority to halt the purchase, sale or use of tylenol. That includes actions that violate the constitutionally guaranteed protections outlined within the constitution of the United States. With or without approval from the voting citizens within that state.

Needless to say, I don't agree...


What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol? That would certainly be a dumb law. But how exactly are states prohibited from passing such a law by the constitution? Are you going with the interstate commerce clause or something else?

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 12:59 PM
Forgive me for being imprecise. I do not agree that the FDA is a legitimate use of the constitutional authority granted under the interstate commerce clause, much as I do not agree that food stamps promote the general welfare. From the rest of your post, I'm glad to say that we agree.

That said, apply my example to any authority not granted to fedgov, it still describes the logic behind your argument concerning plenary power. :)

Forgive me, but I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

Do you mean, just because the feds can't do something perhaps considered violative of someone's individual rights, why can the states? I think that the states have the constitutional ability to act, but that this imperium over all reserved areas can be further restricted, as Live_Free_Or_Die is suggesting, through state constitutions.

Thus, while AZ may allow for draconian anti-illegal immigration statutes to go on the books and be enforced, California may wish to prevent and forbid their state government from excercising that identical power.


Ahhh the dangers of a partial quote taken out of context. ;)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There we go, I was lazy and didn't want to type the entire thing out... :D

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 01:01 PM
What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol? That would certainly be a dumb law. But how exactly are states prohibited from passing such a law by the constitution? Are you going with the interstate commerce clause or something else?

It will probably be substantive due process, coming from the 14th Amendment... the same argument used to defend freedom of contract by Justice Peckham and the old Classical Liberal judges of the U.S. Supreme Court in their fights with the progressives in the late 19th, early 20th centuries.

To me, that is the strongest and best argument... but it still opens up the floodgates to a "substantive due process" argument in other areas, far afield of freedom of contract.

constituent
07-21-2010, 01:04 PM
What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol?

That's not a claim that I've made so why would I need to cite a provision?

The question is if they may do as they please in order to enforce such a law as you have suggested.

No they may not is still the answer.


But how exactly are states prohibited from passing such a law by the constitution? Are you going with the interstate commerce clause or something else?

Where did I say that jmdrake?

This seems to be a pattern with you...

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 01:05 PM
Also, it still hasn't been established how exactly one goes about making their presence "illegal" in a given state. Nor that such a situation exists anywhere in the U.S. at present.

This is because we live in a time where the federal government, as you have so soundly pointed out to me (correcting me from my error regarding the federal constitutional power over immigration), has so preempted the field that states have had no reason to pass statutes or constitutional amendments clarifying precisely who and what is "illegal presence". Once we restore popular sovereignty in immigration however, I am suspicious that the states will develop a virtual cornucopia of innovative definitions.

constituent
07-21-2010, 01:07 PM
Do you mean, just because the feds can't do something perhaps considered violative of someone's individual rights, why can the states? I think that the states have the constitutional ability to act, but that this imperium over all reserved areas can be further restricted, as Live_Free_Or_Die is suggesting, through state constitutions.

Exactly, which is why I disagree with the argument you tried to present as my own.

Again, the states cannot do as they please in order to arrest and deport anyone "illegally within the state" as you suggest.



Thus, while AZ may allow for draconian anti-illegal immigration statutes to go on the books and be enforced,

You have yet to prove that anyone's immigration was or their continued presence is "illegal," constitutionally speaking of course.

This is another reason that I disagree with the argument you tried to present as my own.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Exactly, the states are checked by the people and therefore cannot just do as they please.

So now you see why I disagree with the argument you tried to present as my own.

Thanks for the discussion, and have a good one. :)

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 01:09 PM
You nailed it.

Frame that and put it up on your wall.

If we enforced the first two, the remaining two would be, how did Dickens say it..."recalled to life"?

Human beings have evolved beyond believing in a monopoly on force and justice. This trend of human evolution in thought is not going to change. Just because superman gets elected or appointed once doesn't superman will always be there. Once a bad person obtains office they can do irreparable damage.

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 01:12 PM
That's not a claim that I've made so why would I need to site a provision?

The question is if they may do as they please in order to enforce such a law as you have suggested.

No they may not is still the answer.



Where did I say that jmdrake?

This seems to be a pattern with you...

*SIGH* Why must you always be so difficult? Your original statement:

Using your logic, seeing as the power to regulate medicines is not granted to the federal government, the states have plenary authority to halt the purchase, sale or use of tylenol.

My question:

What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol?


Your "new and improved" statement.

The question is if they may do as they please in order to enforce such a law as you have suggested.

The "pattern" here (if there is one) is that you want to change what you actually said after the fact. My question to you was almost an exact quote of your original statement. Either states have the plenary authority to "halt the purchase, sale or use" of something or they don't. Now perhaps you are quibbling over the use of the word "plenary". The way John Taylor is using it and the way I'm using it is the power to prohibit is not limited. You seem to be suggesting now that you're talking about the execution of that power as in can states pass a law where they can shoot someone who bought Tylenol. That of course would be limited by the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (Assuming you go with the incorporation doctrine). So far I haven't seen any suggestions that states be allowed to summarily execute illegal immigrants.

constituent
07-21-2010, 01:16 PM
*SIGH* Why must you always be so difficult? Your original statement:

Using your logic, seeing as the power to regulate medicines is not granted to the federal government, the states have plenary authority to halt the purchase, sale or use of tylenol.

My question:

What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol?


Your "new and improved" statement.

The question is if they may do as they please in order to enforce such a law as you have suggested.

The "pattern" here (if there is one) is that you want to change what you actually said after the fact. My question to you was almost an exact quote of your original statement. Either states have the plenary authority to "halt the purchase, sale or use" of something or they don't. Now perhaps you are quibbling over the use of the word "plenary". The way John Taylor is using it and the way I'm using it is the power to prohibit is not limited. You seem to be suggesting now that you're talking about the execution of that power as in can states pass a law where they can shoot someone who bought Tylenol. That of course would be limited by the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (Assuming you go with the incorporation doctrine). So far I haven't seen any suggestions that states be allowed to summarily execute illegal immigrants.


It appears that this is a very simple misunderstanding born of your confusion concerning what "plenary power" actually means.

Well, born of that and your inability to calmly and rationally read my post, particularly the part about "Using your logic..." :)

Frankly, most of it was just blubbering, because you're still angry that I utterly decimated your "constitutional" argument for the unconstitutional federal immigration regime. :D

Anyway, I'm worn out on it and will bid you a good day.

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 01:18 PM
Exactly, which is why I disagree with the argument you tried to present as my own.

Forgive me for this, I am extending the point you proved to me to what I see as being its logical conclusion. If the feds don't have the power, than the states either directly have it, or the people of the states have it, and have restricted its use by the states.


Again, the states cannot do as they please in order to arrest and deport anyone "illegally within the state" as you suggest.

"as they please" is strong language... Of course a state must act within the statutory and stste constitutional limitations placed on it by the people of the state and their representatives, the state legislators--to the extent to which statutes are in conformity with the state constitution.


You have yet to prove that anyone's immigration was or their continued presence is "illegal," constitutionally speaking of course.

This is another reason that I disagree with the argument you tried to present as my own.

In my state, Arizona, we have determined to define "illegal presence" with the same statutory language as the present federal law. I'm sure that, as the federal law is removed and is no longer enforced, other states will adopt similar, and competing definitions.



Exactly, the states are checked by the people and therefore cannot just do as they please.

So now you see why I disagree with the argument you tried to present as my own.

Thanks for the discussion, and have a good one. :)

I agree most heartily that state governments must be restricted, perhaps even more so, once the federal government is confined to its constitutional sphere... I am simply saying that, in the absence of such a limitation, a state could exercise its reserved power over immigration to impose what most people would consider draconian punishments.

Catch you later.

John Taylor
07-21-2010, 01:20 PM
Human beings have evolved beyond believing in a monopoly on force and justice. This trend of human evolution in thought is not going to change. Just because superman gets elected or appointed once doesn't superman will always be there. Once a bad person obtains office they can do irreparable damage.

I hope you are right... but I do worry that a great many people do prefer a monopoly over force and justice and will be reluctant to see a restoration of the constitutionally required federalism of our constitutional federal republic.

constituent
07-21-2010, 01:23 PM
"as they please" is strong language... Of course a state must act within the statutory and stste constitutional limitations placed on it by the people of the state and their representatives, the state legislators--to the extent to which statutes are in conformity with the state constitution.

Plenary authority as I am familiar with it (within the context of US Customs and immigration enforcement) means the authority granted by congress that supersedes all constitutional bounds within certain pre-defined situations. Yes, in essence they are allowed to "do as they please," by way of the "plenary authority granted by Congress."

The question with all of that (tangentaily related, of course) is whether or not the constitution allows for congress to grant such authority ever, and to tie it all back in, if the states maintain similar "plenary authority" (I believe "power" was the word you used) over their citizen/subjects and all people within their territorial jurisdiction.

I do not believe that they do.

If you meant anything else by "plenary power," I'd be interested in hearing it. :)

(logging off for real this time, btw. ;) )

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 01:25 PM
It appears that this is a very simple misunderstanding born of your confusion concerning what "plenary power" actually means.

:rolleyes: Here's a read for you on the plenary power doctrine since you apparently don't understand it.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Supreme-Courts-Plenary-Power-Doctrine&id=1224966

And of course you are still dodging the question. (You always do. You have good evasion skills grasshopper). Does the federal government have authority over the states when it comes to immigration or not? Yes or no? If yes than what is your beef with federal immigration law? If no, then what restrictions do you see on the states and from where? Are you arguing from the "incorporation doctrine" or the "commerce clause" or what?



Well, born of that and your inability to calmly and rationally read my post, particularly the part about "Using your logic..." :)


Yep. You act like a jerk and somehow it's my fault. I'm sure somehow you'll try to twist this into me launching an attack on your. That's your pattern. You weren't exactly being "calm and rational" in your response to me. I was simply using the Socratic method with you. (Asking you a question to elicit a response).



Frankly, most of it was just blubbering, because you're still angry that I utterly decimated your "constitutional" argument for the unconstitutional federal immigration regime. :D


Ummm....last I checked you never actually answered my questions and you were still running like a scared rabbit. You've never been willing to spell out what you think constitutes a "militia" and you've refused to answer any questions on that. You evaded the question of whether armed incursions constituted an invasion and then you tried to pretend it only happened one time. Lastly I pointed out to Live_Free_Or_Die that we have the equivalent of a "border patrol" even during the days of the articles of confederation. You can read about that in Federalist paper # 24.

Your way of "answering" questions is to pretend they aren't important once you get stuck. It's funny but I can have a pleasant conversation with Live_Free_Or_Die or ClayTrainor on the subject. LFOD and I even compared court cases. You're the only one that decides to consistently take offense when there is none. But that's your right.

The fact that you call the Socratic method "blubbering" is quite telling.



Anyway, I'm worn out on it and will bid you a good day.

And good day to you too.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 01:53 PM
If no, then what restrictions do you see on the states and from where?

I would argue states have to tiptoe around delegated federal powers and federal constitutional guarantees for persons.

I think the federal government could make a good case Arizona was engaging in international affairs if Arizona formulated a policy Mexicans could not be residents.

constituent
07-21-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm not certain where


*SIGH* Why must you always be so difficult?

they teach that as the Socratic Method.




Your "new and improved" statement.

listen to your tone. this tone has followed you now in several threads, all having to do with immigration, where you will argue everything from toothpaste to offshore drilling so long as it distracts from the central issue.

and yet you accuse me of ducking the issues.



The question is if they may do as they please in order to enforce such a law as you have suggested.

I never suggested that. Quite the opposite in fact.

...and here we go again.



The "pattern" here (if there is one) is that you want to change what you actually said after the fact.

That's not correct, I've not changed a thing.



My question to you was almost an exact quote of your original statement.

Your entire post was an invalid characterization of not only my argument but the entire conversation up to that point. Exactly what is it that you want from me?



Now perhaps you are quibbling over the use of the word "plenary".

Clearly you're trying to. The actual use of plenary is apparent everyday.



The way John Taylor is using it and the way I'm using it is the power to prohibit is not limited.

John Taylor, is that correct? This does not also apply to the policing powers guaranteed to the states as JMDrake is attempting to suggest? How does your use of "plenary" differ from the accepted use amongst the current customs enforcement regime?

I wonder how exactly it is that JMDrake believes these laws are enforced?

John Taylor suggested that the plenary authority included the authority to seize and deport any individual present illegally anywhere in the state.

I still disagree that the states maintain this authority.

So here we are back at square one. Your move, or whatever. :rolleyes:

constituent
07-21-2010, 02:05 PM
I would argue states have to tiptoe around delegated federal powers and federal constitutional guarantees for persons.


Exactly, or in other words, the states may not do as they please to arrest, detain, deport, etc. persons "illegally" within their jurisdiction as Customs enforcement is allowed to do at designated border crossing and in other special situations.

The reason they can do so is because they were granted "plenary authority" by congress to enforce certain laws.

One question that's probably more philosophical than anything is if congress can grant such authority and maintain the veil of constitutional legitimacy. I still say they cannot. The same would apply to any state trying to exercise such authority in pursuit of enforcing any mandate that just so happens to not be prohibited to fedgov by the constitution, but may conflict with rights specifically protected by the constitution, or rights already claimed by individuals on the state level.

constituent
07-21-2010, 02:12 PM
ple·na·ry   [plee-nuh-ree, plen-uh-] –adjective
1.
full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified: plenary powers.


:)

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 02:18 PM
I'm not certain where

they teach that as the Socratic Method.


I thought you were gone for the day? :rolleyes:

Once again you're trying to twist things. The "Socratic method" was my asking you

What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol?

My asking "why must you be so difficult" was my response for you deciding feign being insulted from what clearly is not an insulting question.



listen to your tone.


Listen to your own tone. I asked you a question without insult or snideness and you decided unilaterally to respond negatively. You started this flamewar and now you are continuing it and if I respond in kind then you want to act offended. Whatever.




and yet you accuse me of ducking the issues.


Yep. You duck the issues. That's a constant.



Your entire post was an invalid characterization of not only my argument but the entire conversation up to that point. Exactly what is it that you want from me?


No it wasn't. It was a simple question. That's all. The fact that you mis-interpreted it as an attack is your own personal problem.



Clearly you're trying to. The actual use of plenary is apparent everyday.


Sure it is. And yet there are clear restriction on the so called "plenary power". If congress passed a law allowing torture of illegal immigrants that wouldn't fly. And there's the famous U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case establishing birthright citizenship and overruling congress. Now you may say that's "naturalization and not immigration", but do you think Congress could have then had Wong Kim Ark deported?



John Taylor, is that correct? This does not also apply to the policing powers guaranteed to the states as JMDrake is attempting to suggest? How does your use of "plenary" differ from the accepted use amongst the current customs enforcement regime?


It's clear that you are the one mis-characterizing my position as I will show shortly.



I wonder how exactly it is that JMDrake believes these laws are enforced?

John Taylor suggested that the plenary authority included the authority to seize and deport any individual present illegally anywhere in the state.

I still disagree that the states maintain this authority.


And the authority to "seize and deport" any individual is not the same as the authority to "do what you please". Having the ability to "do what you please" would include the power to summarily execute said individuals, sell them into slavery etc.

So now after all of your dancing around the mulberry bush we are down to a simple question that has an easy yes or no answer. Who in your mind has the power to arrest and deport an individual present illegally anywhere in the state? Is it the federal government or the state government? If neither the federal government nor the state government has that power than what provision of the constitution bars that power? I can point to the bill of rights (through the incorporation doctrine) as barring summary execution. I can point to the 13th amendment as barring a state from selling a person into slavery. What constitutional provision bars a state from deporting someone in the country illegally if the state is not barred by the preemption clause of the constitution since you don't think the federal government has authority over immigration?



So here we are back at square one. Your move, or whatever. :rolleyes:

Fine. Answer the question please.

jmdrake
07-21-2010, 02:21 PM
[i]
ple·na·ry   [plee-nuh-ree, plen-uh-] –adjective
1.
full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified: plenary powers.
:)

Uh-huh. Either the federal government or the states or some combination of both have the full and complete power over deportation, as in who gets deported and who gets to stay. That doesn't mean they have the power to "do whatever they please" in the course of deportation.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-21-2010, 08:03 PM
Uh-huh. Either the federal government or the states or some combination of both have the full and complete power over deportation, as in who gets deported and who gets to stay. That doesn't mean they have the power to "do whatever they please" in the course of deportation.

Let's keep things in perspective. All of our discussions involving citations are based on new deal Congressional Acts. How can people pick and choose parts of the new deal the like and reject the ones they don't as unconstitutional? It makes no sense to me.

Emergency Immigration Act of 1921
Immigration Act of 1924
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration

Read the full text of this ruling, the opinion is quite lengthy:

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

California Labor Code Ann. 2805 (a) provides that "[n]o employer shall knowingly employ an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers." 1 The question presented in this case is whether 2805 (a) is unconstitutional either because it [424 U.S. 351, 353] is an attempt to regulate immigration and naturalization or because it is pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution, by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization.

Petitioners, who are migrant farmworkers, brought this action pursuant to 2805 (c) against respondent farm labor contractors in California Superior Court. The complaint alleged that respondents had refused petitioners continued employment due to a surplus of labor resulting from respondents' knowing employment, in violation of 2805 (a), of aliens not lawfully admitted to residence in the United States. Petitioners sought reinstatement and a permanent injunction against respondents' willful employment of illegal aliens. 2 The Superior Court, in an unreported opinion, dismissed the complaint, holding "that Labor Code 2805 is unconstitutional . . . [i]t encroaches upon, and interferes with, a comprehensive regulatory scheme enacted by Congress in the exercise of its exclusive power over immigration . . . ." App. 17a. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed, 40 Cal. App. 3d 976, 115 Cal. Rptr. 444 (1974). The Court of Appeal held that 2805 (a) is an attempt to regulate the conditions for admission of foreign nationals, and therefore unconstitutional because, "in the area of immigration and naturalization, congressional power is exclusive." [424 U.S. 351, 354] Id., at 979, 115 Cal. Rptr., at 446. 3 The Court of Appeal further indicated that state regulatory power over this subject matter was foreclosed when Congress, "as an incident of national sovereignty," enacted the INA as a comprehensive scheme governing all aspects of immigration and naturalization, including the employment of aliens, and "specifically and intentionally declined to add sanctions on employers to its control mechanism." Ibid. 4 The Supreme Court of California denied review. We granted certiorari, 422 U.S. 1040 (1975). We reverse.


Nor can such intent be derived from the scope and detail of the INA. The central concern of the INA is with the terms and conditions of admission to the country and the subsequent treatment of aliens lawfully in the country.


They point, however, to the limiting construction given 2805 (a) in administrative regulations promulgated by the California Director of Industrial Relations. California Administrative Code, Title 8, part 1, c. 8, art. 1, 16209 (1972), defines an alien "[B]entitled to lawful residence" as follows: "An alien entitled to lawful residence shall mean any non-citizen of the United States who is in possession of a Form I-151, Alien Registration Receipt Card, or any other document issued by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service which authorizes him to work."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=424&invol=351

The least path of resistance for states to enforce trespassing of foreign nationals on a border would be issuing a notice of trespass during the act and escort trespassers to the nearest port of entry.

Regarding other New Deal approaches I think the part in bold is the verbiage in question.

mediahasyou
07-21-2010, 08:05 PM
Is a LibertyForest consensus on immigration desirable?

No.

someperson
07-21-2010, 08:36 PM
Is a LibertyForest consensus on immigration desirable?

No.
This. Obviously, it's comforting when everyone around you is in agreement. It's particularly nice when an individual that you are in debate with finally comes around to your point of view. However, I always try to remember that the other individual might also be thinking how nice it would be if I finally came around to their point of view. In the end, each individual will have to study the issues on their own and come to their own conclusions.

"Converting" individuals via a persuasive argument is fine, however, coercing group conformity via methods such as peer pressure (you're either with "us" and <insert something intended to appeal to emotion, positively> on this issue, or you're with the <insert something intended to appeal to emotion, negatively>) is not.

Andrew-Austin
07-21-2010, 08:43 PM
Consensus? No, not if there are people who want to build a god damned wall like we're the Soviet Union or some shit.

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 08:58 AM
Let's keep things in perspective. All of our discussions involving citations are based on new deal Congressional Acts. How can people pick and choose parts of the new deal the like and reject the ones they don't as unconstitutional? It makes no sense to me.

Emergency Immigration Act of 1921
Immigration Act of 1924
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration


Just because something was passed during the New Deal era doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional. Further there were immigration laws passed prior to the New Deal that you would probably find offensive. For example there were the Chinese exclusion act of 1882. So whether or not something was passed during the "New Deal" years has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the law was unconstitutional. You have to look at each individual law.



Read the full text of this ruling, the opinion is quite lengthy:


Interesting. The short of it is that the supreme court used the preemption doctrine to deem a state law barring employment of illegal immigrants that take away jobs of lawful residence. Now the question is, if the federal government does not in fact have the right under the naturalization clause to determine immigration, do the states have that the right to pass such laws under the 10th amendment? Or is there some other constitutional provision that would bar both the federal government and the states from passing such a law? That's the kind of question I was trying to ask "constituent".




http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=424&invol=351

The least path of resistance for states to enforce trespassing of foreign nationals on a border would be issuing a notice of trespass during the act and escort trespassers to the nearest port of entry.

Regarding other New Deal approaches I think the part in bold is the verbiage in question.

The part about whether or not a government can determine if someone is "entitled to lawful residence"? Question. How can a state enforce "trespassing of foreign nationals on a border" if no government has the right to determine if someone is "entitled to lawful residence"? :confused: And like I said, restrictions on immigration predate the New Deal.

ClayTrainor
07-22-2010, 09:03 AM
Consensus? No, not if there are people who want to build a god damned wall like we're the Soviet Union or some shit.

Agreed. Also, people who try to connect Ron Paul to such a position, are lying political hacks.




Appeals to authority are never convincing arguments; however, if one chooses to make such a fallacious argument, it would be prudent to at least make sure the authority is arguing for one's position lol. That's not the case here, as Dr. Paul's true stance is, and I quote, "The free market is exactly opposite of isolationism... open borders, free trade, let the people come and go, let the goods flow over the borders..." This quote was from his 1988 Libertarian Party run. It's important to note that, even then, he referred to the concept of borders, just as he does today. However, he obviously doesn't equate borders with walls, as some individuals believe. Rather, the borders are conceptual.

In an interview with Mr. Stossel in 2008, he was asked, "You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?" He responded, "Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."

From a very recent speech (Feb. 2009), he stated, "Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that result."

As we all know, he is opposed to Real-Id and other such measures, which some misinformed individuals believe would help in ensuring the border is sealed. I think his stance is quite clear, when you put it all together: it's the same as it's always been, which I quoted above. Once again, he was against the "welfare state" for all individuals as the Libertarian Party candidate back in 1988, and he's still against the "welfare state," today. It isn't like he was in support of the coercive redistribution of wealth when he proposed that, in a transition, medicare could continue to be made available for those dependent on the system by funding it with the savings from cutting military waste.

His transitional plans do not represent his true goals; if they did, well, let's start a money bomb to promote the glory of Social Security and healthcare "for the children." No. Stop being emotionally attached to personalities; stop appealing to authorities; stop latching onto parties and labels; start focusing on ideas.

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:12 AM
Uh-huh. Either the federal government or the states or some combination of both have the full and complete power over deportation, as in who gets deported and who gets to stay. That doesn't mean they have the power to "do whatever they please" in the course of deportation.

You're either attempting to change the contents of John Taylor's question which spurred this debate, or you've innocently forgotten what the actual discussion was in your haste to attempt insulting my intelligence, calling my character into question, whatever, because that is exactly what my position has been along.

They have the right to regulate immigration, however, they do not have "plenary authority," which excuses them from their "contractual obligation," to play by the rules already set out both in their own state constitutions and in respect to constitutionally protected liberties of individuals.

However, U.S. Customs does have "plenary power" (or "authority") that does excuse them from any "contractual obligation" that they would otherwise be bound to following as a natural extension of their role as agents of fedgov.


Now, all of that said, time for the flames:

I'm not real sure,either, where this false sense of entitlement you've got comes from. Really, I'm sort of confused as to why you believe that I owe someone who as acted as uppity as you have toward me (btw, you have ignored countless questions as you've followed me around from thread to thread during the course of this debate) every answer you desire on a silver platter. :confused:



That out of the way:

Once more, just so you don't miss the important part of this message in your verbose rebuttal explaining why I owe your uppity, insulting ass a cordial response: (or "it's not me, it's you!" yea, yea, yea.)

"You're either attempting to change the contents of John Taylor's question which spurred this debate, or you've innocently forgotten what the actual discussion was in your haste to attempt insulting my intelligence, calling my character into question, or whatever."

No the states do not have "plenary power," no they cannot "do as they please" to capture, detain, deport, etc. persons "illegally present."

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:14 AM
Consensus? No, not if there are people who want to build a god damned wall like we're the Soviet Union or some shit.

For real. For what it's worth though, I haven't seen many Texans advocating for this.

It's always easier when it's someone else's freedom/mobility/whatever that gets limited.

Tell you what, put up a border wall around southern Tennessee, Michigan, wherever, and you'll see all of these clowns suddenly up in arms.

"It's the New World Order!"

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 09:20 AM
You're either attempting to change the contents of John Taylor's question which spurred this debate, or you've innocently forgotten what the actual discussion was in your haste to attempt insulting my intelligence, calling my character into question, whatever, because that is exactly what my position has been along.


Gee. Did you have a good nice sleep? Get cut off in traffic? Have a bad hair day?

I know your MO. You want to insult me, bait me into insulting you, and then cry "victim". Sorry Jesse Jackson, but that's not working anymore.

I'm not at all attempting to change the debate in the least. It's a simple question. You claim the federal government is acting outside its delegated powers. If those powers are not delegated to the federal government and are not prohibited to the states then they are reserved for the states. You staked your claim on a perceived lack of delegated power to the federal government and not on something that is prohibited by the federal government or the state government to do. And now you've been caught. So you have two (honest) choices. You can admit that the states must have the power you claim the federal government does not have, or you can stake out your constitutional claim as to why that power is prohibited to both the states and the federal government. Live_Free_Or_Die attempted to do that citing the 5th and 6th amendments (and using the "incorporation doctrine" which many in the liberty movement reject) and I responded with case law against that claim and we had a pleasant discussion. If you want to have an honest pleasant discussion we can. If you want to look for some opportunity to bait me, that won't work.

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:28 AM
Gee. Did you have a good nice sleep? Get cut off in traffic? Have a bad hair day?

I know your MO. You want to insult me, bait me into insulting you, and then cry "victim". Sorry Jesse Jackson, but that's not working anymore.

What'd I say, a verbose explanation of how it's not you, it's me. You're so predictable.

Try rereading your entire presence in this thread (alone) before continuing to let your mouth shoot you in the foot, seriously. :)

Frankly, since your OP in this thread you've been a condescending asshole toward me...

(again, you're still just angry that I decimated your "constitutional" argument for unconstitutional federal immigration regulation. I don't really care.)

kid gloves off.



You claim the federal government is acting outside its delegated powers. If those powers are not delegated to the federal government and are not prohibited to the states then they are reserved for the states.

Actually, here you are again trying to stick me with an argument I never made. This is tiring.

BTW, they're reserved for the states or the people (no surprise you missed that part though.;) )

The question, again, concerns "plenary power."

Which interestingly enough, reminds me that John Taylor and I were having a rather fruitful discussion on this issue before your jumped in with a lame potshot that.... would you believe it... was an invalid representation of my actual position.



And now you've been caught.

I realize that that is what you want to think. Sorta backs up my claim that your entire presence in this thread has been motivated by the fact that you're still angry that I decimated your "constitutional" argument for unconstitutional federal immigration regulation. ;) :)

(is that on message or what?;))

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 09:36 AM
What'd I say, a verbose explanation of how it's not you, it's me. You're so predictable.


What did I say? A lame attempt to insult me, bait me into insulting you, and then claim you are the victim. You're so predictable.

Now whenever you're ready to grow up and act like an adult like LFOD we can have a discussion about what in the constitutional limits there are on the state if the only constitutional problem with the federal immigration laws is that the federal government is going outside its delegated powers. If there is some other constitutional problem that limits what the federal government is doing now and would also limit the states feel free to cite it.

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:38 AM
What did I say? A lame attempt to insult me, bait me into insulting you, and then claim you are the victim. You're so predictable.

Now whenever you're ready to grow up and act like an adult like LFOD we can have a discussion about what in the constitutional limits there are on the state if the only constitutional problem with the federal immigration laws is that the federal government is going outside its delegated powers. If there is some other constitutional problem that limits what the federal government is doing now and would also limit the states feel free to cite it.

yawn. funny thing, that conversation was happening BEFORE you dropped in.

now I'm the one that needs to grow up, go figure. :)



Try rereading your entire presence in this thread (alone) before continuing to let your mouth shoot you in the foot, seriously. :)

^ Sage advice.

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 09:39 AM
yawn. funny thing, that conversation was happening BEFORE you dropped in.

now I'm the one that needs to grow up, go figure. :)

Cut and paste time.

What did I say? A lame attempt to insult me, bait me into insulting you, and then claim you are the victim. You're so predictable.

Now whenever you're ready to grow up and act like an adult like LFOD we can have a discussion about what in the constitutional limits there are on the state if the only constitutional problem with the federal immigration laws is that the federal government is going outside its delegated powers. If there is some other constitutional problem that limits what the federal government is doing now and would also limit the states feel free to cite it.

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:42 AM
You win John, that better? :D

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:43 AM
What federal constitutional provision would you cite to claim that a state does not have the power to prohibit the sale or use of Tylenol? That would certainly be a dumb law. But how exactly are states prohibited from passing such a law by the constitution? Are you going with the interstate commerce clause or something else?

You OP, seriously, in a thread about immigration. Quibbling over an example.

Grow up Drake.

Hell, I lose just for paying you any mind.

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 09:45 AM
You win John, that better? :D

How about we start at ground zero? If you make a post that doesn't have a direct insult I won't assume you're trying to insult me and if I make a post that doesn't have a direct insult you won't assume I'm trying to insult you. We'll just take each post individual at face value. Fair enough?

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 09:47 AM
You OP, seriously, in a thread about immigration. Quibbling over an example.

Grow up Drake.

Hell, I lose just for paying you any mind.

Ummmm....you were the one who put the example out. If you don't want it discussed then don't use it. That's what "adults" do. They defend their hypotheticals or they withdraw them. They don't get mad at other people for "quibbling" over them.

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:58 AM
How about we start at ground zero? If you make a post that doesn't have a direct insult I won't assume you're trying to insult me and if I make a post that doesn't have a direct insult you won't assume I'm trying to insult you. We'll just take each post individual at face value. Fair enough?


How about I just add you to my ignore list and we just discontinue our interactions with one another?

Seriously, you spend the last few days insulting me and following me around derailing threads because you were wrong, and suddenly I'm to reassess your intentions 'cuz you've raised the white flag?

I can do without all the Alex "9/11" Jones and New World Order b.s. in my life just fine.

Thanks. :)

constituent
07-22-2010, 09:59 AM
Ummmm....you were the one who put the example out.

Clearly, again, you're conveniently ignoring the "Using your logic" phrase that began the sentence.



If you don't want it discussed then don't use it. That's what "adults" do. They defend their hypotheticals or they withdraw them. They don't get mad at other people for "quibbling" over them.

There wasn't even anything invalid about the example! OMG!

You went off looking for a debate about the frakkin interstate commerce clause and Tylenol in the middle of a debate about the constitutionality of federal or state immigration regulation.

(Again, for no other reason than you being angry that I decimated your "constitutional" argument for unconstitutional federal immigration regulation.)

And you're the adult? Seriously?


OK. Ignored. :)

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 10:09 AM
Clearly, again, you're conveniently ignoring the "Using your logic" phrase that began the sentence.

Not at all. You were using that example as "proof" that the logic didn't work. I merely pointed out the problem with the example. That's the way (adult) debates work. Look at the Einstein / Bohr debates on Quantum Mechanics. One would state a hypothesis. The other would give a hypothetical to refute the hypothesis. The first would attempt to point out what was wrong with the hypothetical. Neither ever had a problem with the other "quibbling" with their example.

I fully understood that you were basing your hypothetical of of your interpretation of John Taylor's logic. And I was pointing out the fallacy of your hypothetical.

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 10:14 AM
How about I just add you to my ignore list and we just discontinue our interactions with one another?


That's your choice. In fact you don't even have to inform me of it. But I guess that wouldn't have the same effect huh? Like the kid in school that has to make sure the kid he doesn't like knows he's not speaking to them.



Seriously, you spend the last few days insulting me and following me around derailing threads because you were wrong, and suddenly I'm to reassess your intentions 'cuz you've raised the white flag?


Ummm....you were the one who said "You win John". Now I figured you were being facetious, but I'm more than willing to forget the past.



I can do without all the Alex "9/11" Jones and New World Order b.s. in my life just fine.


That's what this is all about? That's why you randomly attacked me and made false claims about what I said regarding an oil spill when I wasn't even talking to you? I don't recall having any discussions with you about Alex Jones or 9/11 and I certainly haven't had any recent ones, but you really are carrying around a lot of baggage. Yes. Please put me on your ignore list. I'd hate to cause you more stress by my mere existence.



Thanks. :)

You're welcome.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-22-2010, 06:48 PM
Just because something was passed during the New Deal era doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional. Further there were immigration laws passed prior to the New Deal that you would probably find offensive. For example there were the Chinese exclusion act of 1882. So whether or not something was passed during the "New Deal" years has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the law was unconstitutional. You have to look at each individual law.

If you want to defend the New Deal be my guest. Of course the label New Deal doesn't make something de facto unconstitutional but the New Deal label does refer to a specific point in U.S. history where a lot of legislation repugnant to the constitutional walked the halls of Congress. Speeches like this still ring true today except we are now talking about Mexicans instead of Irish, Jews, or some other group of people.


Since the foundations of the American commonwealth were laid in colonial times over 300 years ago, vigorous complaint and more or less bitter persecution have been aimed at newcomers to our shores. Also the congressional reports of about 1840 are full of abuse of English, Scotch, Welsh immigrants as paupers, criminals, and so forth.

Old citizens in Detroit of Irish and German descent have told me of the fierce tirades and propaganda directed against the great waves of Irish and Germans who came over from 1840 on for a few decades to escape civil, racial, and religious persecution in their native lands.

The “Know-Nothings,” lineal ancestors of the Ku-Klux Klan, bitterly denounced the Irish and Germans as mongrels, scum, foreigners, and a menace to our institutions, much as other great branches of the Caucasian race of glorious history and antecedents are berated to-day. All are riff-raff, unassimilables, “foreign devils,” swine not fit to associate with the great chosen people—a form of national pride and hallucination as old as the division of races and nations.

But to-day it is the Italians, Spanish, Poles, Jews, Greeks, Russians, Balkanians, and so forth, who are the racial lepers. And it is eminently fitting and proper that so many Members of this House with names as Irish as Paddy’s pig, are taking the floor these days to attack once more as their kind has attacked for seven bloody centuries the fearful fallacy of chosen peoples and inferior peoples. The fearful fallacy is that one is made to rule and the other to be abominated. . . .

In this bill we find racial discrimination at its worst—a deliberate attempt to go back 84 years in our census taken every 10 years so that a blow may be aimed at peoples of eastern and southern Europe, particularly at our recent allies in the Great War—Poland and Italy.

Jews In Detroit Are Good Citizens

Of course the Jews too are aimed at, not directly, because they have no country in Europe they can call their own, but they are set down among the inferior peoples. Much of the animus against Poland and Russia, old and new, with the countries that have arisen from the ruins of the dead Czar’s European dominions, is directed against the Jew.

We have many American citizens of Jewish descent in Detroit, tens of thousands of them—active in every profession and every walk of life. They are particularly active in charities and merchandising. One of our greatest judges, if not the greatest, is a Jew. Surely no fair-minded person with a knowledge of the facts can say the Jews or Detroit are a menace to the city’s or the country’s well-being. . . .

Forty or fifty thousand Italian-Americans live in my district in Detroit. They are found in all walks and classes of life—common hard labor, the trades, business, law, medicine, dentistry, art, literature, banking, and so forth.

They rapidly become Americanized, build homes, and make themselves into good citizens. They brought hardihood, physique, hope, and good humor with them from their outdoor life in Sunny Italy, and they bear up under the terrific strain of life and work in busy Detroit.

One finds them by thousands digging streets, sewers, and building foundations, and in the automobile and iron and steel fabric factories of various sorts. They do the hard work that the native-born American dislikes. Rapidly they rise in life and join the so-called middle and upper classes. . . .

The Italian-Americans of Detroit played a glorious part in the Great War. They showed themselves as patriotic as the native born in offering the supreme sacrifice.

In all, I am informed, over 300,000 Italian-speaking soldiers enlisted in the American Army, almost 10 percent of our total fighting force. Italians formed about 4 percent of the population of the United States and they formed 10 percent of the American military force. Their casualties were 12 percent. . . .

Detroit Satisfied With The Poles

I wish to take the liberty of informing the House that from my personal knowledge and observation of tens of thousands of Polish-Americans living in my district in Detroit that their Americanism and patriotism are unassailable from any fair or just standpoint.

The Polish-Americans are as industrious and as frugal and as loyal to our institutions as any class of people who have come to the shores of this country in the past 300 years. They are essentially home builders, and they have come to this country to stay. They learn the English language as quickly as possible, and take pride in the rapidity with which they become assimilated and adopt our institutions.

Figures available to all show that in Detroit in the World War the proportion of American volunteers of Polish blood was greater than the proportion of Americans of any other racial descent. . . .

Polish-Americans do not merit slander nor defamation. If not granted charitable or sympathetic judgment, they are at least entitled to justice and to the high place they have won in American and European history and citizenship.

The force behind the Johnson bill and some of its champions in Congress charge that opposition to the racial discrimination feature of the 1800 quota basis arises from “foreign blocs.” They would give the impression that 100 percent Americans are for it and that the sympathies of its opponents are of the “foreign-bloc” variety, and bear stigma of being “hyphenates.” I meet that challenge willingly. I feel my Americanism will stand any test.

Every American Has Foreign Ancestors

The foreign born of my district writhe under the charge of being called “hyphenates.” The people of my own family were all hyphenates—English-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans. They began to come in the first ship or so after the Mayflower. But they did not come too early to miss the charge of anti-Americanism. Roger Williams was driven out of the Puritan colony of Salem to die in the wilderness because he objected “violently” to blue laws and the burning or hanging of rheumatic old women on witchcraft charges. He would not “assimilate” and was “a grave menace to American Institutions and democratic government.”

My family put 11 men and boys into the Revolutionary War, and I am sure they and their women and children did not suffer so bitterly and sacrifice until it hurt to establish the autocracy of bigotry and intolerance which exists in many quarters to-day in this country. Some of these men and boys shed their blood and left their bodies to rot on American battle fields. To me real Americanism and the American flag are the product of the blood of men and of the tears of women and children of a different type than the rampant “Americanizers” of to-day.

My mother’s father fought in the Civil War, leaving his six small children in Detroit when he marched away to the southern battle fields to fight against racial distinctions and protect his country.

My mother’s little brother, about 14 years old, and the eldest child, fired by the traditions of his family, plodded off to the battle fields to do his bit. He aspired to be a drummer boy and inspire the men in battle, but he was found too small to carry a drum and was put at the ignominious task of driving army mules, hauling cannons and wagons.

I learned more of the spirit of American history at my mother’s knee than I ever learned in my four years of high school study of American history and in my five and a half years of study at the great University of Michigan.

All that study convinces me that the racial discriminations of this bill are un-American. . . .

It must never be forgotten also that the Johnson bill, although it claims to favor the northern and western European peoples only, does so on a basis of comparison with the southern and western European peoples. The Johnson bill cuts down materially the number of immigrants allowed to come from northern and western Europe, the so-called Nordic peoples. . . .

Then I would be true to the principles for which my forefathers fought and true to the real spirit of the magnificent United States of to-day. I can not stultify myself by voting for the present bill and overwhelm my country with racial hatreds and racial lines and antagonisms drawn even tighter than they are to-day.

Speech by Robert H. Clancy, April 8, 1924, Congressional Record, 68th Congress, 1st Session




Interesting. The short of it is that the supreme court used the preemption doctrine to deem a state law barring employment of illegal immigrants that take away jobs of lawful residence. Now the question is, if the federal government does not in fact have the right under the naturalization clause to determine immigration, do the states have that the right to pass such laws under the 10th amendment? Or is there some other constitutional provision that would bar both the federal government and the states from passing such a law? That's the kind of question I was trying to ask "constituent".

What are all of the legal definitions of United States?
Immigration is regulated by entry into the United States. The term United States has very clear legal definitions and a proper examination of the definitions of United States and the contexts should shed a great deal of light on the matter.

Entry into the United States in a geographical sense means entry into a federal territory or entry into a state.

Entry into the United States in a jurisdictional sense means one has access to federal courts.

Entry into the United States in a context of allegiance means receiving the same privileges and immunities as natural born persons.

Obviously allegiance via citizenship and the rule of Naturalization is the power that has been delegated. In a geographical sense the federal government has very limited powers to police within state borders. Regulating entry in and out of a state has not been delegated. Under taxing powers the federal government has ports of entry to enforce customs under the power to tax. Enforcing customs the federal government does not regulate entry in an out of a state. If you bring taxable goods into the jurisdiction of the United States it is up individuals to comply with the law and bring taxable goods through customs. If compliance with law is not voluntary how could anyone ever commit a crime?

Let us also be clear on terms because the federal government makes discussion impossible by labeling everything immigration and redefining the very term.


Definition of ''Immigrant.''
Sec. 3. When used in this Act the term ''immigrant'' means any alien departing from any place outside the United States destined for the United States, except (1) a government official, his family, attendants, servants and employees, (2) an alien visiting the United States temporarily as a tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure, (3) an alien in continuous transit through the United States, (4) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States who later goes in transit from one part of the United States to another through foreign contiguous territory, (5) a bona fide alien seaman serving as such on a vessel arriving at a port of the United States and seeking to enter temporarily the United States solely in the pursuit of his calling as a seaman, and (6) an alien entitled to enter the United States solely to carry on trade under and in pursuance of the provisions of a present existing treaty of commerce and navigation.

Clearly everything in that 1924 definition would not fall under the definition of immigrant but we call tourists immigrants because of this redefining of terms by government. We confuse immigration, emigration, tourist, guest, etc. We label everyone as an immigrant.

Since only the power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization has been delegated how is the power derived to label anyone who ever visits the United States an immigrant subject to powers delegated for allegiance? Under what delegated authority does the federal government regulate tourists or guests to the United States?



The part about whether or not a government can determine if someone is "entitled to lawful residence"? Question. How can a state enforce "trespassing of foreign nationals on a border" if no government has the right to determine if someone is "entitled to lawful residence"? :confused: And like I said, restrictions on immigration predate the New Deal.

The federal government has never been delegated the power to regulate tourists, it just redefines tourists as immigrants despite the fact a tourist has no intention of becoming a citizen of the United States.

States do have the power to decide who they allow in a state so long as a state does not impair the obligation of contracts or infringe upon the privileges of the citizens of the several states. Citizens of the several states are the only immigrants a state is obligated to allow entry. What do you mean how does a state enforce trespassing?

Vessol
07-24-2010, 03:25 AM
So you support bringing in a ton of totalitarians of some kind who will implement their brand of government as soon as they get a chance?

Love your neighbor as yourself. … Love your enemies and pray for them. – Jesus Christ

All I am saying is that we have to stop viewing people only as enemies and friends. Or black and white.

If we ferment a closed society that only allows those of certain ideologies into it, does that not warp that ideology? How can you say that you are a man of freedom and understanding if you turn away others.

I wholly understand why someone would not welcome..lets say a man who broke into your house. I don't think I would welcome them, who would?

But on a whole, as long as we have a nation. I believe if we ferment the idea that only certain ideologies are welcome, then we empower those ideologies we oppose and give them reason for their existence, justification to themselves if you will.

This is why I believe the idea of a nation-state fails entirely.

.Tom
07-25-2010, 03:21 AM
I voted for the "People have the Natural Right to migrate as they wish", but I'd do without the exceptions.

Because a felon could be a non-criminal like a drug user, an infected person could be just someone with a disease, and a terrorist could be just someone the government doesn't like.

jmdrake
07-25-2010, 06:20 AM
If you want to defend the New Deal be my guest. Of course the label New Deal doesn't make something de facto unconstitutional but the New Deal label does refer to a specific point in U.S. history where a lot of legislation repugnant to the constitutional walked the halls of Congress. Speeches like this still ring true today except we are now talking about Mexicans instead of Irish, Jews, or some other group of people.


I'm not defending the New Deal. Note that I pointed to similar laws being passed before the New Deal. And just because someone may voted for a law on bad motives does not in fact make that law unconstitutional. Again the Chinese exclusion act was passed in 1882. You can't blame the New Deal on that. Maybe it was unconstitutional too. It certainly was repugnant in that it singled out a particular group. But it had nothing to do with the New Deal.



What are all of the legal definitions of United States?
Immigration is regulated by entry into the United States. The term United States has very clear legal definitions and a proper examination of the definitions of United States and the contexts should shed a great deal of light on the matter.

Entry into the United States in a geographical sense means entry into a federal territory or entry into a state.

Entry into the United States in a jurisdictional sense means one has access to federal courts.

Entry into the United States in a context of allegiance means receiving the same privileges and immunities as natural born persons.

Obviously allegiance via citizenship and the rule of Naturalization is the power that has been delegated. In a geographical sense the federal government has very limited powers to police within state borders. Regulating entry in and out of a state has not been delegated. Under taxing powers the federal government has ports of entry to enforce customs under the power to tax. Enforcing customs the federal government does not regulate entry in an out of a state. If you bring taxable goods into the jurisdiction of the United States it is up individuals to comply with the law and bring taxable goods through customs. If compliance with law is not voluntary how could anyone ever commit a crime?

Let us also be clear on terms because the federal government makes discussion impossible by labeling everything immigration and redefining the very term.


I'm not sure what definition of "voluntary" you are using. If I can be punished for doing something than my compliance is not "voluntary". Using your definition of "voluntary" we have a "volunteer army" even when there is a draft. That just doesn't make sense. Further George Washington didn't need to create the Coast Guard if the original intent was just to wait for someone to "voluntarily" bring their goods to be taxed.



Clearly everything in that 1924 definition would not fall under the definition of immigrant but we call tourists immigrants because of this redefining of terms by government. We confuse immigration, emigration, tourist, guest, etc. We label everyone as an immigrant.

Since only the power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization has been delegated how is the power derived to label anyone who ever visits the United States an immigrant subject to powers delegated for allegiance? Under what delegated authority does the federal government regulate tourists or guests to the United States?

The federal government has never been delegated the power to regulate tourists, it just redefines tourists as immigrants despite the fact a tourist has no intention of becoming a citizen of the United States.


No. I'm pretty sure we still call immigrants immigrants and tourists tourists. That's why we have tourist visas. But if you're going to regulate immigration that requires some regulation of tourism or else someone who's "just passing through" can end up becoming an immigrant. Or look at the "foreign diplomat" exception you noted. If you weren't able to check to see if someone actually was a "foreign diplomat" everybody would claim to be a foreign diplomat.

But you have to ascertain that said tourist actually has no intention of becoming a citizen. Look at it another way. We have the concept of "diplomatic immunity" which means diplomats get exempted from many of our laws. (A horrible idea in my opinion, but we have it). The only way to know the diplomat is a diplomat and not some tourist (or even some American) claiming to be a diplomat just to be able to violate laws with impunity is to check and make sure he's actually a diplomat. Necessary and proper clause.



States do have the power to decide who they allow in a state so long as a state does not impair the obligation of contracts or infringe upon the privileges of the citizens of the several states. Citizens of the several states are the only immigrants a state is obligated to allow entry. What do you mean how does a state enforce trespassing?

States are only barred from impairing the obligation of valid contracts. If a contract requires someone to break an existing law it's not a valid contract.

Also I didn't say "trespassing". I said "trespassing of foreign nationals on a border." Specifically I was referencing where you said:

The least path of resistance for states to enforce trespassing of foreign nationals on a border would be issuing a notice of trespass during the act and escort trespassers to the nearest port of entry.

If you're talking about trespass in general (as in someone trespassing on private property) that's a different matter altogether.

nobody's_hero
07-25-2010, 06:47 AM
COMPETITION. Let the individual states decide what their immigration policies will be.

We'll get to see which states turn into ultra fascist goon squad states, and which states turn into ultra communist complete-welfare states. Let them compete to see who wins.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-25-2010, 07:42 AM
I'm not defending the New Deal. Note that I pointed to similar laws being passed before the New Deal. And just because someone may voted for a law on bad motives does not in fact make that law unconstitutional. Again the Chinese exclusion act was passed in 1882. You can't blame the New Deal on that. Maybe it was unconstitutional too. It certainly was repugnant in that it singled out a particular group. But it had nothing to do with the New Deal.

As I pointed out in the other thread the Chinese Exclusion Acts (one of the previous acts of legislation you mentioned) were enforced by U.S. Customs because U.S. Border Patrol did not exist since quotas were part of the New Deal.

History provides additional context to illustrate they are not as "similar" as claimed. There was a treaty with China before the exclusion act and interestingly the exclusion act placed a restriction upon the states. On a side note the exclusion act mentions the customs certificate.



I.
Treaty Regulating Immigration from China
November 17, 1880

(Malloy, ed. Treaties, Conventions, etc. Vol. I, p. 237 ff.)



. . . Whereas the Government of the United States, because of the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese laborers to the territory of the United States, and the embarrassments consequent upon such immigration, now desires to negotiate a modification of the existing Treaties which shall not be in direct contravention of their spirit: . . .

ART. I. Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, buy may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse.

ART. II. Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States, shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation.

ART. III. If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of nay other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty . . .

II.
Chinese Exclusion Act
May 6, 1882

(U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XXII, p. 58 ff.)



An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese.

WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the Untied States be, . . . suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.

SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and may be also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, . . .

SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certificate shall state the name, title, or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities former and present occupation or profession and place of residence in China of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the Untied States. . . .

SEC. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper office of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. Any any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.

SEC. 13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and household servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.

SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 15. That the words "Chinese laborers," whenever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.



I'm not sure what definition of "voluntary" you are using. If I can be punished for doing something than my compliance is not "voluntary". Using your definition of "voluntary" we have a "volunteer army" even when there is a draft. That just doesn't make sense. Further George Washington didn't need to create the Coast Guard if the original intent was just to wait for someone to "voluntarily" bring their goods to be taxed.

There is no debate regarding a United States border with you until you can cite where it is defined per the request in other thread. I have cited text of acts that created federal districts.



No. I'm pretty sure we still call immigrants immigrants and tourists tourists. That's why we have tourist visas. But if you're going to regulate immigration that requires some regulation of tourism or else someone who's "just passing through" can end up becoming an immigrant. Or look at the "foreign diplomat" exception you noted. If you weren't able to check to see if someone actually was a "foreign diplomat" everybody would claim to be a foreign diplomat.

This is the kind of unconstitutional BS conservatives spit out that tickles my funnybone. Ironically progressives do the same thing they just advocate a different agenda. You are not making any constitutional argument you are saying that establishing a Rule of Naturalization (which is done by creating a rule and no use of police power) "requires" some other power that has NOT been delegated. Such non arguments usually follow with a brilliant claim of how "necessary and proper" it is to extend this non delegated power for purposes of regulation. You are advocating an agenda not the constitution.


except (2) an alien visiting the United States temporarily as a tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure,

Business.... exempted... check. Would you please get your busybody nose out of my labor contracts. And please stop harassing the tourists.

Ponder over the word "temporarily". If anyone can be here, individual state restrictions non withstanding, what purpose does temporarily have? If Congress gets to establish a uniform rule of allegiance, the constitution protects persons including citizens and aliens, what does it matter if someone resides in the United States for several years that can never vote, be elected, or work for government?

If a state wants to get off the chain and ask all tourists and visitors to leave is there anything constitutionally stopping a state from doing it? Does the federal government have any authority to extend the privileges and immunities of citizens to foreign nationals in any treaty?


But you have to ascertain that said tourist actually has no intention of becoming a citizen.

Get a constitutional amendment delegating the power to regulate tourists and visitors. Until then advocate the constitution.



Look at it another way. We have the concept of "diplomatic immunity" which means diplomats get exempted from many of our laws. (A horrible idea in my opinion, but we have it). The only way to know the diplomat is a diplomat and not some tourist (or even some American) claiming to be a diplomat just to be able to violate laws with impunity is to check and make sure he's actually a diplomat. Necessary and proper clause.

Diplomatic immunity is a privilege which diplomats apply for. What does a diplomat applying for a privilege they want to benefit from and will take the time to apply for have anything to do with exercising power that has not been delegated to regulate something that is unconstitutional?

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-25-2010, 07:46 AM
COMPETITION. Let the individual states decide what their immigration policies will be.

We'll get to see which states turn into ultra fascist goon squad states, and which states turn into ultra communist complete-welfare states. Let them compete to see who wins.

Under the Constitution states do not get to decide immigration policy (what is required to become a citizen). States can only decide whether they want tourists and visitors in their state or not. If they don't then it is up to the state to spend the money and exercise state police power in order to self govern.

States are obligated to accept any tourists and visitors that are citizens (either natural born or naturalized) per the privileges and immunities clause.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-25-2010, 07:54 AM
Naturalization. The act of becoming a citizen.

Immigrant. A person who desires to become a citizen.

The former is the power delegated. The latter is not. Instead of exercising delegated power establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization....

Our government has perverted the Constitution and tries to regulate persons who come to the United States. Once a person becomes naturalized they are a citizen. Until they become naturalized they are a visitor or tourist.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-25-2010, 08:29 AM
Since I am on a roll... if we did not have public education, welfare, income tax, and other public services the federal government needed to force visitors to pay for... immigration would not even be an issue.

But no... not us... we are flipping stupid. First we create a central bank to pay for it all.

The we create social security and were like... hey... visitors work. They should pay too.

Then we create public schools and if they were solely funded with local property taxes it might not be an issue but they get federal subsidies so were like... hey... we want visitors to pay for federal subsidies too.

We mandate hospitals by law to provide emergency care to all and then were like... hey... we want visitors to pay for hospital subsidies too.

Which leads to teaching American children the natural right to contract, work, or be in business is a privilege granted by government subject to regulation omitting the part about it's because we want visitors to pay for it too.

FrankRep
07-25-2010, 08:33 AM
Since I am on a roll... if we did not have public education, welfare, income tax, and other public services the federal government needed to force visitors to pay for... immigration would not even be an issue.

That will take MANY years fix and it must be done incrementally.

ClayTrainor
07-25-2010, 08:44 AM
That will take MANY years fix and it must be done incrementally.

Kind of like how the soviet union fixed itself incrementally over many years?

Look, whether you think incrementalism is the way it's going to go down or not, you should still advocate extremism in the defense of liberty. It is no vice, after all.

FrankRep
07-25-2010, 09:29 AM
Kind of like how the soviet union fixed itself incrementally over many years?

Look, whether you think incrementalism is the way it's going to go down or not, you should still advocate extremism in the defense of liberty. It is no vice, after all.

The Soviet Union collapsed, I don't want the United States to collapse the same way.

ClayTrainor
07-25-2010, 10:31 AM
The Soviet Union collapsed, I don't want the United States to collapse the same way.

The best thing that ever happened to the soviet union was that it collapsed. That's when any hope of an actual recovery began. The darkest years, were the years in which they waited for the collapse.

I sympathize with what you're saying, but we have to accept the reality. The way things are going, It's probably going to happen regardless of what we want.

Even if you secure the borders 100% effectively, there is still the monstrous problem of unfunded liabilities and debt, as well as a state that refuses to be limited by any political action. The collapse is pretty much ensured by this. The best thing you can do is simply be prepared, help your neighbors be prepared, start participating in agorism, etc. If we already have new forms of trade established when the collapse happens, it'll be much easier on us.

One question you really need to ask yourself... Do you want stronger borders if a collapse does happen?

jsu718
07-25-2010, 11:52 AM
I am going to say it isn't possible to get a 100% consensus on anything with any group of people, especially considering that we can't even get a 100% consensus on "everyone check this option"

jmdrake
07-25-2010, 02:59 PM
As I pointed out in the other thread the Chinese Exclusion Acts (one of the previous acts of legislation you mentioned) were enforced by U.S. Customs because U.S. Border Patrol did not exist since quotas were part of the New Deal.


I didn't see you mention that in the other thread, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not immigration laws were passed prior to the New Deal.



History provides additional context to illustrate they are not as "similar" as claimed. There was a treaty with China before the exclusion act and interestingly the exclusion act placed a restriction upon the states. On a side note the exclusion act mentions the customs certificate.


Cheap obfuscation tactics with a straw man thrown in to boot. The exclusion act prohibited immigration from China. That a restriction was placed on the states is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is mention of a customs certificate.

The relevant part of the act.

Preamble. Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof:

Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.

You can always find something in one law that's not in the other. But you claimed that the "unconstitutional" regulation of immigration started with the New Deal. That's simply not true.



There is no debate regarding a United States border with you until you can cite where it is defined per the request in other thread. I have cited text of acts that created federal districts.


Huh? You quote my response to your critique of "voluntary laws" and now your jumping around to another thread and citing texts about federal districts? :confused: Stay on topic. You're not making sense at this point. What does what you wrote have to do with voluntary laws?




This is the kind of unconstitutional BS conservatives spit out that tickles my funnybone. Ironically progressives do the same thing they just advocate a different agenda. You are not making any constitutional argument you are saying that establishing a Rule of Naturalization (which is done by creating a rule and no use of police power) "requires" some other power that has NOT been delegated. Such non arguments usually follow with a brilliant claim of how "necessary and proper" it is to extend this non delegated power for purposes of regulation. You are advocating an agenda not the constitution.


It's not "unconstitutional BS". It's common sense. If you have the government has the power to regulate immigration, but not tourism, then it necessarily has the right to determine whether or not someone is an immigrant or a tourist. It would be the same if the government had the right to regulate the movement of people with tuberculosis. While that wouldn't directly give the right to regulate the movement of someone who was healthy, it would give the government the right to restrict movement long enough to ascertain if someone is healthy or not. That's the actual meaning of the "necessary and proper" clause. I'm not even sure why you went down that rabbit hole since you don't think the government has the right to regulate immigration or tourism. :confused: :confused: :confused:



Business.... exempted... check. Would you please get your busybody nose out of my labor contracts. And please stop harassing the tourists.

Ponder over the word "temporarily". If anyone can be here, individual state restrictions non withstanding, what purpose does temporarily have? If Congress gets to establish a uniform rule of allegiance, the constitution protects persons including citizens and aliens, what does it matter if someone resides in the United States for several years that can never vote, be elected, or work for government?

If a state wants to get off the chain and ask all tourists and visitors to leave is there anything constitutionally stopping a state from doing it? Does the federal government have any authority to extend the privileges and immunities of citizens to foreign nationals in any treaty?


Not sure where you're even going with that. It has no bearing on any position I was actually taking.



Get a constitutional amendment delegating the power to regulate tourists and visitors. Until then advocate the constitution.


If the government has the power to regulate immigration, then it has a necessary and proper power to ascertain whether someone is an immigrant as opposed to a tourist. No amendment needed. But since you don't think the government has the right to regulate immigration at all this really is irrelevant.




Diplomatic immunity is a privilege which diplomats apply for. What does a diplomat applying for a privilege they want to benefit from and will take the time to apply for have anything to do with exercising power that has not been delegated to regulate something that is unconstitutional?

Diplomats were mentioned in the same legislation that mentioned tourists. You harped on tourists for some unknown reason and ignored diplomats. Anyway, it's all the same ball of wax. If the government has the power to regulate immigrants, but not tourists or diplomats, it has the necessary and proper power to determine if a particular person is a immigrant, tourist or diplomat. You seem to believe that the government doesn't have the power to regulate any of the those so I'm not sure what your point is. But if the government indeed has the power to regulate immigrants it has the necessary and proper power to determine immigration status versus tourist and diplomat status.

Dr.3D
07-25-2010, 03:12 PM
I am going to say it isn't possible to get a 100% consensus on anything with any group of people, especially considering that we can't even get a 100% consensus on "everyone check this option"

Well, the 33% or so of people who missed that option probably had sand in their eyes. There is so much immature sandbox bickering going on in these forums, that must have been the reason. :D

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-25-2010, 09:49 PM
You need to reconcile this. Agree or disagree but you must choose.




Do you have any objections to any of the other posts? Such as the power that has been delegated or how Congress has redefined the terms Rule or Naturalization to mean immigrants also includes tourists and visitors?


I'll demure on that point. (Neither agree nor disagree). Even without the immigration/naturalization power, you have to be able to assert a border if you are going to be able to repel a foreign invasion.

Intellectual integrity is not ignoring the arguments of your opponents (by refusing to agree or disagree) and then continuing to argue an agenda.


I didn't see you mention that in the other thread, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not immigration laws were passed prior to the New Deal.



Emergency Immigration Act of 1921
Immigration Act of 1924
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration

You read my link and pick out something passed before 1921 and say... hey look, I found something prior to 1921 and you don't know what you are talking about. Give me a break with that BS. I stated U.S. Border Patrol and quotas resulted from the New Deal. Of course it is not the only BS about immigration. The fact we use the word IMMIGRATION and not NATURALIZATION is the largest part of the BS. I have stated Congress has perverted the constitution by redefining terms.



Cheap obfuscation tactics with a straw man thrown in to boot. The exclusion act prohibited immigration from China. That a restriction was placed on the states is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is mention of a customs certificate.

Of course why would I know anything when you are just rambling on about the Chinese Exclusion Acts and I introduce to the discussion a treaty with China just a couple years before.

Of course introducing such a treaty into the discussion I would have no idea what the relevant parts are. Let me take a moment to learn.



The relevant part of the act.

Preamble. Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof:

Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.

You can always find something in one law that's not in the other. But you claimed that the "unconstitutional" regulation of immigration started with the New Deal. That's simply not true.

Would you mind elaborating on the time line of unconstitutional regulation of immigration?


Huh? You quote my response to your critique of "voluntary laws" and now your jumping around to another thread and citing texts about federal districts? :confused: Stay on topic. You're not making sense at this point. What does what you wrote have to do with voluntary laws?

Yes because we are not going to assume a United States border when you can't cite where it is defined. There is no conversation about anything even related to a United States border such as coast guard or any other subject or object until you can cite where the United States border is defined.


It's not "unconstitutional BS".

It's "unconstitutional BS"


It's common sense.

I can't believe you just argued common sense has anything to do whether or not something is constitutional. Don't worry folks when your caught stealing... jmdrake has your back in court because its common sense people steal for food when they have nothing.



If you have the government has the power to regulate immigration,

This is why your little intellectual dishonest circle jerk of refusing to acknowledge other peoples arguments is coming to an end. Can you cite where the words "regulate immigration" appear in the Constitution? No, you can't. Because that power has never been delegated and it does not exist.

to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Fuck I hate attorneys. I am not starting from the beginning because you refuse to acknowledge the argument and "demure". Nor do I feel obligated to keep explaining the definition of "Rule" or "Naturalization". Nor do I feel I need to go back and repeat the same crap I repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The power to regulate immigration has not been delegated. Regulating immigration requires police power to enforce. The power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization does not require police power because it is a power to create a uniform rule. There is no coercion involved with Naturalization. If you want to be naturalized you simply prove that you have met all the requirements of the Rule. There are no consequences. If you are not naturalized it just means you are still a non-citizen.

An immigrant who is not naturalized is a visitor or tourist. An immigrant who is naturalized is a citizen. Congress does not regulate WHO because WHO could be any tourist or visitor. Congress only establishes a uniform Rule of Naturalization among the several states.

The constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate immigrants. Congress only has the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. That means any non-citizen can become a citizen if they meet all the requirements of the Rule. It is up to the non-citizen to demonstrate and prove they have met all of the requirements of the Rule.

How can you call yourself an attorney and act this ignorant as if the act of naturalization and persons who are immigrants mean the same thing? If you are really this much of a sucker where I can simply do a label switcharoo to get your money I need to get into sales and start pitching a few sucker labels.



but not tourism, then it necessarily has the right to determine whether or not someone is an immigrant or a tourist.

With regards to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" there is NO POWER DELEGATED TO REGULATE PEOPLE. Only a power to establish a rule. Stop using the word immigrant as if the power to regulate people has been delegated.



It would be the same if the government had the right to regulate the movement of people with tuberculosis. While that wouldn't directly give the right to regulate the movement of someone who was healthy, it would give the government the right to restrict movement long enough to ascertain if someone is healthy or not. That's the actual meaning of the "necessary and proper" clause. I'm not even sure why you went down that rabbit hole since you don't think the government has the right to regulate immigration or tourism. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Please spare me your worst case scenario why we need to live under marital law at all times BS. Where is the power to regulate the movement of people delegated?



Not sure where you're even going with that. It has no bearing on any position I was actually taking.

I see. Looks like more demuring BS. This debate is halted until you provide an EXACT definition of "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". I want to understand the power that has been delegated in your own words because quite frankly I am tired of your intellectual dishonesty in that you ignore my arguments (by refusing to agree or disagree) and continue to argue for an unconstitutional agenda.


If the government has the power to regulate immigration, then it has a necessary and proper power to ascertain whether someone is an immigrant as opposed to a tourist. No amendment needed. But since you don't think the government has the right to regulate immigration at all this really is irrelevant.

Every single fucking time. "If the government has the power to regulate immigration....."

Gee... where is the word "immigration" in the Constitution?

It always either comes back to fucking regulating immigration with is not in the Constitution or a United States border which is not in the Constitution.

I just can't fucking handle thread after thread after thread after thread after mother fucking thread of ignorance.

The power that has been delegated is "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"

You have no fucking clue what those words mean if you claim government has the power to regulate IMMIGRANTS. I did not say IMMIGRATION in the context of changing allegiance to another country. I said IMMIGRANTS which means regulating PEOPLE not an ACT OF CHANGING ALLEGIANCE. The fact any time anyone ever talks about aliens they use the word IMMIGRATION not NATURALIZATION makes my case.



Diplomats were mentioned in the same legislation that mentioned tourists. You harped on tourists for some unknown reason and ignored diplomats. Anyway, it's all the same ball of wax. If the government has the power to regulate immigrants, but not tourists or diplomats, it has the necessary and proper power to determine if a particular person is a immigrant, tourist or diplomat. You seem to believe that the government doesn't have the power to regulate any of the those so I'm not sure what your point is. But if the government indeed has the power to regulate immigrants it has the necessary and proper power to determine immigration status versus tourist and diplomat status.

We are going to compare diplomats and tourists. Well I am still waiting for your brilliant time line per my requrest above so I can get educated. I imagine it would cover any gray areas such as treaties, diplomatic immunity, and tourists versus state rights.

constituent
07-26-2010, 02:56 PM
This is why your little intellectual dishonest circle jerk of refusing to acknowledge other peoples arguments is coming to an end. Can you cite where the words "regulate immigration" appear in the Constitution? No, you can't. Because that power has never been delegated and it does not exist.

to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Fuck I hate attorneys. I am not starting from the beginning because you refuse to acknowledge the argument and "demure". Nor do I feel obligated to keep explaining the definition of "Rule" or "Naturalization". Nor do I feel I need to go back and repeat the same crap I repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The power to regulate immigration has not been delegated. Regulating immigration requires police power to enforce. The power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization does not require police power because it is a power to create a uniform rule. There is no coercion involved with Naturalization. If you want to be naturalized you simply prove that you have met all the requirements of the Rule. There are no consequences. If you are not naturalized it just means you are still a non-citizen.

An immigrant who is not naturalized is a visitor or tourist. An immigrant who is naturalized is a citizen. Congress does not regulate WHO because WHO could be any tourist or visitor. Congress only establishes a uniform Rule of Naturalization among the several states.

The constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate immigrants. Congress only has the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. That means any non-citizen can become a citizen if they meet all the requirements of the Rule. It is up to the non-citizen to demonstrate and prove they have met all of the requirements of the Rule.

...

Every single fucking time. "If the government has the power to regulate immigration....."

Gee... where is the word "immigration" in the Constitution?

It always either comes back to fucking regulating immigration with is not in the Constitution or a United States border which is not in the Constitution.

I just can't fucking handle thread after thread after thread after thread after mother fucking thread of ignorance.

The power that has been delegated is "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"

You have no fucking clue what those words mean if you claim government has the power to regulate IMMIGRANTS. I did not say IMMIGRATION in the context of changing allegiance to another country. I said IMMIGRANTS which means regulating PEOPLE not an ACT OF CHANGING ALLEGIANCE. The fact any time anyone ever talks about aliens they use the word IMMIGRATION not NATURALIZATION makes my case.

Very complete and well said. I bet you feel much better now having gotten that all out. :D

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-26-2010, 11:20 PM
Very complete and well said. I bet you feel much better now having gotten that all out. :D

YouTube - Mad As Hell ... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok)

Unfortunate this topic is never able to move beyond "regulating immigration" arguing over definitions of "Rule or "Naturalization" which are crystal clear from a historical perspective or undefined "borders" and delve into what I would consider the far more relevant topic on this subject... treaty powers.

Ricky201
07-26-2010, 11:36 PM
Hey Lookit! We all agree on the last one!

Glorious consensus, at long last!!!

It's quite funny that most of us agree on the last one, but less of us can't even check the first box lol!

constituent
07-27-2010, 06:40 AM
YouTube - Mad As Hell ... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok)

Unfortunate this topic is never able to move beyond "regulating immigration" arguing over definitions of "Rule or "Naturalization" which are crystal clear from a historical perspective or undefined "borders" and delve into what I would consider the far more relevant topic on this subject... treaty powers.

...now you've got my wheels turnin'

let's hear it. :D

MelissaWV
07-27-2010, 07:15 AM
No, and a large number of the poll options are worded stupidly.