Claim: The Constitution gives you NO AUTHORITY to control human migration

[MRK]

What are your thoughts on the topic headline?

"The Constitution gives you NO AUTHORITY to control human migration."

This was taken from an email from DownsizeDC.org in a message about the Real ID Act's implementation.




Congress passed the REAL ID Act in 2005, attached to an unrelated war spending bill. It mandated states to include uniform standards in their drivers licenses and state ID’s.

DownsizeDC.org, many other privacy advocates, and dozens of states resisted. We were successful for a long time! The Department of Homeland Security kept pushing back deadlines to force states into compliance.

But this year, the DHS has quietly been imposing deadlines on the non-compliant states and territories.

This is a grave threat to your right to travel, which is why I told Congress to repeal REAL ID using DownsizeDC.org's campaign.

The hardwired message says simply...

Don't try to "fix" the REAL ID Act. Simply repeal it.

You may borrow from or copy these sample comments…

I DO NOT CONSENT to DHS enforcement of REAL ID that started this year. (http://bit.ly/1lCNxKu)

People with drivers licenses from non-compliant states will be…

* denied access to federal facilities in a few months
* denied entry on commercial aircraft as soon as 2016!

Let me ask…

* Can you cite your Constitutional authority to regulate state ID cards or impose a national ID system?
* Where is your MORAL authority to deny any American the right to travel?

Keep in mind that THIRTY-FIVE states and territories are NOT in compliance with the REAL ID Act.

There's good reason for this. REAL ID is an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate on the states.

Worse, it's a threat to individuals…

* Many elderly or poor persons, divorced women, and others have difficulty finding all the required documents to "prove" their identity when renewing their license or ID.
* My personal information will be recorded in a federal database, making it MORE vulnerable to hacking and theft.
* REAL ID will eventually contain biometric and tracking technology -- another way for the feds to spy on me.

And, REAL ID "solves" non-existent terrorism and immigration problems…

* It would NOT have prevented 9/11 or the Boston bombings
* The Constitution gives you NO AUTHORITY to control human migration or to discriminate against persons

National ID requirements like REAL ID are NOT an act of government. They are an act of tyranny.

[Czolgosz]

Force is their authority...just as force is the counter to authority.

[Carson]

"What are your thoughts on the topic headline?"


What's for dinner? No it's not.

[fr33]

I agree with the headline. It's true.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I was unaware that DownsizeDC was for open borders. I will investigate this group further.

[gwax23]

I wish this was the case, but who knows with the constitution. Its so badly written and purposefully vague any schmuck can claim it says whatever suits his agenda.

[MRK]

I've been on DownsizeDC's email list since the first campaign, I believe. I rarely have time to read the emails, but they sent an email out about the Real ID Act, which I wanted to check out, given that there's not often news about it. Then I came across their rather interesting statement about the constitutionality of immigration.

I was hoping those with more complete constitutional interpretations than I could weigh in on the statement.

[fr33]

I've been on DownsizeDC's email list since the first campaign, I believe. I rarely have time to read the emails, but they sent an email out about the Real ID Act, which I wanted to check out, given that there's not often news about it. Then I came across their rather interesting statement about the constitutionality of immigration.

I was hoping those with more complete constitutional interpretations than I could weigh in on the statement.

Well this debate has been had many times on this forum. You can read the constitution and decide for yourself. I'm pretty sure it was well over 100 years after the constitution was signed before this nation had it's first immigration laws. Long ago when the constitution was the law of the land people came here without asking for citizenship status and were not labeled illegal.

[gwax23]

Well this debate has been had many times on this forum. You can read the constitution and decide for yourself. I'm pretty sure it was well over 100 years after the constitution was signed before this nation had it's first immigration laws. Long ago when the constitution was the law of the land people came here without asking for citizenship status and were not labeled illegal.

Immigration restrictions really took off around the same period of time when we instituted the income tax and created the federal reserve. A terrible time in american history.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

It's a false claim. The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the Laws of Nations. Migrating from another nation without permission is an offense against the laws of nations; and every state had that power prior to ratifying the Constitution. Restricting migration a basic self-evident power of any state, just as you have the right to restrict migration onto your private property.

The Constitution also has a clause saying that states retained exclusive power to control migration until the year 1808 - a restriction on that Section 8 power. But since 1808, congress has indeed has this power. The states, BTW, never had that power taken from them; they by all right s have a coequal power to restrict migration, so the move against Arizona's attempt to do so is Constitutional.