View RSS Feed

PierzStyx

California’s Top Judge Tells ICE To Leave Courthouses As State Readies Sanctuary Law

Rate this Entry
[QUOTE=PierzStyx;6516890][QUOTE=Swordsmyth;6516577]I'll take Jefferson's word over the Heritage Foundation's any day.

The exercise, by our own citizens, of so much commerce as may suffice to exchange our superfluities for our wants, may be advantageous for the whole. But, it does not follow, that with a territory so boundless, it is the interest of the whole to become a mere city of London, to carry on the business of one half the world at the expense of eternal war with the other half. The agricultural capacities of our country constitute its distinguishing feature; and the adapting our policy and pursuits to that, is more likely to make us a numerous and happy people, than the mimicry of an Amsterdam, a Hamburgh, or a city of London. Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that, if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles, and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudocitizens, on such terms. [U][B]We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
[/B][/U]
Such is the situation of our country. --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28


You also refuse to deal with [B]Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government[/B]

[LEFT][URL="https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html"]<<Back[/URL] | [URL="https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html"]Table of Contents[/URL] | [URL="https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html"]Next>>[/URL][/LEFT]
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a [URL="https://usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC"]Republican[/URL] Form of Government, and [B]shall protect each of them against Invasion[/B];[/QUOTE]

First off, what Jefferson thought about immigration doesn't matter. His whims and opinions do not form the basis of our society, we are not a kingdom or dictatorship where the opinions of one are law. What does matter is what is in the actual US Constitution. That is what governs the US legal system and the powers granted to the Federal Government. It is what determines what is and is not lawful for the Federal Government to do. That you are trying to justify your argument by appealing to everything BUT the US Constitution proves my point that the US Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to regulate immigration.

Secondly, your Jefferson quote has nothing to do with supporting your argument. Your argument is that Article 1, Section 9 allows the regulation of immigration. You were refuted by historical fact which demonstrated that Article 1, Section 9 solely applies to slavery and the slave trade. Your rebuttal to this point must strengthen your original argument that Article 1, Section 9 does apply to immigration. But you are unable to do this because it does not. Therefore you attempt a typical troll tactic of shifting the argument to what Thomas Jefferson may or may not have believed about immigration. This is not only irrelevant (see point 1) but a meaningless source as it doesn't strengthen your argument. Jefferson isn't talking about Article 1, Section 9 and therefore whatever he has to say doesn't support your argument that Article 1, Section 9 support immigration restriction.

You are back to your central problem: There is no authorization in the US Constitution for the federal regulation of immigration. And you have not been able to argue otherwise or give any sources to back up your argument. Article 1, Section 9 has to do with the slave trade and slavery, not immigration. This is established historical fact. And Jefferson, whatever his feelings about immigration, doesn't address or support your argument at all. So you are thus far left with no evidence for your claim and all the evidence given has opposed your claim and demonstrated that Article 1, Section 9 has nothing to do with immigration and does not give the Federal Government the power to limit immigration.

Your claim that Article 4, Section 4 somehow gives the Federal Government power to regulate immigration is equally foolish. First, the whole text of Article 4, Section 4:

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

You are trying to argue that protections against "invasion" equal the power of the Federal Government to regulate immigration. This is such a silly argument as anyone with a dictionary knows the difference between immigration and invasion.

Invasion is when the official armed military forces of a foreign nation invade another country.

Immigration is when a person moves from their native country to another country.

Immigration is not invasion and therefore this part of the Constitution has no applicability to discussions on immigration and does not authorize the Federal Government to regulate immigration in any manner. Really anyone trying to equate invasion and immigration needs to go back to grade school and take an English class.

As immigration is therefore not a power granted to any branch of the US Federal Government by the US Constitution the Tenth Amendment applies: "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." Immigration is a power reserved to the States individually to make their own laws, and any action on immigration taken by the Federal Government is a violation of the US Constitution's Tenth Amendment and an unjust and illegal overreach of Federal power.

Your whole argument does reinforce one fact though: That you ethnocentric nationalists will not let a little thing like the US Constitution or the limitations it placed on the power of the Federal Government get in your way. You aren't constitutionalists, meaning you do not abide by the legal restrictions placed upon the Federal Government by the US Constitution and restrict it to acting only in the ways that it has been authorized to do so. You will use the overwhelming violence of Federal power to force your opinions on others even when doing so is a clear violation of the US Constitution and you will warp, twist, and outright misinterpret the Constitution any way you need to in order to justify your actions, if you even bother to regard it at all. This is neither the hallmark of a libertarian, a constitutionalist, a paleoconservative, or a believer in small government. This is the hallmark of the Progressive, who wants to use the power of the State to engage in social engineering in order to "form" or "reform" society to how you think it should be. The "Alt. Right" and all those like them, such as yourself, are in fact Leftists in defense of Big Government.[/QUOTE]
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments