Let's do this again: how is immigration law Constitutional?

[erowe1]

Seems you guys want to have an argument about what you want the constitution to say, not what it does.

So for over 100 years these rights didn't even apply to women or slaves, but I'm revisionist for assuming they didn't apply to non-naturalized citizens? And regardless, this isn't an argument of whether the bill of rights applies to them, it's a question of if there are constitutional rules for citizenship. There are.

You know there's a reason why in the 10th amendment they use "the States, or the people" as interchangeable terms.

I mean, do you think they just had naturalization rules just for fun? Clearly these rules are in place to restrict who can become a citizen, and how to handle those who've not gone the proper route to become a citizen. You don't like it, take it up with the founding fathers, not me.

I don't understand what you mean by "those who have not gone the proper route to become a citizen." If they're not citizens, they're not citizens. That's all there is to it. It's not like you have to be a citizen to have any right to exist in the borders of the country.

[TheGrinch]

I don't understand what you mean by "those who have not gone the proper route to become a citizen." If they're not citizens, they're not citizens. That's all there is to it. It's not like you have to be a citizen to have any right to exist in the borders of the country.

Then why do you think they relegated Congress the power to determine naturalization rules? Just for $#@!s and giggles?

[erowe1]

Then why do you think they relegated Congress the power to determine naturalization rules? Just for $#@!s and giggles?

I'm not following you.

How do you get from naturalization to being in the country?

[TheGrinch]

I'm not following you.

How do you get from naturalization to being in the country?

Article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to form "unified rules for naturalization". Nationalization is defined as "the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.". Clear enough?

Thus, why bother with naturalization rules if anyone can enter the country and be treated as if they were a citizen? Not only does it make no sense that they'd have rules for something that you claim isn't valid, it would make absolutely no sense for anyone to even bother with naturalization, if it didn't matter, and they could live here as a defacto citizen without having to go through any process?

[erowe1]

Article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to form "unified rules for naturalization". Nationalization is defined as "the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.". Clear enough?

Thus, why bother with naturalization rules if anyone can enter the country and be treated as if they were a citizen? Not only does it make no sense that they'd have rules for something that you claim isn't valid, it would make absolutely no sense for anyone to even bother with naturalization, if it didn't matter, and they could live here as a defacto citizen without having to go through any process?

I never said anything about people being treated as citizens. There are tons of people in the country who aren't treated as citizens. That doesn't mean we kick them out. You seem to be saying it does.

[TheGrinch]

I never said anything about people being treated as citizens. There are tons of people in the country who aren't treated as citizens. That doesn't mean we kick them out. You seem to be saying it does.

That's up to congress, as per the constitution. So actually, don't bother taking it up with the founding fathers, take it up with congress.

[erowe1]

That's up to congress, as per the constitution. So actually, don't bother taking it up with the founding fathers, take it up with congress.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to kick noncitizens out of the country?

[TheGrinch]

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to kick noncitizens out of the country?

Still Article 1 Section 8, and according to usconstitution.net, was upheld by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

Almost identical to what I've been saying all thread. There would be no need for naturalization "rules" if they didn't pertain to non-naturalized citizens.

[erowe1]

Still Article 1 Section 8, and according to usconstitution.net, was upheld by the Supreme Court:


Almost identical to what I've been saying all thread. There would be no need for naturalization "rules" if they didn't pertain to non-naturalized citizens.

So you agree with the Supreme Court?

I don't know why it wouldn't make sense. Becoming a citizen and merely being in the country are two totally different things.

Congress makes a uniform code of naturalization, i.e. laws defining how people become citizens. People come into the country with no intention of becoming citizens. Thus that code has nothing to do with them. Where does the part about kicking out those people that the uniform code of naturalization doesn't apply to come in?

[erowe1]

By the way, isn't that pretty much Ron Paul's position?

He doesn't want illegal immigrants to be made into citizens. But he also doesn't want them to be deported.

[TheGrinch]

So you agree with the Supreme Court?

Yes in this case logos trumps preconceptions about ethos.

At the risk of repeating myself, this sums it up very well: "It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration."

I don't know why it wouldn't make sense. Becoming a citizen and merely being in the country are two totally different things.

"Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life"....

In other words, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country (the issue of travel and passports is separate from this conversation). People get deported for attempting to work and live in a country the same as a citizen, without going through the naturalization process.

Not sure how this is tough to understand why this falls under "unified naturalization rules".

Congress makes a uniform code of naturalization, i.e. laws defining how people become citizens. People come into the country with no intention of becoming citizens. Thus that code has nothing to do with them. Where does the part about kicking out those people that the uniform code of naturalization doesn't apply to come in?

Again, citizenship is associated with working and living in a country. This does not preclude Congress from allowing the issuing work visas for non-citizens like they do now, but neither does it preculde them from excluding non-citizens who don't naturalize from living and working in the country like a naturalized citizen.

[TheGrinch]

By the way, isn't that pretty much Ron Paul's position?

He doesn't want illegal immigrants to be made into citizens. But he also doesn't want them to be deported.

You guys have a very strange view of what citizenship is. It's as if the word is meaningless to you, since I don't know why anyone wuold go through all the trouble and big expense to become a citizen, if all was was an official, but meaningless title.

[Travlyr]

Yes in this case logos trumps preconceptions about ethos.

At the risk of repeating myself, this sums it up very well: "It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration."


"Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life"....

In other words, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country (the issue of travel and passports is separate from this conversation). People get deported for attempting to work and live in a country the same as a citizen, without going through the naturalization process.

Not sure how this is tough to understand why this falls under "unified naturalization rules".



Again, citizenship is associated with working and living in a country. This does not preclude Congress from allowing the issuing work visas for non-citizens like they do now, but neither does it preculde them from excluding non-citizens who don't naturalize from living and working in the country like a naturalized citizen.

It is not hard to understand. You are being very succinct and concise in this thread.

[erowe1]

At the risk of repeating myself, this sums it up very well: "It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration."

But it doesn't sum it up because being in a country and being a citizen are two totally different things.

"Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life"....

Exactly. But what about all the people who live in a country and don't have a right to participate in political life? Just because they can't vote doesn't mean they can't live there. Naturalization has nothing to do with them.

In other words, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country (the issue of travel and passports is separate from this conversation). People get deported for attempting to work and live in a country the same as a citizen, without going through the naturalization process.

No they don't. They can get deported for being illegal immigrants, whether they make any attempt to be the same as citizens (i.e. participate in politics, as you said) or not. You seem to be saying this is authorized by the Constitution somewhere. I'm wondering where the Constitution mentions this.

If logos trumps preconceived ethos, then go ahead, offer an actual argument based on something the Constitution actually says. If it doesn't make sense to you that simply being in a country is not the same as being a citizen, then that's due to your own lack of imagination. But you're putting that into the Constitution, not getting it out of it.

[jmdrake]

The Democrats have it all - they give away free stuff *and* support a path to citizenship. Even if you get the GOP to give up and offer a path to citizenship, we're still trumped by free stuff.

But I just saw that Obama is mucking around in Latin America. Seems like a good Democrat war or two down there could get the Latinos to switch parties. Worked for the Muslims.

You're assuming that Latinos care more about "free stuff" than do whites as well as assuming that they care more about "free stuff" than they care about abortion and gay marriage. The "free stuff" has been there all along. What's changed has been the recent emphasis by democrats on paths to citizenship and republicans on cracking down on illegal immigration. The Cuban American vote, which typically goes very republican, was largely split this year. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Ameri...-American-vote It wasn't because of "free stuff".

[erowe1]

Again, citizenship is associated with working and living in a country. This does not preclude Congress from allowing the issuing work visas for non-citizens like they do now, but neither does it preculde them from excluding non-citizens who don't naturalize from living and working in the country like a naturalized citizen.

I just noticed this part. Since when does citizenship have anything to do with living and working in a country?

You seriously think that when the framers of the Constitution said "uniform code of naturalization" that they meant Congress could dictate who's allowed to have a job anywhere in the country?

[TheGrinch]

But it doesn't sum it up because being in a country and being a citizen are two totally different things.

And as I said before, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country. So no, being in a country isn't the issue, it's living and working in the country.

Again, jsut because our normalization laws (as relegated by Article 1 section 8) allow a certain number of visas for people to live and work here for an extended amount of time, doesn't mean that has to be the case. This is why it's left up to Congress to determine the process of who can work or live here.

Exactly. But what about all the people who live in a country and don't have a right to participate in political life? Just because they can't vote doesn't mean they can't live there. Naturalization has nothing to do with them.

The irght to participate in political life is not synonymous with citizenship, it's jsut a common characteristic of it... Perhaps you could make a similar argument that it doesn't include living and working in a country, but then if you take out those basic traits, you're left without any definition whatsoever of a citizen or normalization. They would be utterly pointless terms if they do not relate to living and worknig in a country.

What is your definition of citizen then, because it seems a very hollow distinction in your eyes.

No they don't. They can get deported for being illegal immigrants, whether they make any attempt to be the same as citizens (i.e. participate in politics, as you said) or not. You seem to be saying this is authorized by the Constitution somewhere. I'm wondering where the Constitution mentions this.

Again policitcal participatino is a common trait of citizenship, it is not synonymous with it, so this is a very flawed argument you're making.

As for where it's mentioned in the Constitution, I've backed up under the "unifrom normalization rules". Where is it backed up in the Constitution that anyone can just stay, live, work and enjoy the same rights as American citizens indefinitely?

I could even use the argument of national defense as for why not everyone can just be allowed to come into our country, ignore normalization and go on about enjoying the privileges of it's citizens, but the normalization rules are sufficient, IMO.

If logos trumps preconceived ethos, then go ahead, offer an actual argument based on something the Constitution actually says. If it doesn't make sense to you that simply being in a country is not the same as being a citizen, then that's due to your own lack of imagination. But you're putting that into the Constitution, not getting it out of it.

I would argue that you are the one that lacks imagination, when you cannot seem to grasp the point that, if being in a country is different than being a citizen, why the hell would you waste Congress' time determining citizenship laws?

It's a big problem in this country that people have to have everything explicitly spelled out in writing to use basic reasoning... But if having it explicitly spelled out helps, please find me your definition of citizen so we can pick that apart.

[erowe1]

And as I said before, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country. So no, being in a country isn't the issue, it's living and working in the country.

Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizenship has anything to do with living and working in the country. That seems to be your own made-up definition of the word.

Work visas didn't even exist until the 20th century.

[TheGrinch]

I just noticed this part. Since when does citizenship have anything to do with living and working in a country?

You seriously think that when the framers of the Constitution said "uniform code of naturalization" that they meant Congress could dictate who's allowed to have a job anywhere in the country?

Again, find me a definition of citizen or citizenship or naturalization that doesn't imply the features of having the right to live and work there. I'll wait.

[TheGrinch]

Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizenship has anything to do with living and working in the country. That seems to be your own made-up definition of the word.

You don't really think the framers thought this, do you? Work visas didn't even exist until the 20th century.

So what your saying is that there was no uniform naturalization law regarding work visas until the 20th century, and it was different before that.

OK, that changes absolutely nothing that I've said.

[erowe1]

So what your saying is that there was no uniform naturalization law regarding work visas until the 20th century, and it was different before that.

OK, that changes absolutely nothing that I've said.

Work visas have nothing to do with uniform naturalization. Naturalization is about becoming a citizen. It isn't about being allowed to work here.

[TheGrinch]

Work visas have nothing to do with uniform naturalization. Naturalization is about becoming a citizen. It isn't about being allowed to work here.

Yes, they absolutely have to do with naturalization rules, as it was a rule in place to allow people to come in to work and live without being naturalized.

Kind of like the saying, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. An allowance for visas in the naturalization rules is still a naturalization rule (i.e. law)

[erowe1]

Again, find me a definition of citizen or citizenship or naturalization that doesn't imply the features of having the right to live and work there. I'll wait.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

citizen, n.
View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation: /ˈsɪtɪzən/
Forms: ME citisein, citisain, citiseyn(e, citesayne, citeceyn, citezeyn, citizein, ME ... (Show More)
Etymology: Middle English citesein, etc., < Anglo-Norman citeseyn, -zein, sithezein... (Show More)
1.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. An inhabitant of a city or (often) of a town; esp. one possessing civic rights and privileges, a burgess or freeman of a city.

c1330 (1300) Guy of Warwick (Auch.) l. 5503 Þe citiseins of þat cite Wel often god þonkeden he.
c1330 Arth. & Merl. 5090 To London..thai come, The citisains fair in hem nome.
1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) Acts xxi. 39, I am a man..of Tarsus..a citeseyn or burgeys, of a citee not unknown.
1480 Caxton Chron. Eng. ccvi. 187 The cytezeyns of london.
c1480 Pol. Poems (1859) II. 281 He thonckyd the cetisence of thayre fidelite.
1512 Act 4 Hen. VIII c. 9. §2 Citezens of Cities and Burgeys of boroughes and Townes.
c1540 Destr. Troy 3263 [MS. after 1500] Sum of the Citizens assemblit with all.
c1540 Destr. Troy 11879 Citasyns.
1556 in J. G. Nichols Chron. Grey Friars (1852) 16 The kynge [Hen. VI.] came to London, & there was worchippfully reseved of the cittesens in whytt gownes & redde whoddes.
a1616 Shakespeare Taming of Shrew (1623) iv. ii. 96 Pisa renowned for graue Citizens.
a1699 A. Halkett Autobiogr. (1875) 20 Furnished by an honest Cittisen.
1704 Clarendon's Hist. Rebellion III. xv. 462 You, the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, of the House of Commons.
1782 W. Cowper John Gilpin i, John Gilpin was a citizen Of credit and renown.
1849 T. B. Macaulay Hist. Eng. I. 352 The chiefs of the mercantile interest are no longer citizens. They avoid, they almost contemn, municipal honours and duties.

and later in the same entry:

2.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. A member of a state, an enfranchised inhabitant of a country, as opposed to an alien; in U.S., a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of voting for public offices, and is entitled to full protection in the exercise of private rights.

138. Wyclif Sel. Wks. II. 69 [He] clevede to oon of þe citizeins of þat countre.
a1538 T. Starkey Dial. Pole & Lupset (1989) 31 The nombur of cytyzyns in every commynalty cyty or $#@!rey.
a1640 P. Massinger Guardian v. iv. 265 in 3 New Playes (1655) , To save one Citizen is a greater prize, Then to have kill'd in War ten Enemies.
1752 D. Hume Ess. & Treat. (1777) I. 281 A too great disproportion among the citizens weakens any state.
a1799 Washington in Webster's New Internat. Dict. Eng. Lang. (1890) , If the citizens of the United States should not be free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.
1843 Penny Cycl. XXVI. 11/1 A pledge, both to American citizens and foreign states.
1871 B. Jowett in tr. Plato Dialogues IV. 71 The object of our laws is to make the citizens as friendly and happy as possible.
1884 W. E. Gladstone in Standard 29 Feb. 2/4 A nation where every capable citizen was enfranchised.
1889 N.E.D. at Citizen, Mod. Arrest of an American citizen.

Nowhere in the entire definition of "citizen" in the Oxford English Dictionary does it make any mention of having a right to work somewhere.

Also, again, look how the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution. The idea of it meaning a person who has the right to have a job anywhere in the country is totally absent.

[erowe1]

Yes, they absolutely have to do with naturalization rules, as it was a rule in place to allow people to come in to work and live without being naturalized.

Kind of like the saying, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. An allowance for visas in the naturalization rules is still a naturalization rule (i.e. law)

But that's not what naturalization rules are. Naturalization has nothing to do with being allowed to come in and work somewhere. It's about being a citizen.

[TheGrinch]

But that's not what naturalization rules are. Naturalization has nothing to do with being allowed to come in and work somewhere. It's about being a citizen.

As I asked before, what is a citizen then? Why would I want to be a citizen, and why would they bother Congress with this, if it is in no way different than any schmuck who enters the country and enjoys the same rights.

There is literally not a definition relevant to this conversation that doesn't imply being a resident, along with rights residents are afforded.

[erowe1]

As I asked before, what is a citizen then? Why would I want to be a citizen, and why would they bother Congress with this, if it is in no way different than any schmuck who enters the country and enjoys the same rights.

Have you even bothered to look up the word yourself?

I just gave you the OED's definition. I checked dictionary.com and it wasn't very different.

And where did I ever say anything about noncitizens enjoying the same rights as citizens? Obviously they don't have the same rights. But that doesn't mean you can kick them out of the country. It just means they don't have the rights of citizens.

Why would you want to be a citizen? According to the Constitution, being a citizen is a prerequisite for several things. Merely being in the country and having a job here are not among those things.

[TheGrinch]

Have you even bothered to look up the word yourself?

I just gave you the OED's definition. I checked dictionary.com and it wasn't very different.

And where did I ever say anything about noncitizens enjoying the same rights as citizens? Obviously they don't have the same rights. But that doesn't mean you can kick them out of the country. It just means they don't have the rights of citizens.

Why would you want to be a citizen? According to the Constitution, being a citizen is a prerequisite for several things. Merely being in the country and having a job here are not among those things.

Where does the constitution say that they can't kick them out of the country?

I must have missed your defintion of citizen. Mine all have the feature of being a resident, which yes implies the right to live and work there.

[erowe1]

Where does the constitution say that they can't kick them out of the country?

I must have missed your defintion of citizen. Mine all have the feature of being a resident.

My definition was post 53.

Of course the definition has the feature of being a resident. But it's not just being a resident. You can be a resident and not a citizen. When the Constitution uses the word "citizen" it clearly doesn't just mean "resident." I'm still waiting for your definition where having a right to live and work somewhere is part of the definition of "citizen". And more importantly, I'd love to see your evidence that that's the definition it has in the Constitution, because it's pretty clear to me that it isn't. I'm guessing that any definition that has those components would be 20th century or later, if you can find one at all.

Where does the Constitution say they can't kick them out? The 10th Amendment. If it's not a power enumerated for the Congress, then they don't have it.

[TheGrinch]

You can be a resident and not a citizen.

Yes you can, due to natrualization laws.

I'll stop now though, as we're going in circles to where it's becoming unreadable.

I'll be back if/when I can find further clarification, but obviuosly we're not agreeing on this point.

[erowe1]

Yes you can, due to natrualization laws.

It's not a matter of agreeing on a point like it's your opinion versus mine. You're simply making things up.

The ball's in your court. Find a definition of "citizen" that includes the right to live and work somewhere, and where that meaning is shown to have been in use in the 18th century.

Because if you can't do that, then you have no basis for saying that Congress's authority to make a uniform code of naturalization has anything to do with saying who can live and work in the country.

You're the one who threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to find a definition of citizen that didn't mean that. I find it ironic that you can't find one that does. You pulled your definition out of thin air and got caught.

The whole idea that naturalization was a prerequisite for living and working in the country was totally absent from the minds of the people who ratified the Constitution. Those representatives of the states had no notion that they were empowering the federal government to dictate to their citizens that they couldn't employ people to work for them without its permission. The idea that it had that power was never imagined until much later.