Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[erowe1]

Rather, when we see nations with unchecked immigration, tyranny increases.

Tyranny increases everywhere and always has, regardless of immigration policies.

Until the anti-borders types explain how a society with no walls makes us all safer, more productive, and increasingly prosperous as a nation, they cannot advocate such a position.

Do you apply this test to all policy positions? A person has to prove the policy will make us better off before they can support it? To me it always comes down to black-and-white ethical issues. If I demand that you only hire people with my permission lest I punish you somehow, then I do wrong. I have no choice but to be against that.

[otherone]

It's also important to note that the actual policy of the United States up until 1875 was one of completely unrestricted immigration.

Actually, no one was even a citizen of the US until 1868.

[FreeHampshire]

Why would that imply that? In what way was it "implied"? What does that even mean?

I know for me, if I was writing a document to delegate specific powers to a federal government, a document designed to create a limited government, only permitted to do certain things, and if I wanted this federal government to have a certain power X, I would make sure that power X was on the list of things that they could do! If I forgot to put it on the list, that is a major oversight! It's the difference between the federal government being permitted to do it, and forbidden to do it. Immigration is not on the list. Go read the list. It's not there. Where is your leg to stand on? You have none.

Are you interested in the least in following the Constitution? I am an advocate, a very strong advocate, of following, very strictly, the rule of law: the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was written very precisely to restrain the power and force of government, and to protect the liberties of each and every one of us. Let's follow the Constitution.

One can make the same kind of lame consequentialist arguments for any unconstitutional action. Let me demonstrate:

The general welfare of the people has always been a paramount responsibility of the government. This very clearly includes not allowing hundreds of millions of the old and infirm to starve in the gutters of our streets. That is, one would think, a bare minimum standard, not to be a society of good people even, but if we are to be able to consider ourselves to be even just barely human! The founders did not intend for our elderly to all die gruesome deaths. Social Security cannot and must not be ended. The original intent of the Constitution implies that Social Security is Constitutional.

And legally speaking, not a single founding father advocated for killing all old people in the gutters. Furthermore, not a single one ever made a single argument against having a nationalized old-age pension plan run by the federal government. They didn't.

See how that works? And in point of fact, it's true: they didn't. Not a one spoke a word against Social Security.

Now it looks like a parallel, but actually the case against the Constitutionality of immigration restrictions is perhaps stronger than that against the Constitutionality of Social Security if your standard is looking at what the founders said and wrote. For though no founder wrote a word against a national pyramid scheme, there were some who wrote and spoke in favor of free immigration. Some more energetic researcher could find you some quotes proving it.

It's also important to note that the actual policy of the United States up until 1875 was one of completely unrestricted immigration. Not even any health test and required shots, no check-in, no signing the guest book, no Ellis Island, nothing. Zip. Scratch. If the men who wrote the Constitution felt so strongly about restricting immigration, perhaps they would have written a law doing so, don't you think? Why did it take until 100 years later, in the Progressive Era, for this enlightened reform to finally take shape? And even then, the 1875 law was not restrictive at all. It didn't limit numbers, it just made some rules and procedures for immigrants to follow: sign the guestbook, don't bring a plague, etc. The first real restriction on the amount of immigration came in the 1920s.

I am very skeptical of things that the federal government never, never did until the Progressive Era. As a rule, they tend to be grossly outrageous and completely illegal under the Constitution. The Progressives simply ignored the Constitution when it didn't suit them. This issue of immigration is no exception.

The problem is that you're throwing the words "unconstituional" around as if the Constitution existed in a vacuum. This is the very same Constitution that didn't recognize blacks or indigenous americans as fully Human, and thus they didn't have the same rights as White civilians. Going off of a pure constitutional viewpoint, as you are, you would be forced to slaughter and enslave as many blacks as possible right now. You have to look at the context in which the Constitution was written and what the founding fathers thought about immigration in general. Benjamin Franklin was a staunch opponent of German immigration, see here:


Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.

- Thomas Woods


There is simply no american tradition for mass migration, illegal immigration, or unchecked immigrant of any sort. There is nothing in it in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles, or the Constitution. The only people in the real world who advocate such nonsense are excited about a permanent Democratic majority, which I suspect atleast half of the people on this forum secretly wish for as well.

Tyranny increases everywhere and always has, regardless of immigration policies.

No, just the opposite. Compare Arizona's policies with California. Making America, a first world nation & sole superpower which is proven successful, into a nation like Mexico, which is a borderline failed state, is pure madness. You're simply going to get a third world culture and people with a significantly lower IQ that will vote for crooked Democratic politicians.

[erowe1]

people with a significantly lower IQ that will vote for crooked Democratic politicians.

Is that supposed to be worse than people with high IQ that vote for crooked Republicans?

The answer to California's problems isn't more government, it's less.

[helmuth_hubener]

The problem is that you're throwing the words "unconstituional" around as if the Constitution existed in a vacuum.

I am merely proposing that the government follow the Constitution. Are you proposing that they disobey it?

[Brian4Liberty]

"Those who live by the immigrant, die by the immigrant."

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, like so many other areas, the Fedgov goons have gradually usurped power which was never given to them. According to the Constitution, they have power to determine citizenship, but not to control, regulate, restrict, nor have anything to do whatsoever with immigration nor emigration. They can't do it. They just can't. "Congress shall make no law respecting immigration" -- that is the Constitution's position on the matter. But I don't read that, you say? It doesn't have that in there? It doesn't need to. I'll put it this way: there is, at the end of the Constitution, a very long list of provisions. It goes something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting mining
Congress shall make no law respecting housing
Congress shall make no law respecting fishing
Congress shall make no law respecting logging
Congress shall make no law respecting plastics
Congress shall make no law respecting schools
Congress shall make no law respecting construction
Congress shall make no law respecting computers
Congress shall make no law respecting wages
Congress shall make no law respecting prices
Congress shall make no law respecting gay marriage
Congress shall make no law respecting wealth redistribution
Congress shall make no law respecting bread production
Congress shall make no law respecting milk pasteurization
Congress shall make no law respecting marijuana consumption
Congress shall make no law respecting old-age pension schemes
etc.

It goes on into infinity. Congress can make no laws in any areas whatsoever other than about 17 specific powers granted to it, in Article 1, Section 8. That's the key belief to being a strict contructionist Constitutionalist. Otherwise, how are you going to say that Social Security, Obamacare, drones, or anything are unconstitutional? You aren't. You can't.

Either the Constitution means what it says, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then sure make up whatever stupid junk you want and say the gov't can do that. Whee! I, though, think that if the Constitution is to have any meaning at all, if we're going to show any respect to it at all, then the words that are actually written in it have to obeyed, as opposed to whatever words might pop into your head which you think should have been there.

Also, I happen to think simply following the Constitution would be a pretty acceptable compromise position to most here. Maybe -- feel free to set me straight if not. But AntiFederalist mentioned that he's fine with immigration, just as long as they can't vote. Many others have mentioned them getting various gov't handouts. Others have expressed the sentiment that the law should be followed. Well this addresses all of that. Immigration and citizenship are two separate issues. Separate them out properly, and a lot of these controversies go away. Obviously only citizens should be permitted to vote -- no question. And also, very clearly no non-citizen should be permitted to receive any gov't handouts. Settled. And if we care about following the law, the Constitution is the biggest law of them all. No "law" which violates the Constitution is even any law at all -- it's illegal, it's null and void. Laws about "illegal immigration" are themselves illegal. Let's follow the Constitution.

It's a nice thought, but nobody's actually come up with an enforcement mechanism. Want to exercise your rights of nullification or secession? You'd better be able to outgun the Feds (which is highly unlikely unless you can get a foreign military to cover your ass). As far as I can see, this is mostly an academic exercise/thought experiment until you can force the Feds to back down in the event of a standoff. If you have compelling evidence otherwise, I'd gladly consider it.

[Occam's Banana]

It's a nice thought, but nobody's actually come up with an enforcement mechanism. Want to exercise your rights of nullification or secession? You'd better be able to outgun the Feds (which is highly unlikely unless you can get a foreign military to cover your ass). As far as I can see, this is mostly an academic exercise/thought experiment until you can force the Feds to back down in the event of a standoff. If you have compelling evidence otherwise, I'd gladly consider it.

Actually, it doesn't have to go as far as being able to fend off the Feds in an outright standoff.

In order to successfully exercise nullification (or even secession), for example, you don't actually have to be able to "outgun the Feds", as you put it (although being able to do so certainly wouldn't hurt). You only have to reach a point at which it would be imprudent for the Feds to take action against you. In order to force the Feds to back down, you don't have to confront them physically - you just have to be in a position from which it would cost more to the Feds to impose their dominance than they would stand to gain (or retain) by doing so. If this were not the case, then there could be no real hopes for non-violent revolution.

A specific (and very important) example of what I am talking about here is manifested in one aspect of the gun control issue. Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms argue (or should argue) that gun rights are a bulwark against tyranny. Critics of this argument say that it is rendered moot by "jets and tanks". They claim that the argument is outdated and invalidated by the (alleged) fact that it would be easy for the the federal government to militarily "outgun" any armed citizens who stood up against it. Setting aside entirely the issue of whether this assertion is actually true (examples such as Vietnam and Afghanistan seem to militate against it), the claim fails to account for the fact that the matter is not nearly as simple as "jets and tanks beat assault rifles - game over, end of story!" The domestic application of "jets and tanks" against American citizenry is *extremely* problematic in its political ramifications [1] - so much so that the military aspect of the matter almost becomes irrelevant. This is *especially* true when it comes to any significant degree of general popular discontent - in that case, the Feds may very well make matter even worse (for themselves) by employing a "jets and tanks" approach.

[1] Would were it only so when it comes to the application of such against foreign citizenries abroad!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Looking back through the posts, I see NO ONE is able to show constitutional "authority" for the feds controlling immigration. Since it seems we are all in agreement that it's NOT IN THERE, does this mean that those of you who are for immigration control do not "believe" in the constitution???

[No Free Beer]

This is the very same Constitution that didn't recognize blacks or indigenous americans as fully Human, and thus they didn't have the same rights as White civilians.

Prove

[No Free Beer]

Looking back through the posts, I see NO ONE is able to show constitutional "authority" for the feds controlling immigration. Since it seems we are all in agreement that it's NOT IN THERE

Define "immigration" in the context of your statement, please.

I don't want to refute your claim without understanding your position/opinion first.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Define "immigration" in the context of your statement, please.

I don't want to refute your claim without understanding your position/opinion first.

I would define "immigration" as the movement of people from one geographical location to another...

[No Free Beer]

I would define "immigration" as the movement of people from one geographical location to another...

Well, based on that, I would say that the Feds DO have authority to prevent people from illegally entering our country.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Well, based on that, I would say that the Feds DO have authority to prevent people from illegally entering our country.

Please list the specific section of the Constitution that grants such "authority"...

[No Free Beer]

Please list the specific section of the Constitution that grants such "authority"...

ill be glad to.

when i get back from running.

[No Free Beer]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

http://usconstitution.com/constitution#articleiv

in·va·sion
[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
infringement by intrusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

Now, whether you agree with policy or not is another discussion My point is that the authority is there.

[helmuth_hubener]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

http://usconstitution.com/constitution#articleiv

in·va·sion
[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
infringement by intrusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

Now, whether you agree with policy or not, my point is that the authority is there.

Very good, you got exactly what I was thinking of, except for your quoting of the Preamble was entirely irrelevant. The Preamble delegates no authority. None whatsoever. There are no powers vested in the U.S. Federal Government by virtue of the Preamble. All powers delegated are listed in Article 1, Section 8 (with modifications via amendment, notably the Income Tax and Prohibition).

But yes, you're right, that under such an expansive definition of immigration as ChristianAnarchist's, the federal government can regulate it, prevent it, "repel" it, etc.

I would define immigration much more traditionally: A normal private citizen peacefully changing his place of residence from one country to another. "Immigration" referring to the coming-in-to-the-new-country part of it, while "emigration" refers to the leaving of the old country. Using this normal, standard definition we stipulate that immigration is non-invasive, non-violent, non-treasonous, not interfering with the Post Office nor commerce with the various Indian Tribes, etc. It also is separate from citizenship, which is another issue and one which the US gov't does have authority over according to the Constitution. And with that, I see no authority to make laws abridging immigration.

[No Free Beer]

Very good, you got exactly what I was thinking of, except for your quoting of the Preamble was entirely irrelevant. The Preamble delegates no authority. None whatsoever. There are no powers vested in the U.S. Federal Government by virtue of the Preamble. All powers delegated are listed in Article 1, Section 8 (with modifications via amendment, notably the Income Tax and Prohibition).

But yes, you're right, that under such an expansive definition of immigration as ChristianAnarchist's, the federal government can regulate it, prevent it, "repel" it, etc.

I would define immigration much more traditionally: A normal private citizen peacefully changing his place of residence from one country to another. "Immigration" referring to the coming-in-to-the-new-country part of it, while "emigration" refers to the leaving of the old country. Using this normal, standard definition we stipulate that immigration is non-invasive, non-violent, non-treasonous, not interfering with the Post Office nor commerce with the various Indian Tribes, etc. It also is separate from citizenship, which is another issue and one which the US gov't does have authority over according to the Constitution. And with that, I see no authority to make laws abridging immigration.

The only reason I included the Preamble was because some people go beyond the legalities of immigration and insert citizenship into the argument.

I was trying to prevent that from the get-go.