No Such Thing As An "Illegal" Immigrant

[CarmelHP]

The federal government doesn't have any power that was not explicitly granted to it. You cannot infer any power from a clause in the constitution that restricts government power in some other area. Any act of Congress must be connected to an enumerated power in Article I.

Except the guys who wrote it thought that power was there, so the need to limit with one exception until 1808.

The border is merely a political line that determines over which area Congress has any authority. The presence of the line does not, itself, give Congress any particular power.

Which has nothing to do with what the Founders, themselves, wrote in the Constitution. They apparently thought the grant of power was somewhere, whether in the commerce clause or common defense clauses, they assumed the power was there.

You are attempting to find "intent" of a constitutional provision, which is not a typical method of constitutional construction. It is usually the original meaning that has any power. Trying to infer the intent of the large group of people who wrote the constitution is an exercise in futility. All that is relevant is the original public meaning of the words that were ultimately enacted--not the intent of the authors.

I'm trying to "find" nothing, I'm reading what they wrote, "Unless the english language no longer applies."

This post makes an interesting point, actually. I already knew that for most of the 19th century, immigration to the United States was basically unrestricted and unregulated. I never dug deeper into the methods by which Congress seized the power to regulate immigration at all. Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that it came from the overly broad and expansionary views of the commerce clause, which when combined with the necessary and proper clause, have been almost single-handedly responsible for the expansion of government over the last 70-80 years. If it is indeed true that Congress lacks any authority over restricting immigration, it'd make for an interesting court case to see how courts would wrestle with that.

It would appear that the Founders "seized" that power for them when they were writing the Constitution.

I would imagine that securing the border (as in, assuring that the people who enter are not criminals or wanted) would be a legitimate exercise of commerce clause power. I'm not entirely convinced that it would follow that deciding who and how many non-criminals, non-terrorists, etc., would fall within that same clause.

Apparently the Founders didn't follow the idiot theory of government that if you don't write every jot and tittle of what was necessary to secure and maintain a nation then you couldn't do it. The Founders assumed their grants of power to Congress were not unlimited, but also not so narrow as to be ridiculous.

 

[96firephoenix]

If the authors thought that Congress did not have an inherent power
to regulate migration, why would they put in a temporary limit?

Art. 1 Sec 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

That would appear to apply only to the states and forbids congress from getting involved. snip.

wrong. that would appear that AFTER 1808, congress can do what ever the hell they want to prohibit the migration of people into the states. it would appear that before 1808, they can only tax immigration at $10/head, but after 1808, they can charge whatever they want.



even if it is a state's rights issue, that should mean that the Feds have no right to stick it to AZ with their new immigration law. oh sorry, its not our gov't thats suing AZ, its the mexican gov't...

 

[jbombelli]

I hate the term "illegal immigrant" because it is indeed wrong. It implies someone came here in order to be a part of this country, fit in and assimilate, only they did so illegally. But that's not what's going on.

People are coming here not because they want to live out their lives here, and be Americans, but because they want free stuff and money to send across the border, before leaving again. They have no desire to be AMERICANS.

The way I see it, if somebody comes here, and has no desire to be a part of this country, become a citizen, and American, they are not an immigrant. They are an alien. A resident alient, a non-resident alien, or an illegal alien, but an alien nonetheless.

 

[downzero]

I hate the term "illegal immigrant" because it is indeed wrong. It implies someone came here in order to be a part of this country, fit in and assimilate, only they did so illegally. But that's not what's going on.

People are coming here not because they want to live out their lives here, and be Americans, but because they want free stuff and money to send across the border, before leaving again. They have no desire to be AMERICANS.

The way I see it, if somebody comes here, and has no desire to be a part of this country, become a citizen, and American, they are not an immigrant. They are an alien. A resident alient, a non-resident alien, or an illegal alien, but an alien nonetheless.

There's not a shred of evidence that today's immigrants are any different than our ancestors when they came to this country. In the neighborhood my paternal grandmother grew up in, there are still Italian flags everywhere.

The distinction between "alien" and "immigrant" is whether they intend to stay permanently or not, not how they act when they get here.

One thing's for certain--globalization is here to stay and free migration of labor is an absolute necessity. Whether now or later, everyone is going to have to get over the hyper-nationalist thing and embrace our neighbors who come here to work.

 

[Expat]

Thomas Jefferson quotes that would seem to imply we could have some control over immigration:

“The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.”

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

 

[bigcraig]

One thing's for certain--globalization is here to stay and free migration of labor is an absolute necessity. Whether now or later, everyone is going to have to get over the hyper-nationalist thing and embrace our neighbors who come here to work.

I completely disagree.

The history of all the known super civilzations, Rome for example, shows that free travel and unfettered immigration is a detrimate to a well balanced and civil society.

 

[IndyBeerman]

There's not a shred of evidence that today's immigrants are any different than our ancestors when they came to this country. In the neighborhood my paternal grandmother grew up in, there are still Italian flags everywhere.

Your argument is a fail because in the neighborhood where your paternal grandmother grew up those people gained access to our county legally and are merely flying the Italian flag as a symbol to their heritage, they are US citizens.

Whereas I would suspect that people flying the Mexican flag in the Southwest and West US are illegals, did not enter legally and are flying it as what they say is Mexico's rightful land they they lay claim to, this has been their argument for years.

The distinction between "alien" and "immigrant" is whether they intend to stay permanently or not, not how they act when they get here.

It's not about whether they intend to stay here permanently or not, it's about if they gained access to our county illegally. If legally so be it, if not get the **** out of our country and stop mooching off us.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There's not a shred of evidence that today's immigrants are any different than our ancestors when they came to this country. In the neighborhood my paternal grandmother grew up in, there are still Italian flags everywhere.

Except that the Italians (and British, French, Irish, Chinese, etc) lay no claim to any part of the United States, even though they were instrumential in developing it. Mexico believes it has claim to much of the southwest. As an ethnic group many Afro-Amerans (not all blacks, just those whose ancestry traces back to Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, or Barbara Lee) believe they are entitled to reparations due to the efforts of they ancestors.

The distinction between "alien" and "immigrant" is whether they intend to stay permanently or not, not how they act when they get here.

Don't really know what that means. Sounds like you're making up definitions where non previously existed.

One thing's for certain--globalization is here to stay and free migration of labor is an absolute necessity. Whether now or later, everyone is going to have to get over the hyper-nationalist thing and embrace our neighbors who come here to work.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment of this statement. I've taken the liberty of fixing it for you.

One thing's for certain--globalization is here to stay. [strike]and free migration of labor is an absolute necessity[/strike]. At some point in the future [strike]Whether now or later, everyone is going to have to get over the[/strike] hyper-nationalist tendencies exhibited by our new guests will necessarily give way to a more cooperative environment from those[strike]thing and embrace our neighbors[/strike] who come here to work. This will not occur until proper infrastructure to support a larger population is in place, immigrants understand that to belong they must get along, and accept that assimilation is an imperative.

 

[Panama]

Actually, in reading the Arizona law it appears to be Constitutional to me, (as repugnant as I find it). Their borders, their problem.

Just curious, what part of the law as written, do you find to be "repugnant"?

The reason I ask is, I have read it also, and to me it really seems reasonable.
I am not trying to change your mind, or say you are incorrect, just asking your opinion.

As I understood from reading it myself, police can only check legal status AFTER a probable cause occurrence, (ie) speeding, jaywalking, auto accident, etc.
Now I may have missed whatever it was that you saw, which is why I ask.

In my own personal experiences, anytime I have had an "encounter" with any LEO, it really was because I had brought attention to myself through a violation of some sort, and every single time I have been asked for my I.D.

Maybe I was the victim of Swiss profiling, and just didn't realize it?

I never got an answer?

 

[flagtag]

If we were to commit a crime, do you think that we would be excused? Would "our" government reward us for committing a crime?

If anyone (including Mexicans) come into our country without "doing it by the book", they are here illegally. (in other words, they didn't get "official" - legal permission - by the book.)
So, they are not immigrants - here legally. They are illegal aliens!
Yes, I know that "our" government wants them here - and may be trying to pass legislation (Obama anyway) to let them stay and work just so they will vote for them (Dems), but I have a feeling that it won't work.

Legal minds have suggested that if the president tries to go around congress, he could be charged with treason. (Although, I don't know of enough HONEST members of congress who would stand up for the law and the Constitution. So, no worries, Obama)

 

[downzero]

It's not about whether they intend to stay here permanently or not, it's about if they gained access to our county illegally. If legally so be it, if not get the **** out of our country and stop mooching off us.

Actually, if the arguments that began this thread are correct, that is false.

If indeed Congress lacks any enumerated power that allows it to enact these laws, the laws criminalizing immigration are illegitimate and thus void.

And, so, your argument, which would then begin with a false premise, would lead to a conclusion that is meaningless at the least, and potentially false.

Also, there's no evidence that any, and certainly none to be found that all are mooching off of us. Most are providing us with labor and consuming far fewer benefits, if any, than the average "legal" worker.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Really? DZ?


Go to St. Vincents Women hospital 86th Street.... That place is ALWAYS packed with Mexicans who dont speak a word of English.


Is someone talking out of they're rear, again? All facts point to suggest otherwise, DZ.

But hey, Communism is great.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Actually, if the arguments that began this thread are correct, that is false.

If indeed Congress lacks any enumerated power that allows it to enact these laws, the laws criminalizing immigration are illegitimate and thus void.

And, so, your argument, which would then begin with a false premise, would lead to a conclusion that is meaningless at the least, and potentially false.

Also, there's no evidence that any, and certainly none to be found that all are mooching off of us. Most are providing us with labor and consuming far fewer benefits, if any, than the average "legal" worker.

You know unless you are some sort of legal scholar, I'm gonna side with CarmelHP, and you really need to get out and into the real world and see what's really going on out there and out of your protected shell. It's really a eye opener.

Take a little stroll down W. Washington street between Tibbs and Harding and get a taste of the surreal life. See how they feel about the gringo walking through what is quickly being refereed to as Little Mexico with all their fake ID's and documents.

 

[96firephoenix]

snip
Take a little stroll down W. Washington street between Tibbs and Harding and get a taste of the surreal life. See how they feel about the gringo walking through what is quickly being refereed to as Little Mexico with all their fake ID's and documents.

no. the only reasons I go through that area ever is if I need to get to Carter Lee Lumber co, or if I'm driving from Avon to downtown. since I no longer am dating a woman in Avon, that is never.
even then, its doors locked, always watching.

one of my scariest nights ever was getting lost in that part of town with my ex-girlfriend in the car.

 

[Reloader]

"illegal immigrant" - is the movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. I strongly support Arizona and believe our founding fathers meant to define and help lay the ground work and the legal entry into this country knowing we would be built on legal immigration. It is those who give our sacrifices away that will destroy us. Frankly, I'm tired of pressing 1 for ENGLISH ...there is a legal method for entering and becoming a citizen...USE IT

 

[E5RANGER375]

Why bother? If freedom of movement is a right then it applies to all mankind, as Jefferson said in the Declaration.

yeah well other countries or its citizens dont get to pick and choose which of our "right" they want to give or get. either accept them all in their own country and all of our laws as well, or they can shut up. No one but americans get the rights aforded to Americans. if some people wanna give their own money to pay for illegals and such then do it out of your own budget, not tax dollars. I dont want ANY of my money going to help anyone else but ME and MY FAMILY and close friends. If i was a multimillionair and had everything my family needed for the rest of our lives then i can see feeding other people with the extra. but it would only be REAL AMERICANS I would be helping that were already trying to help themselves but still on hard times. I have bought people meals and groceries for their kids in the past, even if it wasnt in my budget to do so. I try to help people but it gets old when people dont help themselves and are lazy. I could honestly watch an illegal from any country starving right in front of me and not do a thing about it. the reason is the principal. they got what they put in. be a criminal then be treated like a criminal.
i dont even think American criminals should get free meals in jail. they either earn them by working or they starve. us paying for people to harm us and break our laws is BS at its highest levels!!!

 

[Reloader]

I can't believe this thread is even debating the meaning of the constitution on immigration. Live and die by the current laws..it's simple!

 

[kingnereli]

I'm beginning to think that on a whole lot a issues libertarians are only a hairs breadth away from liberalism.

 

[PatriotPride]

I'm beginning to think that on a whole lot a issues libertarians are only a hairs breadth away from liberalism.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Since America operates under a British common law system, it is indeed illegal to immigrate without going through the legal process.

Now, whether it is constitutional or not remains to be seen. I would have to believe that in order for a country to remain soverign it would have to exercise control over the border, and in that respect does have the power to regulate immigration.