Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: No Such Thing As An "Illegal" Immigrant

  1. #1
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    No Such Thing As An "Illegal" Immigrant

    At least that's what Tom Knapp posits, since there's, (according to him) nothing in the Constitution that grants the government power to control it. If he is correct in his assertion, which it appears on its face he is, then this argument is moot and any "law" formed by activist courts or legislators is null and void and unConstitutional on it's face. Supporters of adherence to the Constitution have to get their act together. Either it means something or it doesn't. I'm sure Knappster would love to hear your opinions on it.

    via Knappster

    Smitty detects a "dissonance ... when the word 'illegal' is used with respect to immigrants."

    As well he should, since there's no such thing as an "illegal immigrant."

    A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or to the people, and the Constitution delegates no power to the United States whatsoever to regulate immigration.

    None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus. It ain't there.

    The anti-Federalists noticed it wasn't there and *****ed about it (citing the lax moral climate of immigration-unrestricted Pennsylvania -- see the letters of "Agrippa," a/k/a John Winthrop) before the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists, favoring large-scale immigration from Europe, had no answer for them.

    Congress operated for the first 89 years of the Republic on the assumption that since the framers hadn't seen fit to write such a power into the Constitution, they hadn't intended for Congress to exercise that power.

    They passed naturalization laws, which the Constitution provided for.

    They also passed a few laws which had the effect of making state immigration laws binding on ships entering federal ports in said states (and assessing fees/fines for enforcing those laws on behalf of those states).

    But federal regulation of immigration as such was non-existent.

    It wasn't until 1875 that an activist Reconstruction-era Supreme Court utilized its magical powers to "discover" a federal power to regulate immigration (a power that Madison, Hamilton, Jay et al had apparently somehow put in there without knowing it or noticing it or ever even once mentioning it), and it wasn't until 1882 that Congress exercised that newly discovered power with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    The subsequent 128 years of American history have been a living demonstration of why the framers left a federal power to regulate immigration out of the Constitution -- because it was, and remains, one of the f***ing stupidest, most destructive ideas imaginable.

  2. #2
    Master

    User Info Menu

    Good stuff!

  3. #3
    Grandmaster CarmelHP's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    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.
    Barack Obama: In your heart you know he's nuts.

    "Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome." (Mackay, 1841)

  4. #4
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Why have a border at all?

  5. #5
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by CarmelHP View Post
    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. Unless the english language no longer applies. Implies that the feds may levy a tax of $10 dollars on someone, but goes no further than that.

  6. #6
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotPride View Post
    Why have a border at all?
    Why bother? If freedom of movement is a right then it applies to all mankind, as Jefferson said in the Declaration.

  7. #7
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjarrell View Post
    Why bother? If freedom of movement is a right then it applies to all mankind, as Jefferson said in the Declaration.
    You try that crap with any other country. Try waltzing across the border to Canada. It's a ridiculous line of thinking that we shouldn't bother having a border. What would be the point of having a Sovereign country? Why not just be one country with Canada and Mexico?

  8. #8
    Grandmaster CarmelHP's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjarrell View Post
    That would appear to apply only to the states and forbids congress from getting involved. Unless the english language no longer applies. Implies that the feds may levy a tax of $10 dollars on someone, but goes no further than that.
    How does it "appear to apply only to the states?" It's in Article 1, as a limit on Congress' power to prohibit migration of "Certain Persons" until 1808, (after which, btw, they did limit such migration on January 1, 1808). "Unless the english language no longer applies," indeed.
    Barack Obama: In your heart you know he's nuts.

    "Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome." (Mackay, 1841)

  9. #9
    Marksman Ramen's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Ah!

    The 2nd Amendment only applies to a "well regulated militia." There is no way the Founder's could possibly have foreseen people running around with automatic weapons. Plus, that thing is like a hundred years old, times have changed! Living document! You can't take it literally!

    いつも祈りに励みなさい

  10. #10
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by CarmelHP View Post
    How does it "appear to apply only to the states?" It's in Article 1, as a limit on Congress' power to prohibit migration of "Certain Persons" until 1808, (after which, btw, they did limit such migration on January 1, 1808). "Unless the english language no longer applies," indeed.
    It still doesn't grant them any powers to regulate it and even then it was used only to prohibit the importation of slaves, not freemen.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •