U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I don't see anything wrong with the states being able to enforce federal immigration laws. The Supreme Court case against Arizona was wrong. It went 5-3, and as always, Scalia was correct in his general assessment of how the courts need to apply the constitution. If the states in 1791 believed that in the near future, they would be stripped of the right to regulate their own immigration and enforce immigration laws, would they have ratified the constitution? Absolutely not.
Lets put into perspective the definition of "immigrant" according to Scalia:
Quote:
In the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.

It’s worth pausing to remember what kind of immigration the states (especially the Southern ones) handled in those bygone days; much of it had to do with slavery, of course. To be sure, Scalia is not endorsing slavery, but his invocation of that ugly chapter in American history suggests, at a minimum, a loss of perspective.

Read more Scalia's Arizona Immigration Dissent : The New Yorker
What Scalia was talking about (Scalias "immigrant") was the movement of people within the states themselves and the restricting of an "immigrant" based on his/her "class", i.e. the vagabond, pauper, etc. The immigrant was both foreign and domestic in Scalias perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2012, 08:45 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Lets use Scalias exact words from his dissent:
Quote:
There is no doubt that “before the adoption of the constitution of the United States” each State had the authority to “prevent [itself] from being burdened by an influx of persons.” Mayor of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 132– 133 (1837). And the Constitution did not strip the States of that authority. To the contrary, two of the Constitution’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.” Letter from James Madison to Edmund Randolph(Aug. 27, 1782), in 1 The Writings of James Madison 226 (1900); accord, The Federalist No. 42, pp. 269–271 (C.Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

The Articles of Confederation had provided that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Articles of Confederation, Art. IV. This meant that an unwelcome alien could obtain all the rights of a citizen of one State simply by first becoming an inhabitant of another. To remedy this, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). But if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious aliens” into other States. This problem was solved “by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4. In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.
for which he goes on and states:
Quote:
Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. Neuman, The Lost Century of American Immigration (1776–1875), 93 Colum. L. Rev.1833, 1835, 1841–1880 (1993). State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.2 Id., at 1883.
As I said, his "immigrant" and unlawfully present alien are mostly those whom were considered alien to the colony/later State, whether they be domestic immigrants from other colonies/States (vagabonds, paupers, etc) or foreigners from sending nations (as in the case of Chy Lung vs Freeman).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,139 posts, read 4,318,786 times
Reputation: 2638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
But Congress does regulate immigration of foreigners based on A1S8C3. A citizen of the one state is a citizen of all the states; the P & I Clause of the USC, A4S2C1. States are not allowed to regulate citizenship, only residency status, they must assume all within a state are legally present to the extent allowed by the Feds to deny certain entitlements/welfare. States have not been allowed to determine ones Citizenship status since the USC. When the original 13 colonies were colonies they were allowed to naturalize their own as citizens of that colony which could not be transferred to another colony. If one were to move to another colony they would have to apply for citizenship in the new colony and adhere to their naturalization practices.
You keep attempting to combine the words "naturalization" and "immigration" to imply that they mean the same thing. The Constitution doesn't have the word "immigration" anywhere in it. So the Congress does not have the power to regulate "immigration". But the Congress does have the power to regulate naturalization.

So the question then is, why did the constitution grant the federal government the right to control naturalization but not immigration? The articles of confederation didn't even allow the federal government to control naturalization(like the EU).

The reason as I stated numerous times, had to do with the guarantee of "freedom of travel" which is from article 4 of the US constitution, the privileges and immunities clause. Which also was part of the Articles of Confederation, and became an issue of quarrel between the states. The change was necessary to address the issues that arose out of the Articles of Confederation.

But although our constitution was designed to remedy the issue of naturalization in the states, it did not limit put any such limitation on immigration. Which is why the first "immigration" acts weren't even called immigration acts, they were called naturalization acts. The first act that regulated immigration that had the word immigration in its title, didn't come about till 1882. Why do you think that is?


Please repeat after me. The constitution DOES NOT give congress the authority to regulate immigration, it gives Congress the authority to regulate naturalization.

Any attempt to argue that the constitution gives the Congress the authority to regulate immigration, is to imply powers that the framers didn't intend. And aren't based on the naturalization clause itself, but tend to be related to other functions of the federal government.

The real power of the federal government to regulate immigration does not come from the naturalization clause. It actually comes from the treaty clause and the commerce clause. If you read the Supreme Court case in full, this is actually where the power gets translated from.

It says, the Congress has the power to enter into diplomatic relations with foreign countries. But if the Congress doesn't have the power to allow immigration of foreigners into this country, it would be impossible to enact treaties with other countries as it relates to diplomacy and trade(commerce clause). Moreover, a land-locked state might be prohibited from allowing immigration if the coastal states didn't allow said immigration. And so the coastal states could interfere with the rights of land-locked states.

That is the nature of the Supreme Court ruling. And I agree with their logic. The federal government did need to be able to regulate immigration. But I think their regulations should focus only on those areas where there was an issue between the states. Such as the regulation of trade, diplomacy, and the rights of other states. The Federal government should be able to regulate immigration in addition to the states being able to regulate immigration, where the federal government has supremacy when an issue arises.

When you actually look at my plan, and contrast it with the issues in regards to immigration. It does not interfere with other states, it does not interfere with the federal government, it does not interfere with interstate/international commerce, and it does not interfere diplomatic relations with other nations.

My plan simply expands the ability of the states to have additional immigrants if they so desired. Which solves several issues.

1) It helps to tone down the political rhetoric in regards to immigration reform on the national level. Because states who want more immigration wouldn't have to push so hard against states who don't want more immigration. We could impose a very minimalist federal immigration policy, while the individual states could expand immigration to whatever levels they believed were good for their own states.

2) It would allow the states to sort of "compete" with each other. If a state allowed for more immigration and it was harmful, then they would then restrict immigration. That system helps other states determine the best immigration policies for themselves. Because whatever policy works best, will be the policy other states adopt. When you have a one-size-fits-all policy like we have, no one really knows if more or less immigration will be good, because there isn't really anything to compare to. So they just continue to fight with each other.

3) It allows the states to grant legal status to the people already living in "sanctuary cities", which gives them some security and opportunity. Which enables them to be more productive members of society than they already are, since they still sort of "live in fear" of being deported.

Quote:
The states had authority to regulate residency/citizenship within the state, they never had the authority to regulate immigration, not even as colonies. As colonies they had to adhere to the King of Englands allowance of immigrants to enter the colonies. The only regulations were the vagabonds, paupers, etc not being allowed to become a citizen of that colony.
Where exactly in the articles of confederation or the constitution does it say the states are required to allow in immigrants? What court cases between 1776 and 1875 resolved that the states were required to allow in immigrants?

It was tradition that the states let in immigrants, they wanted immigrants, as long as they weren't burdens on the state. They needed people and labor. The articles of confederation completely handed authority of both immigration and naturalization to the states. They could allow or disallow anyone they wanted, except for citizens of other states, because the principle of free travel was also protected in the articles of confederation. So to imply that between 1776 and 1875 that the sates were required to allow in immigrants by some sort of federal statute, is simply not true.

Quote:
The key words are: "In my view". The individual state would only be able to grant citizenship of its own state, how would you prevent the "immigrant" from going to another state, or even the citizen, how would they be allowed to move to another state. It would be like it was in the colonies prior to the USC.
Look, under my plan the states wouldn't be allowed to give citizenship to anyone, only the federal government could give citizenship. My plan is just that the states could provide a sort of "State residency" or "state visa" for immigrants, which would allow them to live and work in that state and no other.

It is true that there is the possibility that immigrants who have been given residency in California may attempt to travel to other states, and thus would then be illegal immigrants in other states. But if we look at the system we have now, we already have 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Many who live in so-called "sanctuary cities", who constantly travel from state to state without the right to do so. And will continue to do so until they are caught and deported.

The majority of the illegal immigrants in this country actually came to this country legally, and just overstayed their welcome. The only way to get rid of the illegal immigrants who are already here, is to catch them and deport them.

Under my plan, the system really doesn't change, the situation we are in won't necessarily be better or worse. There will still be people who overstay their welcomes, and people who will be living somewhere they aren't supposed to be, who will only be deported once they are caught. And you'll still have an unreliable federal government that will basically try the best it can to stop people being from being deported.

But, under my plan, states will have more control over their immigration, and if an immigrant is caught in another state, instead of being deported to their home country, they would be deported back to a state. Or the federal government could make it where immigrants caught outside of their state of residency would be deported to their home countries and barred legal access to this country. That could be on the first violation, or it could be only for multiple offenses.

And the nice thing about my system is, since most people will want to be returned to their state of residency, and will most likely have a job in that state. The federal government could enact policies which "fine" immigrants who travel to states they aren't allowed to go, or even fine the states themselves. Which could actually help to pay for policing immigration, rather than it being a huge burden on taxpayers.

I don't believe you would need fences or checkpoints between each state, just like there aren't fences or checkpoints between the states now. And that is in a world where you have a state like Arizona, who seems to hate immigrants, and its neighbor to the west, California, has dozens of sanctuary cities. What you're concerned about simply isn't going to be an issue under my plan.

Quote:
The residents of CA would be burdened with higher taxes. What of the children born from residents of a state, will they become citizens of that state from birth due to the parents being residents? You are creating individual nation states like the EU vs the Federated states that we have now.
If the citizens of California become burdened by higher taxes to pay for social spending, then they will stop immigration to California. If higher taxes burden Oklahomans, you better believe we will stop immigration.

The problem with our current system is, the states that want more immigrants can't have them, because the states who want less immigrants tell them "no". Why is that system better than my system?

As for citizenship. As I said before, citizenship/naturalization is regulated by the federal government. Without birthright citizenship, the children of residents will not become citizens unless the federal government says that they will be. Which has to be agreed upon by the states, just as it is now.

My plan is absolutely nothing like the European Union. The EU lets each country control both both immigration and naturalization. The EU sets no rules for naturalization. It works like the Articles of confederation or worse, which simply didn't work, which is why it was abandoned. And you can see what is happening in the EU, where people are becoming more and more opposed to immigration. I am sure that their citizenship system will also change in the future.

Quote:
Sure some left, many didn't. Why should they feel more secure? Why should they be protected more than what they already are?
I'm not arguing that they should be in general principle. I'm saying, there are 20 million illegals already here, and there is no real political will to remove those people from this country. The Republicans in Congress might complain about illegal immigration, but they simply aren't going to do anything about it(especially after this election). There are more and more sanctuary cities popping up all over the country, and no one is doing anything about it. The states are the only ones doing anything at all about the immigration problem, and so I want to empower the states with more options when it comes to immigration. The federal government cannot properly regulate a one-size-fits-all immigration scheme, its better to just decentralize the system, so that the states can more properly address immigration in their own ways.

And since many states and cities are already basically attempting to give immigrants a sort of right to live there. It would be better if the ones living there could have better protections. Because if they are going to live there anyway(since no one is going to kick them out), then they might as well have access to things like drivers licenses, which will enable them to be more productive than they already are.

Quote:
Its not about the remittances, I brought up the point of the rich paying cheaper maids by importing them while those that didn't meet the income requirements having to pay higher prices for a maid and the resident employees of Hong Kong losing out on better wages due to this.
It is true that if Hong Kong didn't have the foreign maids, then there would be a market in Hong Kong for Hong Kong citizens to be maids. If you look at the United States it is the same thing, if they began allowing us to import maids into the United States, then many companies that currently provide maid work would go out of business.

But, when you actually look at the situation in Hong Kong in regards to the maids. Do you really think the poor would be better off if there were no maids? If there were no foreign maids, then the vast majority of the people who have maids now, wouldn't have maids in the future, because it would simply be too expensive.

The unemployment rate in Hong Kong right now is 3.2%. There is no actual minimum wage. What is going to change exactly in the absence of the maids?

The real problem in Hong Kong really has absolutely nothing to do with the maids. The real problem in Hong Kong is that most of the laborers in Hong Kong were priced out of the market by cheap labor from mainland China, especially right across the border in Shenzhen. And the gap between rich and poor is largely a consequence of the real estate prices that have shot up, as the wealthy from mainland China have flocked to Hong Kong since 1997.

Any attempts to blame the maids for the problems in Hong Kong is just people making excuses for their own problems. The real problem with the maids is two things.

1) The maids have been fighting for legal residency in Hong Kong, which would guarantee them benefits from the Hong Kong government. Which isn't an issue of immigration, it is an issue related to the welfare system.

2) The maids are sort of a symbol of the gap between rich and poor. Since the poor can't afford maids themselves. And are barred from hiring maids since they don't meet certain income standards.

But even in the absence of maids, things would be no better for the poor than they already are. And in the absence of the maids, the more wealthy/educated/productive people would be less productive than they are now, because they wouldn't be able to work as much, as they would have to spend more time working around the house.

The poor in Hong Kong can cry about maids all they want. But whether or not there are maids or not doesn't improve their lives. Most likely, without the maids there, the poor in Hong Kong would actually be worse off. As it would become a less attractive place to live and do business for the wealthier people who are flocking to Hong Kong and creating the jobs.

Hong Kong's entire economy is basically around real estate, luxury goods, and services. If you run off the rich, the place will collapse. If they want to go back to manufacturing cheap goods, they are going to end up as poor as the rest of China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
This is easily one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read in this forum. A billion people live on less than $2 a day. What kind of lunatic thinks we should import them all here? The way to solve world poverty is not by lowering American living standards, shoving aside labor protections, pushing down American wages and punishing the American middle class.
You are really stating it incorrectly.

First, why would importing world poverty lower American living standards? Will we not be able to afford cars? Are we not going to have cell phones and tv's? Can we not produce enough food to feed ourselves? Can we not build houses? Are we going to somehow lose our technology because people from other countries come here?

Why would labor protections be "pushed aside" by having more immigrants? If a company is giving unsafe working conditions and someone gets hurt, they will get sued into bankruptcy. And no one is going to "punish the American middle class", by having more immigrants in this country. Just like the middle-class wasn't punished in the 1840's and 1850's when the Irish came streaming in by the millions.


The truth is, we would be better off with more people in this country. Our companies would have larger markets to sell to. One of the major reasons why American companies became such powerful players in the international market, is because of the size of the American market. Do you really think our automobiles would be sold worldwide like they are, if we had the population size of Switzerland? Do you think Coca-cola would be the largest drink manufacturer in the world, if the American market was the size of Belgium's? Do you think Hollywood would have become what it is, if we had a market the size of Israel's?

The more people we have in this country means we will have more people to sell to. The more people in this country, the more capable of having better infrastructure, like more public transportation, better access to broadband internet in rural areas, etc. The more people in this country, the larger the talent pool that we can use to grow our economy and create new technologies. It is silly to believe that we would be better off with a small population. It would be like saying we would be better off if we had half or a quarter of the population that we have today, it simply isn't true.

When people argue that we will be worse off with more people. It is only true if per-capita production goes down. It is only true if the people who come here, don't produce anything, and only consume. It is only true if the people who come here, live off our welfare system, and give little to nothing back. It is not true, if the people who come here produce more than they consume. If they produce more than they consume, then we will be better off.

If we don't have a welfare system, then the people who come here, have to produce, or they won't be able to live here. Just like the immigrants who came here in the 1800's, also had to produce or they wouldn't be able to survive.

If you go back in time, you had large movements in the 1800's, called the know-nothings and the nativists, who wanted to stop all immigration into the United States. Including the Irish, Italians, Germans, Jews, Polish, etc, arguing the exact same thing you are arguing now. But who was complaining? Generally poor native workers who didn't want to compete with the foreign poor, because they worked for low wages. And farmers, who complained about the rising land prices.

If they had gotten their way back then, I wouldn't be here now, and neither would the majority of the people in the United States. If they had gotten their way back then, would we be better off today?

This whole situation is absolutely ridiculous. It has absolutely nothing to do with economics and whether or not our country will be better off. It has to do with people who are poor, blaming all of their problems on someone else. It is because people are terrified of foreigners, because they are different. It is because of a few businessmen who will be worse off, regardless of the fact the rest of of would be better off.


Free Trade and the Steel Industry - YouTube


Quote:
Your whole argument is santimonious justifications for screwing your fellow Americans. If you are okay with paying someone crappy wages then move somewhere else.
You need to stop looking at the situation in regards to wages. You need to look at the situation in regards to the amount of goods and services a person can buy with their income.

The question is, if we allowed say, 100 million people to come into this country. Would we be able to buy less goods and services or more goods and services with our average incomes?

Basically, would cell phone service as a percentage of your income go up when we had more people in this country, or down? I would argue that cell phones would be cheaper with more people than they are today, because the overhead price is cheaper the more subscribers you have.

Would the price of computers go up relative to wages? How about the price of internet access? Well, the more people we have in this country, the cheaper internet access should be. The more people being added to this country, doesn't mean the price of computers will go up at all, they should stay the same, or could even drop in price because more would be sold.

Would there be less access to food? The truth is, we export half the grains we produce in this country already. Corn is the most grown crop in this country, and we use about 40% of our corn crop to make ethanol. Food prices relative to wages should not change whatsoever if we had more people in this country.

Would the prices of utilities go up? There shouldn't be any long-term trend of more expensive electricity or water. But, you could end up with more water rationing in some parts of the country(like they have in California).

Would there be less availability of housing if we had more people in this country? Maybe at first you would see a relative spike in house prices vs wages, but you would also see a boom of home construction all across the country. With many rural areas in this country developing rapidly.

Would cars be more expensive relative to wages, with more people in this country? Car prices are relative to the cost of materials and the cost of labor. If wages dropped, so would the cost of labor to produce the cars, so the net drop in wages would correlate to the drop in the cost of a car. You could see a rise in the price of materials, such as steel prices, but you are going to see that as other nations develop anyway.


My point is, people being afraid of more immigrants always stems from the same thing.

There is this belief in the world that the number of jobs or wealth is finite. And so if you have more people, then it either means there will be higher unemployment, or everyone would be poorer. But that line of thinking simply isn't true.

The population in this country is going to grow over the next 100 years. In fact, the population of the United States could be as high as one billion by the year 2100. Are we going to be poor and starving to death in the year 2100? Or are we probably going to live better than we do today?

The UK has a population density about 8 times greater than ours in the United States. A billion more people in this country would mean our population density would still only be half of what it is in the UK, and about a third of what it is today in Japan.

The United States economy is not based around exploitation of resources. Its based around services. And services require people. As long as your economy is based around services, then having more people simply means we will have more availability of services. Which is also why Hong Kong can have a population density that is something like 179 times greater than we have in the United States, with effectively no natural resources, and very little land.

I mean, lets pretend that we imported 100 million maids into this country tomorrow. So that roughly every single household in this country had a maid. Would we be better off or worse off?

In my opinion, we would be better off, and the maids would be better off. Otherwise they wouldn't come here.

Quote:
We are not friends. You are the sort of person who needs to be watched very closely lest you employ our local six year old or import poverty and demand the rest of us pay the true costs of your profits. Your free market is a delusion.
You don't really seem to understand how these things worked.

Lets pretend for instance that I owned 1,000 acres somewhere in this country, where I was completely self-sustaining, but I still paid my taxes. Then lets pretend that I imported a maid from Guatemala to help around my house. Would it matter? Why?

For that matter, lets pretend that I owned the same land in the same situation. And then I brought in a worker from Mexico that helped me around my farm. Would it matter? Why?


If you look at Hong Kong, it used to be a huge manufacturing center for low-priced goods. But anymore, Hong Kong doesn't make much of anything. The reason why is because Chinese labor is simply too cheap for the people of Hong Kong to compete. When Hong Kong was handed back to China, a great many small businesses went bankrupt.

On top of that, there is no minimum wage in Hong Kong, there are like 300,000 foreign maids who earn $2 an hour living in the country, and nearly half of the population of Hong Kong is foreign born.

Yet, the average income of someone living in Hong Kong when adjusted for cost of living, is actually higher than here in the United States. And Hong Kong has the highest life expectancy rate in the world. Their women's life expectancy is 86.7 years old. And its unemployment rate is a mere 3.2%. And yet the poor in Hong Kong continually complain that they deserve more and more and more.



The problem people have is that they really take for granted the good things in life and just focus on the bad. They look around them and they see that life is unfair and unequal, and they want to do something, they want to make life better for everyone.

These people will talk about how unfair it is that a rich persons kid will inherit his parents wealth, and say that something needs to be done about it. And while I agree that it is unfair. We need to understand how we ever produced wealth to begin with. If we had a system that attempted to promote fairness and equality since 1776, this simply would not be a wealthy country today.

Many will speak of the rich persons kid and say, if only there was only a 100% inheritance tax, then we could have fairness. But what would be the result of that policy?


Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth - YouTube

The real result of that policy would be complete destruction.

I always find it ironic, that the people advocating for preventing immigration, are doing so on the basis of a desire to help the poor, and to bring about more equality. But their kindness isn't wholly benevolent, they only have interest in helping their own poor, the rest of the poor can suffer in poverty and misery.

Here is a person advocating for a desire to help the poor, and at the same time, telling someone who are starving to death, that they can't come here, they must stay in their own country and suffer. Sometimes these people will advocate for foreign poor, but they do so by saying "we should not exploit these people, if they come here, they must be guaranteed the wages of Americans", which may seem honorable. But the real result is t make it impossible for them to come here in the first place.

All the while this debate rages on, the people who are really suffering the most in this world, are condemned to live in that poverty. And if they had a voice, they would be telling the goody two-shoe socialist/communist radicals in this country, such as yourself, to shut the hell up.

There is no system that is perfect. But if you look back through history, the best system ever devised to bring the masses out of poverty, was the free-market system, and the relatively open-immigration of the 1800's. Sure there were people complaining back then, there were poor back then, the richest men this country has ever seen came during that period as well. But while people seem to focus on the gap between rich and poor during that time. The gap simply doesn't matter in any reasonable way. All that matters is that we have no governmental limits to upward mobility. That we have no governmental limits to competition in the market.

Most of the great men in this nation during the period of the greatest wealth inequality in our history, started out with little. They were the descendants of immigrants themselves. Carnegie's wealth when adjusted for inflation would be several times greater than the likes of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. Yet, what was that wealth in? It was in railroads and steel mills. Someone had to build the steel mills, and someone had to own the steel mills. It wasn't as if he was tucking his wealth under his pillow. He was creating things, and what he created had value.

I used to dream of being a real estate tycoon. My dream was actually to build inexpensive but safe housing for the poor. With strict rules to make sure only "the good poor" were allowed to live there, thus preventing my housing from becoming anything reminiscent of the public housing projects, which attract drug dealers, prostitutes, and criminals. I was poor growing up, my mother worked hard, but she was a single mother and couldn't afford nice places, so we lived in several public housing projects. Look back, they were simply terrible places for children to grow up. You are brought up in an environment surrounded by thieves and substance abusers. Immorality abounds everywhere. My mother was basically the light of the public housing project. She had morals, and modesty. Believed education was important, and helped people when she could. She used to make banana bread muffins all the time and give them out to many of the neighbors.

If I had my way, I would someday buy up massive tracts of land, in what are now the slums of many cities(or elsewhere). And develop my inexpensive housing for the poor, which I would own. Maybe someday, I would own this kind of housing in cities all over the country. And my net worth might be in the billions of dollars.

Does that make me selfish and greedy? If I owned $60 billion in property across this country, should my wealth be confiscated and handed out to everyone else? If I lost control of those properties, they might be sold off for individual profit, there would be no more low-income housing. And then the poor would be worse off than when I owned them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Lets put into perspective the definition of "immigrant" according to Scalia: What Scalia was talking about (Scalias "immigrant") was the movement of people within the states themselves and the restricting of an "immigrant" based on his/her "class", i.e. the vagabond, pauper, etc. The immigrant was both foreign and domestic in Scalias perspective.
The immigrant is both foreign and domestic. A free black person was not a citizen of the United States, so therefore they were not guaranteed a right of travel within the United States. Whether or not New York allowed a non-citizen to live there, didn't mean that Virginia had to allow him to live in Virginia. A non-citizen had no right to live anywhere in the country then, just like a non-citizen(illegal immigrant) has no right to live anywhere in this country today. The difference in the past vs today, is that in the past, you only needed a single state to allow you into the United States, and you could live here. But now, effectively the majority of the states would have to agree to allow you to live here, before you could live here.

Imagine in the past that there were 13 states and all but two had slavery. If the federal government had regulated immigration, they may have said no free man would be allowed to live anywhere in the United States, and all free men who are in the United States would be deported to Liberia.

On the other hand, if the states could regulate their own immigration. Then the two states who had no slavery, could allow freemen into their state, and there would be basically nothing the rest of the states could do about it.


My point is, I am advocating for more freedom, I am advocating for more options, I am advocating to help people everywhere. You are not.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-08-2012 at 05:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,139 posts, read 4,318,786 times
Reputation: 2638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Lets use Scalias exact words from his dissent: for which he goes on and states
Yes, lets use Scalia's words... Here is a couple excerpts...

The Articles of Confederation had provided that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Articles of Confederation, Art. IV. This meant that an unwelcome alien could obtain all the rights of a citizen of one State simply by first becoming an inhabitant of another. To remedy this, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). But if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious aliens” into other States. This problem was solved “by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4. In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.

What do you think that means?

What he is arguing is that, the articles of confederation didn't work, because it gave a right of travel to any inhabitant of a state.

At the end when he states "The naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.".... What he is saying is that, the naturalization power given to Congress didn't take away the power of the states to exclude immigrants, it actually was the very basis that handed them that power to begin with.


Secondly, he states...

In the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.

and...

Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court’s holding?” If this had been the original view of the Framers of the Constitution, “the delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.” In other words, according to Scalia, if Arizona had known what was coming from his colleagues yesterday, they never would have joined the United States. No other state would have either. The Arizona ruling, in Scalia’s telling, would have destroyed the country even before it was born.

What he is saying is that, if the states would have known that the federal government was going to completely strip the states of any rights to control their own immigration. And would even allow the president himself to issue an executive order which refuses to enforce the governments own immigration policy. Would the states have ratified the US constitution to begin with?


If the interpretations of the constitution by future courts would be completely reprehensible to the framers of the constitution, and would have had them running for the exits at the constitutional convention. Then how can you possibly argue that that interpretation is the proper one?


That basic idea can be not only applied to immigration, it can be applied to every court case the Supreme Court ever rubber stamped. Do you really believe the framers of the constitution would have believed that the 4th amendment guarantees women access to an abortion?

The whole situation we have found ourselves in in this country, is utterly ridiculous. People ignore logic, because they have their own agenda. The living document theory is the most ridiculous crap ever puked up from some lawyers mouth. But as long as the people get what they want, they will continue to allow it.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-08-2012 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:32 AM
 
1,301 posts, read 1,243,629 times
Reputation: 1004
Default Meican Illegal Immigration -Do we have a problem with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
The United States needs to be able to control illegal immigration. Legal immigration is not the problem.

We need to enforce our laws. And since illegals don't respect our laws (first law broken, coming here through improper channels) we need to build bigger and better fences along the entire Mexican border, and increase patrol guards.

Just letting anyone who wants to come here (Al Qaeda for example) by any means does negatively effect this nation.

Some people may have family outside the U.S. and try to tug at your heartstrings about it, but we can't fix everyone's problems. We have enough of our own.
Not right now.

April/2012 Article
Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less

by Jeffrey Passel, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera
The May 3 update includes the full methodology appendix and a statistical profile of Mexican immigrants in the United States.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.
The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.


What the heck? Are we being deceived that we should pour money and effort into a problem that for the time being doesn't exist - border crossings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:43 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
The states were allowed to "restrict the immigration of certain classes of aliens" where do you think the residency laws of the states come from? What do you think certain classes of alien means? (obviously paupers, vagabonds, etc.) The colonies had their own citizenship and was non transferable to other colonies, Scalia points that out, The Articles of Confederation had provided that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Articles of Confederation, Art. IV. This meant that an unwelcome alien could obtain all the rights of a citizen of one State simply by first becoming an inhabitant of another. What was done to "remedy" that? To remedy this, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). Now up to the USC this was still the case: But if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious aliens” into other States. This problem was solved (in the USC) “by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4. In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.

You are to hung up on thinking that just because the word "immigration" is not in the USC then Congress has no control over it. I have given you the clause of which A1S8C3. I refer you back to comment 129:
Quote:
Congress does regulate immigration of foreigners based on A1S8C3. A citizen of the one state is a citizen of all the states; the P & I Clause of the USC, A4S2C1. States are not allowed to regulate citizenship, only residency status, they must assume all within a state are legally present to the extent allowed by the Feds to deny certain entitlements/welfare. States have not been allowed to determine ones Citizenship status since the USC. When the original 13 colonies were colonies they were allowed to naturalize their own as citizens of that colony which could not be transferred to another colony. If one were to move to another colony they would have to apply for citizenship in the new colony and adhere to their naturalization practices.
and to comment 126
Quote:
Just because the word immigration is not in the USC doesn't mean its concept isn't. 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 immigrant/immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
To understand all of this I suggest you try reading the Federalist Papers. Scalia even points to them:
Quote:
But if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious aliens” into other States. This problem was solved “by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4.
Thus, the USC, removed from the state the ability to provide citizenship to anybody and placed it onto the Feds. The States still hold the power to allow "residency" only, which to a degree is allowed status within the state (Its own citizenship if you will). It's really not a hard concept to understand, you seem to be ideologically blinded: The living document theory is the most ridiculous crap ever puked up from some lawyers mouth. What I have stated and what Scalia points out doesn't make the USC a living document.

My point is, I am advocating for more freedom, I am advocating for more options, I am advocating to help people everywhere. You are not.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-08-2012 at 07:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 02:38 PM
 
31,500 posts, read 14,573,470 times
Reputation: 8363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
Not right now.

April/2012 Article
Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less

by Jeffrey Passel, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera
The May 3 update includes the full methodology appendix and a statistical profile of Mexican immigrants in the United States.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.
The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.


What the heck? Are we being deceived that we should pour money and effort into a problem that for the time being doesn't exist - border crossings?
I seriously doubt this is true. However, as long as we still have millions of illegal immigrants within our borders the problem still exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,139 posts, read 4,318,786 times
Reputation: 2638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You are to hung up on thinking that just because the word "immigration" is not in the USC then Congress has no control over it. Thus, the USC, removed from the state the ability to provide citizenship to anybody and placed it onto the Feds. The States still hold the power to allow "residency" only, which to a degree is allowed status within the state (Its own citizenship if you will). It's really not a hard concept to understand, you seem to be ideologically blinded:
Stop, just stop. Have you been listening to anything I have been saying?

What Scalia is saying is that in the past, the states have been able to exclude certain classes of citizens, such as black free men, from becoming residents of their state. Basically, black free men were not allowed to live in those states, and if they were found in those states, they would be removed, and the people who were allowing them to live there would even be fined. I'm not sure where they would be removed to, they may have even been thrown in jail. I don't know.

If you could import that to today. The states would be able to prevent hispanics, or asians, or the uneducated, or the poor, or the people who couldn't speak english, or any other group of people they wanted to from living in their state.

What do you think that is?

The reason I keep repeating the difference between immigration and naturalization, is because you won't listen to my words.

Naturalization is the process in which a person becomes a citizen, immigration is simply residing in a new place, with or without citizenship. The "illegal immigrants" could come here as "legal immigrants", and they wouldn't be citizens. They would be here legally by having legal residency

If you look at the past, the states could and did exclude many classes/groups of people from residing in their state, which effectively means that they could regulate immigration into their state.

When we look at today, the states are no longer allowed to exclude anyone from their state, only the federal government is allowed to include or exclude people from this country. So today, the states can no longer regulate immigration.


When we look at what Scalia is saying, he is repeating effectively what I am saying... that the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.

A simpler translation of this sentence means. The constitution of the United States not only didn't take away the power of the states to exclude immigrants that they didn't want, it was the very basis for allowing the states to make those exclusions.



And then he basically states, for the first 100 years, the states had control over their own immigration. And had the delegates to the constitutional convention realized that the constitution supposedly would strip them of that power, they would have rushed to the exits of independence hall, and this country wouldn't even exist.

Basically, it is ridiculous to assert that the constitution means something that the delegates to the constitution, that created the damn constitution, would have been vehemently opposed to.



When you go back to what I said my plan was again, and contrast it to what Scalia says.

My plan is that the Congress will still have the power to regulate naturalization, and will also be able to include or exclude people just like they do now(generally for national security, diplomacy, or commerce reasons). But in my plan, the states would be allowed to give state residency to immigrants, as long as it doesn't interfere with federal laws.

That is the very essence of the intent of our founders. In 1798, the naturalization act passed by Adams, allowed the federal government to deport people who were a danger to the security of the United States. National security is a federal responsibility, there is nothing wrong with that law. But, I don't see why it shouldn't also be possible that the state of California could give legal residency status to people already living in their state, in so-called sanctuary cities, who are not going to be deported anyway.

State residency is not citizenship, and it does not entitle to them anything from the federal government, nor does it entitle to them anything from the state. And if you get rid of birthright citizenship. Then the fact that they live in California, means that no one can bypass our naturalization laws. And my system would actually do less harm, than what is already going on right now in this country.


I believe that my solution is a pragmatic way to solve the immigration problem. We don't need to have a one-size-fits-all immigration policy, and that kind of policy doesn't help anyone, and just causes us all to fight with each other. We need to be looking for ways to eliminate the hostility and division in this country, not make it worse.

My solution would greatly reduce the conflict that rages in this country about immigration, and would almost entirely hand the issue over to the states, where the problem can be better addressed.


I just don't see how you believe that my plan could possibly be worse than what we have now. Nor is there any conflict between my plan, and the intentions of the framers of our constitution. It is exactly what the framers of our constitution created to begin with.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-08-2012 at 04:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:14 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
What Scalia is saying is that in the past, the states have been able to exclude certain classes of citizens, such as black free men, from becoming residents of their state. Basically, black free men were not allowed to live in those states, and if they were found in those states, they would be removed, and the people who were allowing them to live there would even be fined. I'm not sure where they would be removed to, they may have even been thrown in jail. I don't know.
It was certain classes of aliens, not citizens (a free black man was not a citizen at the time he was considered an alien class). It wasn't until the 14th Amendment (1868) and the Naturalization Act of 1870 that Black Americans were given citizenship and became citizens. The states were able to deny residency to certain classes of aliens. To this day the states still deny residency to certain classes of aliens, those here on visitor visas, work visas, and illegally here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If you could import that to today. The states would be able to prevent hispanics, or asians, or the uneducated, or the poor, or the people who couldn't speak english, or any other group of people they wanted to from living in their state.
Yea, if you were to import the laws prior to the USC and the 14th Amendment and Naturalization Act of 1870, then the states could still deny certain classes of aliens from entering/residing in the state. The only people that would be allowed to live in a state then would be White citizens since no others were citizens. You have re-installed major restrictions of people from freely moving from one state to another.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The reason I keep repeating the difference between immigration and naturalization, is because you won't listen to my words.
No, I have listened. Your explanations are simply wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Naturalization is the process in which a person becomes a citizen, immigration is simply residing in a new place, with or without citizenship. The "illegal immigrants" could come here as "legal immigrants", and they wouldn't be citizens. They would be here legally by having legal residency
Not if you were to implement the laws prior to 1870, which is what you are wanting to do to enable what you believe to be "open/free immigration". You refuse to accept that there has always been some restriction to both immigration and naturalization, which is what I stated in the beginning of the discussion, immigration laws go back to at least the 1400's. From 1606 through 1774 the immigrants into the colonies were mostly convicts sent from England and indentured servants. There were other nations still attempting to colonize other areas. These colonies some times became incorporated into the English/British colonies as treaties arose between the mother nations. These aliens to the English/British colonies were resident aliens (denizens) and were eventually afforded English/British citizenship provided they met the strict regulations as imposed by the English/British Parliament. In the middle 1700's, as these colonies grew, they became what are now the States.

It is your time lines that you are confusing with your explanations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If you look at the past, the states could and did exclude many classes/groups of people from residing in their state, which effectively means that they could regulate immigration into their state.
I agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
When we look at today, the states are no longer allowed to exclude anyone from their state, only the federal government is allowed to include or exclude people from this country. So today, the states can no longer regulate immigration.
Correct


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
When we look at what Scalia is saying, he is repeating effectively what I am saying... that the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.

A simpler translation of this sentence means. The constitution of the United States not only didn't take away the power of the states to exclude immigrants that they didn't want, it was the very basis for allowing the states to make those exclusions.
What Scalia is saying: Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. For which I agree. What you are arguing is for federal law to be abolished when it comes to immigration. You want the state to choose to allow foreigners to become residents/citizens of the individual state. Thus then nullifies the P & I clause of the USC, basically removing the USC all together, and we become Europe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
When you go back to what I said my plan was again, and contrast it to what Scalia says.

My plan is that the Congress will still have the power to regulate naturalization, and will also be able to include or exclude people just like they do now(generally for national security, diplomacy, or commerce reasons). But in my plan, the states would be allowed to give state residency to immigrants, as long as it doesn't interfere with federal laws.
But granting legality to those here illegally is interfering with federal law, thus your plan fails.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
That is the very essence of the intent of our founders. In 1798, the naturalization act passed by Adams, allowed the federal government to deport people who were a danger to the security of the United States. National security is a federal responsibility, there is nothing wrong with that law. But, I don't see why it shouldn't also be possible that the state of California could give legal residency status to people already living in their state, in so-called sanctuary cities, who are not going to be deported anyway.
So just because you believe they won't be deported you think they should be granted legality. So if they overwhelm us with numbers they should just be given legal status and eventually become citizens (people like you think they should be granted legality, how many people do you think would want them to have full rights?) so that their ideals can change our society and founding documents.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
State residency is not citizenship, and it does not entitle to them anything from the federal government, nor does it entitle to them anything from the state. And if you get rid of birthright citizenship. Then the fact that they live in California, means that no one can bypass our naturalization laws. And my system would actually do less harm, than what is already going on right now in this country.
State residency does entitle them to anything the State offers, they would be state residents entitled to welfare, drivers license, etc.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I believe that my solution is a pragmatic way to solve the immigration problem. We don't need to have a one-size-fits-all immigration policy, and that kind of policy doesn't help anyone, and just causes us all to fight with each other. We need to be looking for ways to eliminate the hostility and division in this country, not make it worse.

My solution would greatly reduce the conflict that rages in this country about immigration, and would almost entirely hand the issue over to the states, where the problem can be better addressed.


I just don't see how you believe that my plan could possibly be worse than what we have now.
What you believe and what I believe are very different. Your solution would only embolden more to change our laws to better suit their ideologies, most of which are socialistic forms of governments. State residents are allowed to vote in state elections even if they are not citizens. Non-citizens just can't vote in national elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:35 PM
 
1,301 posts, read 1,243,629 times
Reputation: 1004
Default National Will

I worked for the feds in immigration for six years. Immigrations laws, regulation and the policy interpretations by, what was INS now USCIS, uses is more than enough to control immigration into the US. Legal immigration accounted for about one million aliens in 2011. Some say that every legal immigrant over the years brings 10 more family members into the US. The true number is found in the Handbook of Statistics issued by the government and supposedly found at http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics.../yearbook.shtm but its a bad link. I think the one million number includes family members.

We are not reproducing ourselves and we needed immigrant workers at least until the Great Recession. The Wall Street Journal says that Mexican immigration has slowed to a stop because the US economy has tanked.

My thoughts - USCIS already uses what are work permits for legal immigration and it would be more of the same for illegals to get something like that from an employer who wants to use them. That work permit and a work visa would allow them in the county for a temporary stay. Lots of countries have guest workers.

Lots of immigration outreach services such as Catholic Charities process on a daily basis these work permits already for a fee. They are called LCAs. In the event of another amnesty, the LCA would be necessary to fast track the illegals to a green card, just like last time. These are not work permits. Wink* Wink*

Now if we all receive a national identity card needed for ANYTHING you would do, the USA would then begin to control illegal immigration. (Would someone explain why we need political correctness when we are trying to distinguish apples and oranges? Why should an illegal's entry information be secret?)

Wishful thinking I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top