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 11-12-2012, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2640

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The issue us that the states have never had the ability to include. While colonies prior to 1776 one had to obtain the kings authorization to immigrate to the colonies. Foreigners became incorporated in to the colonies due to treaties with other nations, between the Kings. Up to 1789, most immigrants were still indentured servants.
You don't understand the definition of include in this context. In the way immigration works, if you aren't excluding, then you are necessarily including. If I show up at your front door and ask to come in, if you don't tell me no, then that effectively means you are telling me yes.

Before 1875, the states had the power to exclude, which meant that they had the power to include. Because when an immigrant showed up at a states door, if they didn't exclude them, then they were included.

Excluding and including are directly related, they go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive in any way, at least not in regards to immigration.


So with that said, if the federal government takes away the ability of the states to exclude, then it necessarily takes away their ability to include. Because they can only include what the federal government already includes, and cannot exclude them. And the federal government includes all of the people it doesn't exclude.


So again, what Scalia was arguing was that the constitution gave the states the power to exclude, and they did so exclude many groups of people, including free blacks, paupers, mentally ill, criminals, etc, for the first 100 years of this nations history. To argue that the constitution doesn't give the states the right to exclude is utterly absurd. And so if one was to stick to consistent logic, then the states should still have the authority to exclude.


And as I mentioned before, if you take away the states power to exclude, then the only entity which can exclude is the federal government. If that is the case, and you are a state which wants to exclude a class of people, whether it be Mexicans, or Asians, or Jews, or blacks, or the uneducated, or the poor, or whomever. Then your only option is to push for a federal law, which not only excludes that class of people from your own state, which was your intent, but also excludes them from the entire country, including states which do not want their exclusion.

As a hypothetical example, if 26 states wanted to exclude Mexicans and 24 states did not. Then Mexicans would be excluded not only in the 26 states who wanted to exclude them, but also in the 24 states which did not. Had the states individually been allowed to exclude immigrants themselves. They would not have needed a federal law, and so there most likely never would have been the federal law which excluded Mexicans in the first place. And without that federal law, and the right of the states to exclude, then the 24 states which wanted to have Mexican immigrants would be allowed to have them, and the 26 states which didn't want them, would not allow them.


When I go back to my point in regards to Jews and the holocaust. What happened in the 1930's and 1940's was that we became very anti-semitic, and we were terrified of a flood of Jews coming here from Eastern-Europe. There were very strict immigration quotas placed on Jews and other Eastern Europeans for many years prior, and these restrictions were not lifted and more heavily enforced, even after we knew full-well the human rights violations that had been underway in Germany and in Eastern Europe.

The reason why our immigration policy was the way it was, was because the federal government had the sole right to exclude(and thus include), and the federal government operated effectively by the whims of a majority of the states.

If the states had had the power to exclude in the 1930's, then the federal government probably wouldn't have excluded nearly as many people, because it wouldn't have needed to, since the states would have individually been able to exclude. And if the federal government had not imposed such strict limitations to immigration, but the states did individually exclude, then all it would take would be for only one of the states in this country not to exclude those Eastern Europeans and Jews, and they would have been able to come to the United States.

So the question is, had the states had the power to exclude, like they had up until 1875, would at least one of the states in this country have allowed in those refugees from Europe? And thus saved countless lives.

And the second question, using the same basic logic. If the states had the power to exclude today, like they had up until 1875, would we have more immigration today to this country or less?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:59 AM
 
4,990 posts, read 4,456,253 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
A nation of people who share a common language and customs, can better cooperate in the defense of person or property from attack.

A nation of people who cannot communicate and have different customs, will not cooperate.

For the predators, the latter is preferred over the former. A nation divided into unintelligible factions is doomed to collapse.
Can't argue with the above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 06:03 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,282 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You don't understand the definition of include in this context. In the way immigration works, if you aren't excluding, then you are necessarily including. If I show up at your front door and ask to come in, if you don't tell me no, then that effectively means you are telling me yes.

Before 1875, the states had the power to exclude, which meant that they had the power to include. Because when an immigrant showed up at a states door, if they didn't exclude them, then they were included.

Excluding and including are directly related, they go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive in any way, at least not in regards to immigration.
I understand the definition you are attempting to use, the issue is that the states never had control to regulate who came in, they only had the ability to regulate whom to keep out. Most immigrants prior to 1875 were allowed in through treaty or through a port of entry as per your Chy Lung case. This is where the Commissioner of Immigration was commissioned from the Feds to perform within a state where there were major ports. Prior to, there was Castle Gardens (1855) as an immigration port of entry. The point is that there was an individual in certain states commissioned by the feds to regulate immigration. Again, go back to the Steerage Act of 1819, or the Alien Acts 1798. You are failing to actually understand the way immigration has been handled since the inception of this nation and prior to. Many immigrants such as your ancestors were allowed to arrive here through a port of entry with ships records as to whom they were and that they were not persons of certain enumerated caste.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
So with that said, if the federal government takes away the ability of the states to exclude. Because they can only include what the federal government already includes, and cannot exclude then federal government includes all of the people it doesn't exclude.
I fixed your paragraph.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
So again, what Scalia was arguing was that the constitution gave the states the power to exclude, and they did so exclude many groups of people, including free blacks, paupers, mentally ill, criminals, etc, for the first 100 years of this nations history. To argue that the constitution doesn't give the states the right to exclude is utterly absurd. And so if one was to stick to consistent logic, then the states should still have the authority to exclude.
I haven't argued the states don't have the right to exclude, I have told you they do have the right (residency laws).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
And as I mentioned before, if you take away the states power to exclude, then the only entity which can exclude is the federal government. If that is the case, and you are a state which wants to exclude a class of people, whether it be Mexicans, or Asians, or Jews, or blacks, or the uneducated, or the poor, or whomever. Then your only option is to push for a federal law, which not only excludes that class of people from your own state, which was your intent, but also excludes them from the entire country, including states which do not want their exclusion.
BINGO, so you do understand why illegals are in fact illegal and why a state can not legalize them. But now you are messing with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
So the question is, had the states had the power to exclude, like they had up until 1875, would at least one of the states in this country have allowed in those refugees from Europe? And thus saved countless lives.
The states never had the ability to include due to the AoC and the USC. Not even the colonies had the ability to include unless there was a treaty between mother nations allowing for it. You still don't understand immigration history for the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
And the second question, using the same basic logic. If the states had the power to exclude today, like they had up until 1875, would we have more immigration today to this country or less?
The states ability to exclude is very limited, state residency laws. The states ability that you keep reverting to is fallacy at that time, in 1875 the Feds were telling the states who to exclude, , debauched women, paupers, vagabonds, etc from ports of entry. The problem was with the CA statute and the ability to extort money from passengers or the ships captain (your Chy Lung case that you fail to understand). Your logic isn't logic, it's misunderstanding of our past laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The states ability to exclude is very limited, state residency laws. The states ability that you keep reverting to is fallacy at that time, in 1875 the Feds were telling the states who to exclude, , debauched women, paupers, vagabonds, etc from ports of entry. The problem was with the CA statute and the ability to extort money from passengers or the ships captain (your Chy Lung case that you fail to understand). Your logic isn't logic, it's misunderstanding of our past laws.

If the states weren't able to exclude in their own ways, why is it that Justice Scalia says that the states did have the right to exclude all the way up until 1875?

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. - Justice Scalia


The issue with the Supreme Court case in 1875 is complicated. Because you have to understand a few fundamental points.

The federal government didn't tell the states to restrict immigration of anyone, before the page act of 1875(the same year as the Supreme Court ruling). The states did restrict immigration of several classes of people, criminals, indigents, persons with diseases, and free blacks, but each made those distinctions independently of the federal government, and without any real controversy, all the way up until 1875.

Effectively, before 1875, no one even questioned the states rights to exclude.

Moreover, the states could force immigrants to pay "bonds", which were set by each of those states to whatever they felt necessary, to protect them from expenses incurred from those immigrants. Which in essence, excluded all those who could not pay that bond, at whatever price the state set that bond to be.


So now, we have to look at the Supreme Court case in Chy Lung v. Freeman. In that case, if you read the details. What it fundamentally says, is that the states have no right to restrict immigrants whatsoever, including criminals, the indigent, persons with diseases, free blacks, or any other group.

Effectively the decision the court holds...

Quote:
If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purpose, and this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States.
The court refuses to even even acknowledge that the states have the right to exclude criminals, paupers, and the diseased. Because it doesn't believe they actually have that right, and so decision in the case was that they don't have that right, only the federal government does.

The question is, was that the correct decision?


If the Courts decision was correct, then the states never would have had the right to restrict any form of immigration at any time since this country was formed. But the states did exclude many groups of people, including free blacks, after this country was formed, and for 100 years after. You know, back when the people who made the constitution were still around to tell you what it meant. So to argue that the constitution never intended to allow the states to have the right to exclude, seems a little fallacious don't you think? The courts decision in 1875 was not based on "originalism", in terms of what the framers intended by their wording. But rather "literalism", which means the court can take the words of the constitution and give them any meaning that they want.

So the question then is, had the states known in 1791 that the constitution strips them of all rights to exclude immigrants from their own states. Would they have ever ratified the constitution to begin with? If it is true that the states wouldn't have ratified the constitution if such provisions had been clearly defined and articulated by the constitution, then how can you argue that those provisions are constitutional?


The point I am trying to make, and the point Scalia is trying to make. Is that, the states did have the right to exclude, and the framers intended to give the states the right to exclude, which is why the states did exclude even in a time where the framers were still around to have said something about it. So to come along 100 years or 200 years later and say "the states have no right to exclude", and thus never had that right. Is that because that is what the framers intended? Or is that just what you want to believe?


You can talk about how the colonies were not given that right under the British Crown, which is fine. But they weren't given a lot of rights under the British Crown which they would have after independence, and under our constitution. To pretend that the colonies would have fought for independence to end up changing absolutely nothing, is a little illogical. The colonies fought for independence, so they could be independent and sovereign from the British. The reason why the Articles of Confederation was so weak, was because the colonies effectively wanted to be independent sovereign nations, but needed a military alliance, to prevent Britain from just taking them over again. The reason why they created the constitution, was because the Articles were so weak, that it didn't create a system that could defend the nation of even domestic insurrection(IE, Shay's rebellion, which was the event directly causing the constitution convention), let alone a British invasion. Had we kept the Articles, the country would have fallen apart, and been taken back by the British. The constitution was created only for those purposes absolutely necessary to sustain the union and prevent its dissolution. The constitution was not intended to create an all-powerful central government which would have absolute supremacy over the states.


If you can agree with me, that the intent of the creation of the constitution was to create a weak federal government, which would only have authority in those areas deemed absolutely necessary to preserve the union. Then we have to apply that same basic logical structure to everything the federal government does. In simple terms, is what the federal government is doing necessary for the preservation of the union? More specifically, does the actions of the Federal government qualify as protecting the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Do those actions qualify as being necessary to prevent real hostilities between the states, which would reasonably be understood to cause the dissolution of the union.

If you take any act of Congress, it should necessarily be qualified into one of those two distinct groups. If it is not, then it was not intended by our constitution. The only real powers the federal government has, is from Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution, and the commerce clause. If you look over the list of powers, all of them can be qualified into those two groupings I mentioned. Just as the commerce clause was intended to prevent fighting between the states and also for national security purposes.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html


When we look at what the federal government does today, does its actions fall within the two purposes of the constitution? If so, it is constitutional, if not, then it is not. If you take Obamacare for example, it cannot be intended for the purpose of national defense, nor does it intend to prevent real hostilities between the states. Obamacare pushes in the opposite direction, towards dissolution not union. Therefore, it should not be constitutional

If we take immigration policy as another example. Does immigration policy relate to national security? Yes. And does immigration policy relate to preventing hostilities between the states? Yes. And so there is certainly an argument that the federal government should regulate immigration, at least in those areas where it is applicable.

For instance, it is true that the federal government should screen immigrants who are criminals, linked to terrorist organization, who are anarchists or other political extremists. Because that is in the interest of national security. You cannot make the same argument that preventing a 5-year-old from Mexico from coming to the United States is in our national security interests.

Secondly, if we apply immigration policy to the second issue, whether or not the immigration policy aims to reduce real hostilities between the states which could lead to dissolution of the United States. It is certainly true that if the federal government allowed too many immigrants into the country, you would have certain states who would be threatening to secede. But the opposite argument could also be made, that if the federal government didn't allow in enough immigrants, that certain states could also threaten to secede. So, the proper way to address the issue of immigration policy, would be to address it in a way that would be the most agreeable for all of the states, as to prevent one state from appearing to do harm to another state, thus causing hostilities between the states.

So in your opinion, what is the best way for the federal government to have an immigration policy intended "to do the least harm"?

In my opinion, the solution that would do the least harm. Would be to allow the federal government to regulate immigration in regards to national security and trade. But hand over as much ability to exclude/include immigrants to the individual states where it doesn't interfere with the former. That way the states who want more immigrants will be happy, and the states who don't want immigrants will also be happy. And so under my plan, the vital interests of the nation would be more secured than they are today.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-13-2012 at 01:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:23 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,101,613 times
Reputation: 2199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If the states weren't able to exclude in their own ways, why is it that Justice Scalia says that the states did have the right to exclude all the way up until 1875?

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. - Justice Scalia


The issue with the Supreme Court case in 1875 is complicated. Because you have to understand a few fundamental points.

The federal government didn't tell the states to restrict immigration of anyone, before the page act of 1875(the same year as the Supreme Court ruling). The states did restrict immigration of several classes of people, criminals, indigents, persons with diseases, and free blacks, but each made those distinctions independently of the federal government, and without any real controversy, all the way up until 1875.

Effectively, before 1875, no one even questioned the states rights to exclude.

Moreover, the states could force immigrants to pay "bonds", which were set by each of those states to whatever they felt necessary, to protect them from expenses incurred from those immigrants. Which in essence, excluded all those who could not pay that bond, at whatever price the state set that bond to be.


So now, we have to look at the Supreme Court case in Chy Lung v. Freeman. In that case, if you read the details. What it fundamentally says, is that the states have no right to restrict immigrants whatsoever, including criminals, the indigent, persons with diseases, free blacks, or any other group.

Effectively the decision the court holds...



The court refuses to even even acknowledge that the states have the right to exclude criminals, paupers, and the diseased. Because it doesn't believe they actually have that right, and so decision in the case was that they don't have that right, only the federal government does.

The question is, was that the correct decision?


If the Courts decision was correct, then the states never would have had the right to restrict any form of immigration at any time since this country was formed. But the states did exclude many groups of people, including free blacks, after this country was formed, and for 100 years after. You know, back when the people who made the constitution were still around to tell you what it meant. So to argue that the constitution never intended to allow the states to have the right to exclude, seems a little fallacious don't you think? The courts decision in 1875 was not based on "originalism", in terms of what the framers intended by their wording. But rather "literalism", which means the court can take the words of the constitution and give them any meaning that they want.

So the question then is, had the states known in 1791 that the constitution strips them of all rights to exclude immigrants from their own states. Would they have ever ratified the constitution to begin with? If it is true that the states wouldn't have ratified the constitution if such provisions had been clearly defined and articulated by the constitution, then how can you argue that those provisions are constitutional?


The point I am trying to make, and the point Scalia is trying to make. Is that, the states did have the right to exclude, and the framers intended to give the states the right to exclude, which is why the states did exclude even in a time where the framers were still around to have said something about it. So to come along 100 years or 200 years later and say "the states have no right to exclude", and thus never had that right. Is that because that is what the framers intended? Or is that just what you want to believe?


You can talk about how the colonies were not given that right under the British Crown, which is fine. But they weren't given a lot of rights under the British Crown which they would have after independence, and under our constitution. To pretend that the colonies would have fought for independence to end up changing absolutely nothing, is a little illogical. The colonies fought for independence, so they could be independent and sovereign from the British. The reason why the Articles of Confederation was so weak, was because the colonies effectively wanted to be independent sovereign nations, but needed a military alliance, to prevent Britain from just taking them over again. The reason why they created the constitution, was because the Articles were so weak, that it didn't create a system that could defend the nation of even domestic insurrection(IE, Shay's rebellion, which was the event directly causing the constitution convention), let alone a British invasion. Had we kept the Articles, the country would have fallen apart, and been taken back by the British. The constitution was created only for those purposes absolutely necessary to sustain the union and prevent its dissolution. The constitution was not intended to create an all-powerful central government which would have absolute supremacy over the states.


If you can agree with me, that the intent of the creation of the constitution was to create a weak federal government, which would only have authority in those areas deemed absolutely necessary to preserve the union. Then we have to apply that same basic logical structure to everything the federal government does. In simple terms, is what the federal government is doing necessary for the preservation of the union? More specifically, does the actions of the Federal government qualify as protecting the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Do those actions qualify as being necessary to prevent real hostilities between the states, which would reasonably be understood to cause the dissolution of the union.

If you take any act of Congress, it should necessarily be qualified into one of those two distinct groups. If it is not, then it was not intended by our constitution. The only real powers the federal government has, is from Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution, and the commerce clause. If you look over the list of powers, all of them can be qualified into those two groupings I mentioned. Just as the commerce clause was intended to prevent fighting between the states and also for national security purposes.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


When we look at what the federal government does today, does its actions fall within the two purposes of the constitution? If so, it is constitutional, if not, then it is not. If you take Obamacare for example, it cannot be intended for the purpose of national defense, nor does it intend to prevent real hostilities between the states. Obamacare pushes in the opposite direction, towards dissolution not union. Therefore, it should not be constitutional

If we take immigration policy as another example. Does immigration policy relate to national security? Yes. And does immigration policy relate to preventing hostilities between the states? Yes. And so there is certainly an argument that the federal government should regulate immigration, at least in those areas where it is applicable.

For instance, it is true that the federal government should screen immigrants who are criminals, linked to terrorist organization, who are anarchists or other political extremists. Because that is in the interest of national security. You cannot make the same argument that preventing a 5-year-old from Mexico from coming to the United States is in our national security interests.

Secondly, if we apply immigration policy to the second issue, whether or not the immigration policy aims to reduce real hostilities between the states which could lead to dissolution of the United States. It is certainly true that if the federal government allowed too many immigrants into the country, you would have certain states who would be threatening to secede. But the opposite argument could also be made, that if the federal government didn't allow in enough immigrants, that certain states could also threaten to secede. So, the proper way to address the issue of immigration policy, would be to address it in a way that would be the most agreeable for all of the states, as to prevent one state from appearing to do harm to another state, thus causing hostilities between the states.

So in your opinion, what is the best way for the federal government to have an immigration policy intended "to do the least harm"?

In my opinion, the solution that would do the least harm. Would be to allow the federal government to regulate immigration in regards to national security and trade. But hand over as much ability to exclude/include immigrants to the individual states where it doesn't interfere with the former. That way the states who want more immigrants will be happy, and the states who don't want immigrants will also be happy. And so under my plan, the vital interests of the nation would be more secured than they are today.
Who is harming illegals?

You think our country is or their native country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 07:32 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,282 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If the states weren't able to exclude in their own ways, why is it that Justice Scalia says that the states did have the right to exclude all the way up until 1875?

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. - Justice Scalia
Lets see, at the end of your paragraph it points to footnote 2, 2 E.g., Va. Code Tit. 54, ch. 198, §39 (1849) (“If a master of a vessel or other person, knowingly, import or bring into this state, from any place out of the United States, any person convicted of crime . . . he shall be confined in jail for three months, and be fined one hundred dollars”). He then goes on to state: In fact, the controversy surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts involved a debate over whether, under the Constitution, the States had exclusive authority to enact such immigration laws. Criticism of the Sedition Act has become a prominent feature of our First Amendment jurisprudence.... This part stands out from Scalia: I accept that as a valid exercise of federal power—not because of the Naturalization Clause (it has no necessary connection to citizenship) but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States. As this Court has said, it is an “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893) (quoting Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659 (1892)). That is why there was no need to set forth control of immigration as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, although an acknowledgment of that power (as well as of the States’ similar power, subject to federal abridgment) was contained in Art. I, §9, which provided that “[t]he 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 . . . .” As Scalia points out the states acknowledged the power of the feds to regulate foreign immigration in 1807. "Proper to admit" was for state residency, not denial of entry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The issue with the Supreme Court case in 1875 is complicated. Because you have to understand a few fundamental points.

The federal government didn't tell the states to restrict immigration of anyone, before the page act of 1875(the same year as the Supreme Court ruling). The states did restrict immigration of several classes of people, criminals, indigents, persons with diseases, and free blacks, but each made those distinctions independently of the federal government, and without any real controversy, all the way up until 1875.

Effectively, before 1875, no one even questioned the states rights to exclude.

Moreover, the states could force immigrants to pay "bonds", which were set by each of those states to whatever they felt necessary, to protect them from expenses incurred from those immigrants. Which in essence, excluded all those who could not pay that bond, at whatever price the state set that bond to be.

So now, we have to look at the Supreme Court case in Chy Lung v. Freeman. In that case, if you read the details. What it fundamentally says, is that the states have no right to restrict immigrants whatsoever, including criminals, the indigent, persons with diseases, free blacks, or any other group.

Effectively the decision the court holds...

The court refuses to even even acknowledge that the states have the right to exclude criminals, paupers, and the diseased. Because it doesn't believe they actually have that right, and so decision in the case was that they don't have that right, only the federal government does.

The question is, was that the correct decision?
Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If the Courts decision was correct, then the states never would have had the right to restrict any form of immigration at any time since this country was formed. But the states did exclude many groups of people, including free blacks, after this country was formed, and for 100 years after. You know, back when the people who made the constitution were still around to tell you what it meant. So to argue that the constitution never intended to allow the states to have the right to exclude, seems a little fallacious don't you think? The courts decision in 1875 was not based on "originalism", in terms of what the framers intended by their wording. But rather "literalism", which means the court can take the words of the constitution and give them any meaning that they want.

So the question then is, had the states known in 1791 that the constitution strips them of all rights to exclude immigrants from their own states. Would they have ever ratified the constitution to begin with? If it is true that the states wouldn't have ratified the constitution if such provisions had been clearly defined and articulated by the constitution, then how can you argue that those provisions are constitutional?
Fallacious, no. The exclusion was for residency within the state as I have stated numerous times. The excludeable caste were still able to live within the state they were simply denied any states rights afforded citizens and/or residents. Your definition of exclude is incorrect. Federalist Papers 3, 4, 5, 42, 80.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The point I am trying to make, and the point Scalia is trying to make. Is that, the states did have the right to exclude, and the framers intended to give the states the right to exclude, which is why the states did exclude even in a time where the framers were still around to have said something about it. So to come along 100 years or 200 years later and say "the states have no right to exclude", and thus never had that right. Is that because that is what the framers intended? Or is that just what you want to believe?
Your definition of exclude is incorrect. States were only allowed to exclude for residency within the state. The state could not prevent the person from being in the state or from living within the state, they could only exclude them from residency and acquiring the state entitlements of the time.

You use today's literal definitions to attempt to define the same words which used different meanings back then. Example:

ex·clude

   [ik-sklood] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing. 1. to shut or keep out; prevent the entrance of.

2. to shut out from consideration, privilege, etc.: Employees and their relatives were excluded from participation in the contest.

3. to expel and keep out; thrust out; eject: He was excluded from the club for infractions of the rules.

You use def. 1) when in reality def. 2) was used back then.

It wasn't until Ellis Island that the Feds began to deny entry to individuals and use def. 1).




Here is Scalia explaining it: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ntonin-scalia#
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.
He then goes on to explain pretty much why your Chy Lung was reversed and remanded back to the State:
Quote:
Two other provisions of the Constitution are an acknowledgment of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders. Article I provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.” Art. I, §10, cl. 2 (emphasis added). This assumed what everyone assumed: that the States could exclude from their territory dangerous or unwholesome goods. A later portion of the same section provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Art. I, §10, cl. 3 (emphasis added). This limits the States’ sovereignty (in a way not relevant here) but leaves intact their inherent power to protect their territory.
Residence was acquired by immigrants by first registering with the local common law court of record. Nationality Act 1790: Required 2 years residence in the US and 1 year in the state. 1795 increased to 5 years, etc. The state could deny residence if they were paupers, vagabonds, etc, thus the States were in fact helping to deny naturalization of foreigners by simply denying them residence. What the state could not do after the USC is what the colony was able to do prior to the AoC, remove the individual from its territory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 12:01 PM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,244,063 times
Reputation: 1004
Over stays admitted on a legal entry visa account for 50% of the illegal resident immigrants in the United States and the Department of State keeps on admitting them despite the high percentage of "no returners." "n [N] early half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas."

[CENTER][/CENTER]

So all of the above immigration history is good to know, but we are being played. Big Time.

Last edited by Yac; 11-15-2012 at 01:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,013,920 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
Over stays admitted on a legal entry visa account for 50% of the illegal resident immigrants in the United States and the Department of State keeps on admitting them despite the high percentage of "no returners." "n [N] early half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas."
The Border Crossing Card ("BCC", specifically for those Mexican residents living in the border region) is also a "temporary, non-immigrant visa", which is issued at higher levels than B1 ("Tourist") or B2 ("Business") visas. Mexico and the Philippines have high B1 application refusal rates, and as for many other countries, a return ticket and sizable non-liquidated assets in their home countries must be proven. There is also Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries that will have a low percentage of the total remain in the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2012, 08:20 AM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,244,063 times
Reputation: 1004
Default We have met the enemy ...

For me, Federal Discretionary Procescutorial Enforcement is the federal administration acting contrary to law, the Constitution (side-stepping congressional authority), and the best interests of its citizens to, for example, promulgate the Dream Act by ignoring Congress or saying one thing but doing another. Giving a pass to aliens to come into the country knowing that 50% of them will never return to their own country.

Big obscure phrase and concept which is in the Feds favor and not understandable. It's not kinda like the novel "1984" it is "1984."

The comic strip character Pogo had it right. So the question becomes, what are we going to do about it?
Attached Thumbnails
While I was visiting my uncle, we talked about immigration.-pogo.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 04:56 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Lets see, at the end of your paragraph it points to footnote 2, 2 E.g., Va. Code Tit. 54, ch. 198, §39 (1849) (“If a master of a vessel or other person, knowingly, import or bring into this state, from any place out of the United States, any person convicted of crime . . . he shall be confined in jail for three months, and be fined one hundred dollars”). He then goes on to state: In fact, the controversy surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts involved a debate over whether, under the Constitution, the States had exclusive authority to enact such immigration laws. Criticism of the Sedition Act has become a prominent feature of our First Amendment jurisprudence.... This part stands out from Scalia: I accept that as a valid exercise of federal power—not because of the Naturalization Clause (it has no necessary connection to citizenship) but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States. As this Court has said, it is an “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893) (quoting Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659 (1892)). That is why there was no need to set forth control of immigration as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, although an acknowledgment of that power (as well as of the States’ similar power, subject to federal abridgment) was contained in Art. I, §9, which provided that “[t]he 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 . . . .” As Scalia points out the states acknowledged the power of the feds to regulate foreign immigration in 1807. "Proper to admit" was for state residency, not denial of entry.
Here is reality. Many of the states required a person to make a bond before they were allowed to land at any port. If you did not pay the bond, you were not allowed to land. The bond was set by the states themselves, and varied in price from one state to the next. Most states required a bond for every passenger, but California for instance, had a selective bond requirement. It targeted people who were believed to become a public charge(what we might call today, "racial profiling").

Many states restricted "free blacks" from being able to enter into their states for any purpose.

Some of these states did exempt from these restrictions persons who were "just traveling through" to other states. But usually required a sort of "handling fee", which would help pay for the cost of immigration regulation, and any other expenses that might be incurred by other parts of the state because of that travel.

If a person was in a state without permission, not only could they be thrown in jail, but anyone who helped them live in the state without permission would also be thrown in jail. And that is how immigration worked for the first 100 years of this nations existence. Then in 1875 the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional.


It is true that the federal government did pass acts such as the Alien and Sedition acts, but those acts did not interfere with the states ability to exclude immigrants. But rather only entitled the federal government the right to exclude more immigrants on top of what the states were excluding.

The question is, why was 100 years of established and accepted immigration laws and practices overturned by the Supreme Court in 1875? Did those changes ultimately make things better or worse? And was there/is there any alternative to an immigration system completely dominated by the federal government, which has stripped away from the states of all the rights they originally had in regards to immigration?

Basically, if you were to create a perfect immigration system. Would it be a one-size-fits-all system ran by the federal government, which nearly half of the states hate. Or would it be a targeted immigration system, where the states were more empowered to increase or decrease immigration into their respective territories for their respective social, political, or economic interests. As long as those interests do no direct harm to the other states.

Quote:
Here is Scalia explaining it: The Defining Characteristic of Sovereignty - Antonin Scalia - National Review OnlineHe then goes on to explain pretty much why your Chy Lung was reversed and remanded back to the State:Residence was acquired by immigrants by first registering with the local common law court of record. Nationality Act 1790: Required 2 years residence in the US and 1 year in the state. 1795 increased to 5 years, etc. The state could deny residence if they were paupers, vagabonds, etc, thus the States were in fact helping to deny naturalization of foreigners by simply denying them residence. What the state could not do after the USC is what the colony was able to do prior to the AoC, remove the individual from its territory.
It is true that individual states in an indirect sense could deny citizenship by denying residency. But you are pretending that there was only one state in the country, or only one state which could provide residency. There were thirteen states originally, and by 1875 there were probably 40 states. To believe that California or New York must give you residency in order to become a resident, is stupid. And it misunderstands democracy itself.

Lets contrast now and then.

To come to this country now, requires that the federal government immigration policy allows it. That immigration policy is set by the majority of our representatives, and so in a general sense, that means a majority of the states most likely also agree with it.

To come to this country back then, required only that a single state allowed you residency. And so if New York turned you down, you could just go elsewhere. And even if there were 40 states back then, and only one of the 40 states gave you residency, you could stay. The only way that New York denying residency could be a burden on citizenship back then, is if the majority of the states would have granted residency to that person who had wanted to become a New York resident. But if that was the case, those people could have gone to the other states instead of New York to begin with, and many did.


So the only issue in regards to New York immigration law that can possibly stand up to scrutiny, is not whether or not New York could or couldn't give people residency, because New York giving residency was not a requirement for citizenship. The only issue must necessarily be whether or not New York, through its immigration policies, did harm to other states, by placing burdens on immigrants who wanted to become residents of those other states. The burden being placed on immigrants by New York, was that it would impose upon individuals the required payment of a bond, or a landing fee. The bond was for people who would become residents of the state, and the landing fee was for people who would be passing through the state. Neither is improper, as long as both are consistent and fair. In the same way the federal government requires that revenues from toll roads only pay for the costs of the roads. The fees placed on immigrants should only be to pay for the costs of immigration.

So in my opinion the best way to resolve immigration, was not to strip away from the states all authority over their own immigration, thus creating a system where 26 states tell the other 24 states who is allowed to become an immigrant. But rather, have a system where the federal government simply regulates the state immigration laws, to prevent them from doing harm to other states, or international/interstate trade.



The question then is, like I have repeated so many times. If the federal government had never stripped away the states power to regulate immigration in 1875. Would the population of the United States be lesser or greater today? Would we have historically had more immigration or less immigration? Would it have been easier or harder for oppressed people from all over the world, to come to the United States?


The only logical conclusion one could make, would be that we would have had more immigration. And that that freedom of immigration would have gave refuge for oppressed people all over the world, who were turned away over the last 100 years because of federal quotas and exclusions. Our population would be larger, our economy would be bigger, and we would actually be a more powerful nation today. And our example would give hope and freedom to everyone in the world.
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