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.
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'.
Shame on the Federal government for letting foreign nationals invade our nation. They are subjects of a foreign government, without any respect for our laws. They have no commonality with the language and customs of the American people. They have no allegiance to the people of the United States of America, nor respect for their persons and property. And the American people are fools for allowing them in, letting them siphon off prodigious benefits. Americans have thus surrendered their country and deprived their posterity, who will become strangers in their own land.
Failure to prosecute, punish and deter these invaders is one of the greatest acts of treason to the American people by a bankrupted, venal government filled with lying predators and scoundrels.
Why oppose these Illegal aliens / invaders? They only seek "economic improvement".
Answer: “Economic improvement” by breaking the law is a crime. They have infiltrated most major cities, and have no respect for the laws, nor the culture or language, and have no allegiance to Americans - and government won't protect Americans from them - but encourages them to invade. Within this community hides even more dangerous predators who deal drugs, and engage in crime with impunity. A people whose presence and lifestyle involves breaking the law is not someone you would wish to encourage.
Why oppose non-English speakers?
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.
One language = one nation united.
Many languages = dissolution and destruction.
It has happened many times before. And will happen again, in America, if the people allow it.
"The place where I was born and spent my childhood gave direction to all my future struggles. In Bialystok the inhabitants were divided into four distinct elements: Russians, Poles, Germans and Jews; each of these spoke their own language and looked on all the others as enemies."
- - - L. L. Zamenhof, in a letter to N. Borovko, ca. 1895
The 'Love Bridge' for Immigrants Between Sweden and Denmark | PRI's The World Denmark’s restrictive family reunification laws make it incredibly difficult for Danes to marry and live in Denmark with a non-European spouse. Prevented from living together in Copenhagen, Sara and her Jordanian husband moved to Sweden, where they had an easy time getting visas.
Denmark actually charged a bond ($11,000) for the husband to live there, they didn't pay the bond and found it easier to get a visa with no bond in Sweden.
Here are a basic explanation of Denmark family reunification immigration rules....
Danes may tie the knot with anyone (same-sex marriages included), but getting a foreign spouse into the country is harder. To get a residence permit, both partners must be 24 or over. They must pass a solvency test, showing the Dane has not drawn welfare benefits for the previous 12 months, can lodge a bond of DKr53,000 ($8,700), and can earn enough to support his or her spouse. The pair must have a permanent home (no staying with family) and—the crunch for many brown-skinned Danes—be judged to have ties to Denmark exceeding those to any other country.
It isn't quite as easy as simply paying a bond. Many either recent citizens of Denmark, or even people born in Denmark with strong ancestral ties to other countries, would be barred from bringing their own family into Denmark.
And my point is, Sweden has very loose rules for family reunification. So if a person was a citizen of Denmark(Texas), then she is effectively a citizen of every country in the EU(United States), and so she can move to Sweden(California) which has easier immigration laws, allowing her family to live with her somewhere in the EU(United States), if Denmark(Texas) refuses.
Do you get it?
Quote:
See Mistermobile's comment Immigration law is complex not because its hard but because it grew as a series of compromises one on top of the other....The way the USCIS immigration works for labor based visas, H1Bs and green cards, is that each state where the alien will work or works must issue a labor certification that the alien's skill set is needed. So petition for visa plus labor certification. The states would certify the back of a monkey if they could get someone to hold it. They have left it to USCIS to do the heavy lifting.
Do you really think that the Supreme Court decision that stripped away all state authority to regulate immigration was a compromise? Do you think any time the federal government seizes authority away from the states in any area, that it is because of a compromise? No, it was the majority of the people/states telling the minority of the people/states, that they are no longer allowed to make their own decisions, because the federal government can do a better job.
The reality of our immigration laws, is the reality of everything that happens in this country. There has been a move to centralization, a move to believing that the federal government knows better than the states. It is based in a sort of dogma that persists in this country, and I believe that that line of thinking is wrong and dangerous. Not just in immigration, but schools, healthcare, energy, public safety, and practically everywhere else.
I mean, to pretend that immigration laws are from a "compromise", is like pretending that practically anything the federal government does came out of a compromise.
Do you think the federal seat belt laws came out of a compromise? Do you think the federal government requiring people to be 21 to buy alcohol, was from a compromise? Do you think the department of education came out of a compromise? You can go down the list in pretty much everything the federal government does, and realize almost none of it was born out of compromise. The reality of the federal government, was that almost all of the authority handed to the federal government came out of the people in charge at the time, decided that they were going to do whatever they wanted, and they did.
Do you really think Obama's healthcare law came out of a compromise? Get real man.
Our immigration system is not from a compromise, it came out of a majority of the people or the states, telling the minority of the people or states, that we know better than you, and so you have no rights.
Quote:
I should not be inconvenienced in my own country just because some foreigner wants to come here, why should I lose any of my constitutional protections because of it? The USC is for the people of the US (Preamble USC- to ourselves and our posterity), it is our form of govt, not the worlds. Every country has their own forms of govt. which they can change themselves.
If you are a citizen of the United States, then you have the right to travel anywhere you want in this country, and there is not a thing the other states can do about it. My plan does not inconvenience a citizen of this country in any way. It cannot inconvenience a citizen, because the constitution guarantees right of travel to all citizens. It does not guarantee right of travel to non-citizens.
The only people who could possibly be burdened under my plan, would be non-citizens. And my point was that under my plan, there is no reason to believe that anyone at all would be burdened anymore than they already are. But that under my plan, many people who are forbidden to come here now, might have the opportunity to come to states which would most likely to be more welcoming to immigrants(California, Nevada, Florida, etc), but would only be allowed to live in those states. Such as they already do, in sanctuary cities.
Quote:
I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote about your claim of lettuce. Comprehension is the key, something you seem to lack., along with implying things that aren't even said. Now for Lettuce, if we got rid of all the lettuce pickers would the cost go up? You do know they have machines that harvest lettuce right? So would it not be cheaper to buy a harvester and rid yourself of wages and taxes on those wages to include the imposed requirements of legal H2A workers, ie medical, housing, etc? Now, what i said about lettuce was that the cost of fuel has a bigger increase to the overall cost then do wages. I suggest you learn about the field to market costs.
I agree that the cost of fuel might be a greater percentage of the cost of lettuce than labor, but labor most certainly affects the cost of lettuce.
Secondly, if it was cheaper to use machinery to harvest lettuce, those companies would already be using machinery to harvest lettuce. Moreover, if this country was really hurting economically because of illegal immigrants, then we would actually be enforcing the immigration laws.
If we take California's grape growers for example. They utilize the cheapest immigrant labor that they can find. Many of those grapes end up in wines, which are exported all over the world. What would the cost be for California wines, if there were no immigrants? How much harder would it be to export California's wines, without cheap labor?
The more expensive it is to produce goods in this country. Not only will the cost of living in this country go up, but we will find it more difficult to export our goods. And even worse, we will most likely shift more and more towards importing cheap goods from other countries.
There is no real benefit to your protectionist policies. It doesn't help people, it doesn't help trade. They are just isolationist policies born out of socialist tendencies which have no grasp of economics.
Quote:
Smith was for equal trade not "free trade" .If one nation produces something that another doesn't then they trade for goods, this good is worth that amount (say $10) and that good is worth this (say $12) amount, I would get say 12 items for 10.
Smith argued that free trade was more efficient than protectionism. He basically says, if another country can produce a good cheaper than your country, then people should be allowed to buy that good for a cheaper price, and there is no reason to worry about a balance of trade. He saw no real benefit to protectionism whatsoever.
"In the foregoing part of this chapter I have endeavoured to show, even upon the principles of the commercial system, how unnecessary it is to lay extraordinary restraints upon the importation of goods from those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous. Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this [absurd] doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium." - Adam Smith
And I am not confused about Milton Friedman. He most certainly was for free trade, and he most certainly was for open immigration. He also said that open immigration was impossible as long as you have a welfare state. He spent his whole life basically trying to eliminate the welfare state.
Which was the purpose of this thread to begin with. Because I find it incredibly ironic that socialists are the ones pushing for more immigration. Because we could have far more immigration if we moved away from socialism.
Quote:
Now your true colors come out. Humans are free in their own countries, you simply have a warped understanding of it. The States Rights are limited when it comes to immigration, for which I have explained to you already.
Humans are free in their own countries? What would do you live in?
Do you think the Jews in Nazi Germany were free? Do you think the Chinese are free? Do you think most middle-eastern countries are free? Even in places with democracy, there is no guarantee of freedom. Even if it appears that a country is free on the outside, many countries are basically controls by an oligopoly of special interests, who monopolize markets and control government policy to keep themselves in power.
Democracy is no guarantee of freedom. This country has been a democracies, I'm sure many minority groups have felt like they had no rights in this country at varying times over the last 230 years. Because democracy is most appropriately defined as "tyranny of the majority".
What I'm saying is, if you are a minority in some country that is limiting your rights, and every country has very restrictive immigration policies, then you are effectively trapped in that country, with no rights and no opportunities to escape.
If you are a minority in some country that is limiting your rights, and every country has open immigration policies, then you can go to whichever country that provides you with the most rights and opportunities. That is the very reason why most of our ancestors came to this country to begin with. For freedom, because this country gave them more rights and opportunities.
I just find it absolutely pathetic that you are going to defend a system that has done nothing but harm.
Even if you go back to the Supreme Court case that gave the federal government the right to regulate immigration. It was a Chinese woman that petitioned for the right to stay in this country. Basically, it was a case for easier immigration not stricter immigration. And what was the result? A few years after that case, the Congress passed its first federal immigration policy, which is commonly called the "Chinese exclusion act", which effectively prohibited all Chinese immigration.
Don't you find it ironic that the woman fighting for more freedom of immigration for the Chinese, paved the way for a complete exclusion of people of her entire race from this entire country, which lasted for over 60 years.
Quote:
The States gave up those rights willingly to the Feds starting with the AoC, this is why we are a Union, One Nation. You want to go back to the times of the colonies where each colony had its own requirements and were non-transferable.
That is incorrect, and I have repeatedly explained to you that it was incorrect. Justice Scalia explained that was incorrect.
As Scalia wrote before....
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 to understand how incorrect your statement is... You just have to ask, if the states knew in 1791 that the constitution would totally strip them of all rights to regulate their own immigration in regards to "non-citizens", would they have ratified the constitution?
Why exactly do you think the wording was changed in regards to freedom of travel in the Articles of Confederation and the constitution.
The Articles of Confederation said... 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.
The constitution says... The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Why the change from inhabitants to citizens? If the federal government was intended to be the sole arbiter of all immigration, then why would there need to be the wording change?
Quote:
I never said our system was perfect, I said our system does allow for many things that you claim it does not. When that is pointed out you run to the holocaust and attempt to blame the US for hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths are simply due to our policies on immigration. I only need to show your shortcomings with your ideals of your immigration desires. I'm fine with our system, I understand how our system came about (something you obviously fail in), I don't see why we need to change our system so you can have a cheaper roof.
Look, my central thesis is this. If the federal government had never stripped the states of all of their rights to regulate who is allowed to reside within the borders of their states. Then on average, far more immigrants would be coming to the United States every year than there are now. And that had the states been more able to give residency to foreigners during the 1930's and during WWII, then the number of refugees and immigrants from Eastern Europe would have been much greater than the numbers that actually were allowed to come during that time.
In a very real sense, if the states had never been stripped of their rights, then one could easily argue, that since 1875, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives might would have been saved from repressive regimes across the world. From Nazi Germany, to the Soviet Union, to China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, all across the middle-east, Africa, and central/south America.
Do you agree that if the states regulated immigration, that there would be more of it?
When I look at the history of the federal government controlling all immigration, I haven't been able to find any proof that it has actually helped anyone. It has been nothing more than a policy of protectionism, xenophobia, and racism.
Well said and put! 1M per year now vs 1796 to 1869 there were only a total of 9M for the span, from 1870 to 1915 there were 20M allowed in (keep in mind the Chinese exclusion act was during this time). How are we not better now than the open immigration up to 1914? from 1796 to 1914 was about 29M. From 1915 to today that number is much much higher. Yet we are called restrictive.
All of this needs to be kept in general proportion.
For instance, in the decade of 1851-1860, 2.6 million people immigrated to the United States. By 1860 we had a population of 31.44 million people. Doing the math, 2.6 million is 1/12th of the entire population of the United States(8.2%).
Contrast that with the fact that the population of the entire world was only 1.27 billion people, while it is over 7 billion today(5.5 times more people today than then). So in terms of total population of the world, it would be the same as 14.3 million people immigrating to this country in the past decade(we only had about 10 million immigrants in the past decade).
Moreover, in 1851-1860, the people immigrating to the United States came from only a handful of countries in Western Europe. And almost all of the immigration between 1850-1860 came from the British Isles and Germany. The combined population of Britain and Germany in that period of time, was only about 65 million people. In fact, between 1845 and 1855, a quarter of the population of Ireland left, mostly to the United States. The population of Ireland then was about a quarter of the population of the United States. So to understand the importance of such an event. It would be the equivalent of a quarter of the population of Germany or Vietnam of today, immigrating to the United States over the period of 10 years.
Can you imagine if a quarter of the population of the United States left over a decade?
The federal government officially took over immigration in 1891. Between 1881-1890 5.25 million people came to the United States(of 63 million total or 8.3%), between 1891-1900 only 3.7 million came(of 76 million, 4.8%).
Going into the future, in the decade between 1901-1910 there were 8.8 million(92.4 million, 9.5%). 1911-1920 there were 5.7 million(106 million, 5.3%). 1921-1930 there were 4.1 million(123 million, 3.3%), 1930-1940 there were .5 million(132 million, .3%), and in 1991-2000 there were 9 million(281, 3.2%).
Anyway, my point is that we need to be careful when we look at immigration relative to absolute numbers. It is most certainly true that the peak in immigration was between 1901-1910. But was that a result of the federal government? Or was that a result of other factors?
Moreover, we need to contrast absolute numbers against the numbers of people who actually were capable and trying to come to this country, and for what reason? For instance, in 1841-1850, it was very difficult to come to the United States, and most people in most countries did not have the ability to even come to the United States. By the late 1800's into the early 1900's, it was much easier to immigrate to the United States from places like eastern and southern Europe and Asia. As soon as this type of immigration became common, the federal government swooped in and either excluded entirely certain groups, or put in place heavy quotas to restrict access.
The question you have to ask is, had the states regulated immigration during the period where people in Eastern Europe and Asia were actually able to immigrate to this country, would we have had more immigration or less? Had the federal government never passed the "Chinese exclusion act" and other acts that prohibited immigration from Asia, and let the states regulate their own immigration, would we have more Asians living in this country today or less? Had the states regulated immigration during the years of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, would more people have survived totalitarian rule by escaping to the United States? Or did the federal government help to seal all the exits for oppressed people, by effectively locking out a great many of them from seeking refuge in this country?
Look at this picture in this link, and look at the caption. How does it make you feel?
Why oppose these Illegal aliens / invaders? They only seek "economic improvement".
Answer: “Economic improvement” by breaking the law is a crime. They have infiltrated most major cities, and have no respect for the laws, nor the culture or language, and have no allegiance to Americans - and government won't protect Americans from them - but encourages them to invade. Within this community hides even more dangerous predators who deal drugs, and engage in crime with impunity. A people whose presence and lifestyle involves breaking the law is not someone you would wish to encourage.
Why oppose non-English speakers?
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.
One language = one nation united.
Many languages = dissolution and destruction.
It has happened many times before. And will happen again, in America, if the people allow it.
I totally agree with you on all points. It is simply impractical to have multiple languages in the same country, or even multiple cultures for that matter.
The question you have to ask is, how can you address the issues that you mentioned, which this country is already facing? Is there any way to address those issues that you have mentioned, which wouldn't require a heavily restrictive immigration policy, but could be even more effective at addressing those concerns than what we have? Is there a way to both protect the people of this country, while also being able to help people living in other countries, and also producing some economic gain for the United States?
Is there a way to expand freedom across the entire world, while also preventing any real harm to the people in this country?
When it comes to language and culture for instance. I don't believe that language is an issue of immigration. I think language is an issue of incentive. The largest single ancestral group in this country, are Germans. But who speaks German these days? As a percentage of both the population of Germany and the population of the United States, Germans came in much greater numbers in the past than Hispanics do today. But Germans learned English quickly, and became as American as anyone. Why?
As I said, language isn't an issue of immigration. Language becomes an issue, only if people tolerate it. In the past, people were much less tolerant of people speaking different languages. Schools didn't teach in multiple languages, TV wasn't broadcast in multiple languages, the government didn't guarantee you an interpreter, documents weren't printed in multiple languages. You learned English or you were basically screwed.
The same basic logic an be applied to culture as well. It used to be that we were a melting pot. And when you came here, you became an American. Today, culture is only a problem because we tolerate it. Because people allow cities to be carved up into little ethnic villages. While promoting an agenda of multi-culturalism.
Crime is only a problem, is we tolerate it. If you had an expansion of the death penalty, and were allowed to racially profile, crime rates were drop significantly. Get rid of the welfare state, and crime would drop even more. And get rid of drug prohibition, and drugs would drop even more.
My point is, there are ways to deal with the negatives of immigration, without requiring an end to all immigration. There are more alternatives than putting up a giant wall on the border and deporting everyone.
... Why exactly do you think the wording was changed in regards to freedom of travel in the Articles of Confederation and the constitution.
The Articles of Confederation said... 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.
The constitution says... The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Why the change from inhabitants to citizens? If the federal government was intended to be the sole arbiter of all immigration, then why would there need to be the wording change?
But maybe I'm wrong?
There was no "change".
A citizen, by definition, is a subject. The reason is simple - in exchange for political liberty, he accepts the obligation to perform mandatory civic duties. If one is compelled by law, one is not a sovereign.
However, we know that the government recognizes that the American people are the sovereigns it serves. (see : legal definition for the republican form of government - the promise that the free inhabitants will be secure in their rights,powers, privileges and immunities.)
The resolution of the dilemma is simple - those who have a domicile (free inhabitants) but who have not volunteered to be subject citizens, retain all their rights and powers. And the USCON has nothing to do with the free inhabitants. The Federal government has no delegation of authority to "govern" (rule) them.
That is why it is a mistake to assume, "We, the People of the United States" (in the Preamble) refer to all Americans. AT the time of ratification, not all Americans could vote, thus not all gave consent.
All government is authorized to do for those who did not consent, is help "secure" their rights, by either prosecuting deliberate injuries to them and their property or adjudicate disputes over accidental injuries.
Check your own state's laws on the subject of non-citizen nationals, non-resident inhabitants, and others who are not parties to the compact.
REFERENCES:
Citizens are NOT sovereigns
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
.............................
People are sovereign
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Note: Since involuntary servitude is abolished by the 13th amendment, no one can be "born a citizen" and thus subject to mandatory civic duties, without consent.
...
An example of the knowledge of our forefathers comes from “The Devil’s Dictionary”, by Ambrose Bierce, a collection of humorous definitions, originally published in a weekly paper starting in 1881.
Apparently his audience knew what he was writing about, though today’s reader would not.
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 11-11-2012 at 10:27 AM..
I
The question you have to ask is, how can you address the issues that you mentioned, which this country is already facing? Is there any way to address those issues that you have mentioned, which wouldn't require a heavily restrictive immigration policy, but could be even more effective at addressing those concerns than what we have?
Bitter Medicine - Cures what ails America
[] 93% reduction in Federal Budget
[] Repatriation of all military personnel and material from foreign bases
[] Collapse / Repeal of national socialism / Socialist InSecurity
[] End the State of Emergency, ban enforcing contracts for usury in any court
[] Simplify government to securing rights; adjudicating disputes; and little else
[] No recipient of public funds can vote in any election for a period no less than two years from last disbursement (Beggars can’t be choosers)
Without the burden and benefits (bribery) of socialism, via FICA, there would be no inherent benefit to hire undocumented / illegal workers, nor a penalty for hiring American workers.
Of course, the government, as currently configured, will not willingly reduce itself, so we will have to wait until it collapses, and thus suffer a 100% reduction in spending.
Do you really think that the Supreme Court decision that stripped away all state authority to regulate immigration was a compromise? Do you think any time the federal government seizes authority away from the states in any area, that it is because of a compromise? No, it was the majority of the people/states telling the minority of the people/states, that they are no longer allowed to make their own decisions, because the federal government can do a better job.
The reality of our immigration laws, is the reality of everything that happens in this country. There has been a move to centralization, a move to believing that the federal government knows better than the states. It is based in a sort of dogma that persists in this country, and I believe that that line of thinking is wrong and dangerous. Not just in immigration, but schools, healthcare, energy, public safety, and practically everywhere else.
I mean, to pretend that immigration laws are from a "compromise", is like pretending that practically anything the federal government does came out of a compromise.
What SCOTUS ruling stripped away state authority to regulate immigration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Our immigration system is not from a compromise, it came out of a majority of the people or the states, telling the minority of the people or states, that we know better than you, and so you have no rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Even if you go back to the Supreme Court case that gave the federal government the right to regulate immigration. It was a Chinese woman that petitioned for the right to stay in this country. Basically, it was a case for easier immigration not stricter immigration. And what was the result? A few years after that case, the Congress passed its first federal immigration policy, which is commonly called the "Chinese exclusion act", which effectively prohibited all Chinese immigration.
Don't you find it ironic that the woman fighting for more freedom of immigration for the Chinese, paved the way for a complete exclusion of people of her entire race from this entire country, which lasted for over 60 years.
What SCOTUS ruling did that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
That is incorrect, and I have repeatedly explained to you that it was incorrect. Justice Scalia explained that was incorrect.
As Scalia wrote before....
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 to understand how incorrect your statement is... You just have to ask, if the states knew in 1791 that the constitution would totally strip them of all rights to regulate their own immigration in regards to "non-citizens", would they have ratified the constitution?
Scalia:The states hold an inherent power to exclude...To be sovereign is necessarily to posses the powers to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory. Not even Scalia says states have the rights to include persons that are not allowed by the Federal Govt, only that states hold the inherent right to exclude based on the Constitution or by laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Look, my central thesis is this. If the federal government had never stripped the states of all of their rights to regulate who is allowed to reside within the borders of their states. Then on average, far more immigrants would be coming to the United States every year than there are now. And that had the states been more able to give residency to foreigners during the 1930's and during WWII, then the number of refugees and immigrants from Eastern Europe would have been much greater than the numbers that actually were allowed to come during that time.
In a very real sense, if the states had never been stripped of their rights, then one could easily argue, that since 1875, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives might would have been saved from repressive regimes across the world. From Nazi Germany, to the Soviet Union, to China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, all across the middle-east, Africa, and central/south America.
The feds never stripped the states, the states always excluded certain caste, and according to Scalia still retain the inherent ability to exclude persons. To be sovereign is necessarily to posses the powers to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory.http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010..._statement.pdf
The states have never held the ability to grant legality to foreigners, the states have only had the inherent right to deny residency to foreigners. This is why foreigners had to register with the local magistrate upon entering into a local. If they failed to register they would be removed from the local, if they were vagabonds, paupers, etc, they were denied the ability to register and were removed from the local. According to Scalia, states still hold this right to exclude.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-11-2012 at 12:05 PM..
There was no "change".
A citizen, by definition, is a subject. The reason is simple - in exchange for political liberty, he accepts the obligation to perform mandatory civic duties. If one is compelled by law, one is not a sovereign.
There most certainly was a change. Read it again...
The Articles of Confederation said... 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.
The constitution says... The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The wording change is that, in the Articles of Confederation all free inhabitants of each state are guaranteed the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. Which in effect means that all free inhabitants are citizens, because they have all the rights and privileges of citizens. So in the Articles of Confederation, an inhabitant and a citizen is effectively exactly the same thing.
In the constitution, it says only citizens of each state are guaranteed privileges and immunities in any state they reside. It does not guarantee privileges and immunities to non-citizens who are simply inhabiting a state.
Basically, if any inhabitant is a citizen, and citizens are guaranteed social welfare benefits, then inhabitants are also guaranteed social welfare benefits. If only citizens are citizens, then inhabitants who are not citizens are not guaranteed social welfare benefits, or any other privilege for that matter.
Lets take for example voting rights. Under the wording of the articles of confederation, free inhabitants of any of the states would necessarily have the right to vote. Because the right to vote is a privilege that citizens possess.
That was one of the unintended consequences of the wording of the Articles of Confederation, as well as many other issues that arose during that time. And that is why the wording had to be changed in the constitution. And that wording change has a purpose.
Moreover, you seem to be arguing that everyone who declares themselves to be a citizen of the United States is a citizen of the United States. Which is totally absurd. People are only citizens of the United States if the United States acknowledges them as citizens of the United States. Thus the naturalization process.
The states have never held the ability to grant legality to foreigners, the states have only had the inherent right to deny residency to foreigners. This is why foreigners had to register with the local magistrate upon entering into a local. If they failed to register they would be removed from the local, if they were vagabonds, paupers, etc, they were denied the ability to register and were removed from the local. According to Scalia, states still hold this right to exclude.
I am going to agree with you in full here, but I do want to add a few things and explain my position.
The United States is a sovereign nation, and thus the United States does have the power to exclude immigrants. And the only powers that the states have in regards to immigration, is also exclusion, just like Scalia said. So you are absolutely correct in your assessment.
My issue with immigration policy is not that I want to restrict the federal power to exclude. They can still exclude under my plan just as well as they do under the current system. The problem with the federal government, is that it has stripped away the states rights to exclude. Which in a seemingly contradictory way, the very act of prohibiting the states from excluding, also strips them away the power to include.
To better explain the situation, let me create a hypothetical situation.
Lets pretend that 26 out of 50 states believed that Mexican immigration was a problem, but 24 states thought it was a good thing. Under our system, those 26 states aren't allowed to exclude Mexicans from immigrating to their states, because the federal government is the only one who can include or exclude immigrants. So under our system, the only recourse that the 26 states have for excluding unwanted immigrants, is to pass a law which excludes those immigrants from the entire country.
If on the other hand, those 26 states could independently exclude immigrants(which is what Scalia is arguing), then they would not require the federal government to intervene in the case that they wanted stricter immigration. And so those states would be much less likely to attempt to push a one-size-fits-all immigration policy that applies to the entire country, because it simply wouldn't be necessary to protect the interests of their state. In fact, under such a system where the states had the power to exclude, then the states would actually have more of an incentive to prevent the federal government from excluding in the first place, because by the federal government excluding, it takes away the power of the state to include.
Does that make any sense?
So, even though it seems counter-intuitive to believe that if each of the states had the power to exclude in addition to the power of the federal government to exclude, that we would have more immigration not less. If you look at the broader picture, it is actually what would happen. And it is historically accurate.
Which brings me back to the question I like to ask over and over. If the states had more authority to regulate their own immigration, basically the immigration system of the first 100 years of this country. Would we have more immigration today or less? Would more Jews have been allowed to come to the United States in the 1930's and 1940's had the states been more capable of regulating their own immigration? Would more oppressed people from all over the world, including China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Syria, Eastern Europe/Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, etc, have been able to come to the United States to escape persecution and death, if the states had had more power to control their own immigration?
In my opinion, had the federal government left immigration largely up to the states, as it did in the past. Tens of millions of peoples lives would have been saved across Europe, Asia, Central and South America, and Africa, because they would have been able to come to America to escape persecution and death.
My issue with immigration policy is not that I want to restrict the federal power to exclude. They can still exclude under my plan just as well as they do under the current system. The problem with the federal government, is that it has stripped away the states rights to exclude. Which in a seemingly contradictory way, the very act of prohibiting the states from excluding, also strips them away the power to include.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Lets pretend that 26 out of 50 states believed that Mexican immigration was a problem, but 24 states thought it was a good thing. Under our system, those 26 states aren't allowed to exclude Mexicans from immigrating to their states, because the federal government is the only one who can include or exclude immigrants. So under our system, the only recourse that the 26 states have for excluding unwanted immigrants, is to pass a law which excludes those immigrants from the entire country.
If on the other hand, those 26 states could independently exclude immigrants(which is what Scalia is arguing), then they would not require the federal government to intervene in the case that they wanted stricter immigration. And so those states would be much less likely to attempt to push a one-size-fits-all immigration policy that applies to the entire country, because it simply wouldn't be necessary to protect the interests of their state. In fact, under such a system where the states had the power to exclude, then the states would actually have more of an incentive to prevent the federal government from excluding in the first place, because by the federal government excluding, it takes away the power of the state to include.
Does that make any sense?
It's not up to the states, its up to the employers to ask for (want to include) foreigners, work visas are allowed for almost all categories of labor (modern day indentured servants if you will). I understand your thinking that the States are individual nations themselves and if the state wants to increase its population by way of unfettered immigration then they should be allowed to (thinking that its better for its economy), this is where we disagree since the beginning of the conversation. If this were to be the case the states should no longer receive any federal funding, the state should be able to manage itself, after all, its its own nation at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In my opinion, had the federal government left immigration largely up to the states, as it did in the past. Tens of millions of peoples lives would have been saved across Europe, Asia, Central and South America, and Africa, because they would have been able to come to America to escape persecution and death.
Do you disagree with me?
The states have never had the ability to allow or regulate immigration (not even as colonies), they only had the ability to regulate residence of citizens or legal aliens (aliens in amity (free inhabitants) as they were called due to the treaties signed by 2 nations allowing ones people to live here). This is where your argument keeps failing.
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.
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.
.If one nation produces something that another doesn't then they trade for goods, this good is worth that amount (say $10) and that good is worth this (say $12) amount, I would get say 12 items for 10.
Humans are free in their own countries, you simply have a warped understanding of it. The States Rights are limited when it comes to immigration, for which I have explained to you already.
I never said our system was perfect, I said our system does allow for many things that you claim it does not. When that is pointed out you run to the holocaust and attempt to blame the US for hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths are simply due to our policies on immigration. 
I only need to show your shortcomings with your ideals of your immigration desires. 
I'm fine with our system, I understand how our system came about (something you obviously fail in), I don't see why we need to change our system so you can have a cheaper roof.
