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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2007, 11:59 AM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,795 posts, read 3,098,884 times
Reputation: 479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleMan View Post
Sorry guys, sometimes I forget about being politically correct. Jaywalking across property lines is definitely what I meant to say.
Jaywalking across a state line is usually done on public roads, or rivers, etc. You may want to look into the economic term of public goods.

 
Old 11-13-2007, 12:06 PM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,795 posts, read 3,098,884 times
Reputation: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Would you cite this, please?
Article 1, Section 10 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The states are specifically denied and disparaged the power to impair in the obligation of contracts between private individuals (that may result in employment. Also from the Ninth Amendment as a reserved power.)
 
Old 11-13-2007, 12:15 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,061,455 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
Article 1, Section 10 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The states are specifically denied and disparaged the power to impair in the obligation of contracts between private individuals (that may result in employment. also from the Ninth Amendment as a reserved power).
This is irrelevant to what you are claiming.

Tell me, how are states "impairing the obligation" of a contract by enacting employer sanction laws?

That may result? What are you saying?

Are you aware that contracts entered into illegally are null and void? An employee must be able to legally accept employment before entering into a work contract. Since illegals cannot legally work in the US, they cannot legally enter into such a contract. States can and do set contractual guidelines.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Helena, Montana
2,010 posts, read 2,042,585 times
Reputation: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
Jaywalking across a state line is usually done on public roads, or rivers, etc. You may want to look into the economic term of public goods.
This went waayyyyyyy over your head Daniel. By the way, I noticed you never responded to my analogy of illegals moving into your home.......
 
Old 11-13-2007, 02:12 PM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,795 posts, read 3,098,884 times
Reputation: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
This is irrelevant to what you are claiming.

Tell me, how are states "impairing the obligation" of a contract by enacting employer sanction laws?

That may result? What are you saying?

Are you aware that contracts entered into illegally are null and void? An employee must be able to legally accept employment before entering into a work contract. Since illegals cannot legally work in the US, they cannot legally enter into such a contract. States can and do set contractual guidelines.
This has everything to do with the individual freedoms we guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.

State sanctioning of employers for creating social contracts that may result in employment is an impairment on any contract and obligation formed by the private employer and individual.

States have no enumerated authority over US Customs since 1808; thus, no obligation to enforce federal customs laws. In our form of federal government, the states are separate States joined in a Union of states, and each State government is a distinct entity. In the case of states, since they have no power to enforce US Customs laws, it is not considered a state crime to cross US borders without inspection. Consider the analogy to jaywalking. It is not a crime in California, to jaywalk in Nevada, it may be a Nevada crime to jaywalk in Nevada; but, Nevada would have no basis to criminalize jaywalking in California.

It also functions as a separation of powers our Founding Father's mentioned when crafting a simple document at a convention.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 03:35 PM
 
17,279 posts, read 24,965,630 times
Reputation: 8519
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
This has everything to do with the individual freedoms we guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.

State sanctioning of employers for creating social contracts that may result in employment is an impairment on any contract and obligation formed by the private employer and individual.

You're making this way more difficult than it has to be, and I think you are interpreting the "Contracts Clause" wrongly.

For starters, the Contracts clause only applies to laws which effect pre-existing contracts. Secondly, for a law to "impair" obligations under the Contract clause, its purpose must be to extinguish obligations under a contract. Back in the day, states tried to pass laws sympathetic to colonial debtors that would invalidate contracts they had entered into.

For "Contracts clause" to be a bar, you'd have to have a situation more along the lines of the state government coming in and saying that anyone who entered into a contract for employment with illegals no longer has to pay those illegals the agreed upon wage.


You may have an issue of federalism, but the Contracts clause is most likely a non-issue. States can and do define who can and cannot enter into certain contracts: age and sex required for marriage, for example, or age of majority for entering into certain types of contracts.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 03:38 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,415,357 times
Reputation: 47455
yeah our government refuses to enforce immigration.
so some folks felt that they should do something
not everybody that crosses over is a member of the brady bunch.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 05:24 PM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,795 posts, read 3,098,884 times
Reputation: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
You're making this way more difficult than it has to be, and I think you are interpreting the "Contracts Clause" wrongly.

For starters, the Contracts clause only applies to laws which effect pre-existing contracts. Secondly, for a law to "impair" obligations under the Contract clause, its purpose must be to extinguish obligations under a contract. Back in the day, states tried to pass laws sympathetic to colonial debtors that would invalidate contracts they had entered into.

For "Contracts clause" to be a bar, you'd have to have a situation more along the lines of the state government coming in and saying that anyone who entered into a contract for employment with illegals no longer has to pay those illegals the agreed upon wage.


You may have an issue of federalism, but the Contracts clause is most likely a non-issue. States can and do define who can and cannot enter into certain contracts: age and sex required for marriage, for example, or age of majority for entering into certain types of contracts.
I think it is as simple as the Constitution is clear on the subject.

An impairment of a contract, and any obligation incurred as a result of that contract, by a state could be considered the equivalent to a breach of contract in some instances; especially, when the state is denied and disparaged that power by the US Constitution.

What you suggest could be considered an impairment (or breach) of an obligation that existed between private individuals (for employment purposes).

There is no constitutional basis for any state to impair in the obligation of contracts between private individuals exercising their Ninth Amendment power to create social contracts, that may result employment.

Neither the states nor the people are enumerated any power to enforce US Customs laws. States are specifically denied and disparaged the power to impair in the obligation of contracts.
 
Old 11-13-2007, 06:31 PM
 
17,279 posts, read 24,965,630 times
Reputation: 8519
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
I think it is as simple as the Constitution is clear on the subject.
If you have ever taken an in-depth constitutional law class, you would know by now that NOTHING about the Constitution is "clear"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
An impairment of a contract, and any obligation incurred as a result of that contract, by a state could be considered the equivalent to a breach of contract in some instances; especially, when the state is denied and disparaged that power by the US Constitution.
Actually, where government regulation or otherwise impairs obligations under the contract, the obligations due under that contract are typically forgiven under the doctrine of impossibility or impracticability.


Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
What you suggest could be considered an impairment (or breach) of an obligation that existed between private individuals (for employment purposes).
Surely you know that not all contracts are enforceable? Contracts that involve illegal means are unenforceable on their face. You can't contract to sell drugs and expect that contract to hold up in Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
There is no constitutional basis for any state to impair in the obligation of contracts between private individuals exercising their Ninth Amendment power to create social contracts, that may result employment.
What, pray tell, is a "social contract"? It's either a contract, or it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
Neither the states nor the people are enumerated any power to enforce US Customs laws. States are specifically denied and disparaged the power to impair in the obligation of contracts.
Law Enforcement
Delegation of Immigration Authority
Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

The cross-designation between ICE and state and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE allows these local and state officers: necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and increased resources and support in more remote geographical locations.


Partners (http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm - broken link)
 
Old 11-14-2007, 01:02 PM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,795 posts, read 3,098,884 times
Reputation: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
If you have ever taken an in-depth constitutional law class, you would know by now that NOTHING about the Constitution is "clear"!

Actually, where government regulation or otherwise impairs obligations under the contract, the obligations due under that contract are typically forgiven under the doctrine of impossibility or impracticability.

Surely you know that not all contracts are enforceable? Contracts that involve illegal means are unenforceable on their face. You can't contract to sell drugs and expect that contract to hold up in Court.

What, pray tell, is a "social contract"? It's either a contract, or it's not.

Law Enforcement
Delegation of Immigration Authority
Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

The cross-designation between ICE and state and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE allows these local and state officers: necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and increased resources and support in more remote geographical locations.


Partners (http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm - broken link)
I think the Constitution is an amazing document for its simply and clear writing style. What is not always clear, is the amount of tyranny a people are willing engage in when in the majority.

The states are specifically denied and disparaged in the power to impair in the obligation of contracts. Why do some people complain about illegals and illegality, when they are just as willing to be illegals, and engage in illegalities if they can blame less fortunate illegals?

I know that employment contracts can be enforceable. I also know that the states do not have Constitutional authority over US Customs and are specifically denied the power impair in the obligation of contracts.

A social contract is a form of contract that can include the normal usage of civil and common law contracts.

Quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
- George Washington, 1st US President (1743-1826)
Why complain about illegals and illegalities, if you are willing to be a tyrant in order to achieve your limited objective?

Wouldn't market friendly public policy that reduces public and private sector costs, ameliorates the effects of frictional unemployment, and lowers our tax burden in the process be a much more worth while goal?
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.


Closed Thread

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