# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Let's do this again: how is immigration law Constitutional?

## fisharmor

So we've been over this ground before and some people are still of the opinion that cutting my grass for a low price is somehow an invasion of the United States.

Please provide me the constitutional basis for claiming that the federal government has the authority to
1) define citizenship
2) require residents to produce proof of citizenship for any reason
3) limit the amount of time visitors can spend on US soil
4) kick out people who have broken these statutes

Remember: in order to count as an invasion, you have to explain how they're invading.
It would help to visit dictionary.com and look up the definition of "invasion" too.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Remember: in order to count as an invasion, you have to explain how they're invading.
> It would help to visit dictionary.com and look up the definition of "invasion" too.


Definition:
An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

----------


## TheGrinch

US Constitution Article 1 Section 8



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> *
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> ...

----------


## angelatc

Oh stop already.  As you pointed out, we've been through this several times.  You are not going to change anybody's mind.  Nobody is going to change your mind. 

 The only thing you can achieve is to drive away GOP voters.

You're right, they're wrong.  Happy?  OK, great.  But they aren't.  And we already have your vote.

----------


## jmdrake

NMIIDK (not my issue I don't care).  But it will be fun watching others argue over it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh stop already.  As you pointed out, we've been through this several times.  You are not going to change anybody's mind.  Nobody is going to change your mind. 
> 
>  The only thing you can achieve is to drive away GOP voters.
> 
> You're right, they're wrong.  Happy?  OK, great.  But they aren't.  And we already have your vote.


Playing devils advocate, I was listening to Marsha Blackburn talk to a local conservative talk show host about the election results.  She pointed out that while Latinos shared a lot of republican values (anti abortion, pro traditional family etc) they largely voted for Obama.  He dismissed that by saying "Well they must not share our values."  Obvious guy says "Maybe they care more about immigration than they do abortion."  Take away point, stupid or dishonest republican pundits will never admit the real reasons they keep losing.  That said, I think we need to work on disengaging the welfare state before opening the floodgates.  But that's just me.

----------


## georgiaboy

Is the reason for bringing this up the media's constant hum about the election results indicating a huge Hispanic vote gap in favor of Democrats?

----------


## RonZeplin

> explain how they're invading.


  Invasion handbook published by the Mexican government.  It's official, we're being invaded by Mexico. 

In addition the Constitution authorizes congress to pass legislation to control immigration.  Ike Eisenhower was the last president to uphold his oath of office and enforce immigration law.  From JFK to present, they've all been scofflaws.

----------


## fisharmor

> Definition:
> An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.


Try again.

----------


## fisharmor

> US Constitution Article 1 Section 8
> *
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*


Ok, you know what?  I'll give you a partial on #1.  They can define a process for becoming a citizen.
Now work on the other points please.

----------


## fisharmor

> OK, great.  But they aren't.  And we already have your vote.


There are tons of votes you don't have, and WILL NOT HAVE.
I just found out about this this morning - apparently Univision and Telemundo have been hammering on this for months, showing the Spanish-speaking population here how Arpaio in Arizona is SWAT raiding brown people's houses on flimsy pretenses, making parents spend weeks in INS, lose their jobs, and be out of contact with their kids.
And then you've got the republican establishment hammering on how Arizona is the model for how to go forward.

Put two and two together here.

----------


## erowe1

> There are tons of votes you don't have, and WILL NOT HAVE.
> I just found out about this this morning - apparently Univision and Telemundo have been hammering on this for months, showing the Spanish-speaking population here how Arpaio in Arizona is SWAT raiding brown people's houses on flimsy pretenses, making parents spend weeks in INS, lose their jobs, and be out of contact with their kids.
> And then you've got the republican establishment hammering on how Arizona is the model for how to go forward.
> 
> Put two and two together here.


Great point.

----------


## jmdrake

> Try again.


From your link:

_the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful,_

So invasions are in the eye of the beholder.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Ok, you know what?  I'll give you a partial on #1.  They can define a process for becoming a citizen.
> Now work on the other points please.


All of the other points can be addressed by the answer to #1.
_
2) require residents to produce proof of citizenship for any reason
3) limit the amount of time visitors can spend on US soil
4) kick out people who have broken these statutes
_
Would not all these fall under the "uniform rules" for naturalization? 

Why even include naturalization rules, if the founding father's didn't care about it being done properly and legally? Thus also implies that that there is an illegal means of entering the country, which would be subject to these "uniform rules", or again, why even bother with naturalization rules? They wouldn't be needed if they didn't apply to those who've not been naturalized.

Put simply, if you want to enjoy the rights that people in this country enjoy, then you have to become a naturalized citizen. You may disagree, but the Constitution clearly felt it was important to not jsut have an open borderless society where any person can lay claim to citizenship without gonig through the process.

----------


## fisharmor

> All of the other points can be addressed by the answer to #1.
> _
> 2) require residents to produce proof of citizenship for any reason
> 3) limit the amount of time visitors can spend on US soil
> 4) kick out people who have broken these statutes
> _
> Would not all these fall under the "uniform rules" for naturalization? 
> 
> Why even include naturalization rules, if the founding father's didn't care about it being done properly and legally? Thus also implies that that there is an illegal means of entering the country, which would be subject to these "uniform rules", or again, why even bother with naturalization rules? They wouldn't be needed if they didn't apply to those who've not been naturalized.
> ...


So no, this movement doesn't automatically have my vote, and here's why.

First, you have no business complaining about "necessary and proper" nor "regulate commerce among the states".  If you're willing to stretch the meaning of words to mean something they don't obviously say, then you're just as guilty as Nanci Pelosi at ignoring the spirit of the constitution.

Second, you obviously subscribe to the idea that rights are granted by the state.  
This idea is nonsense on stilts before it even gets out of the gate.  If a right is contingent on whether or not the state thinks I should have it, it is, plainly and simply, not a right.

So yeah, if you believe in a living document, and you believe that the state-god is the source of privileges we pretend are rights, then immigration law makes perfect sense.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> There are tons of votes you don't have, and WILL NOT HAVE.
> I just found out about this this morning - apparently Univision and Telemundo have been hammering on this for months, showing the Spanish-speaking population here how Arpaio in Arizona is SWAT raiding brown people's houses on flimsy pretenses, making parents spend weeks in INS, lose their jobs, and be out of contact with their kids.
> And then you've got the republican establishment hammering on how Arizona is the model for how to go forward.
> 
> Put two and two together here.


Yep, the Democrats have hammered far and wide that the GOP is the Party of white (wannabe) slaveholders, covering up the fact that the Democrats have the exact same agenda (plus they get more votes out of it).

But hey, slavery is illegal, so the next best thing is to allow people to freely come into the country and work, but never make them citizens. Keep them always afraid of arrest and deportation. Dangle that Visa and Green Card in front of their faces while they work, because they just* love* to work long, hard hours. Pliable, fearful, cheap labor. The Democrat and GOP establishment both love that plan. That's why nothing will change.

----------


## fisharmor

> Oh stop already.  As you pointed out, we've been through this several times.


And in case you haven't picked up on it, I'm doing this for new members or those who may have missed it the last couple times.
You're not only wrong, you're not only not defending your position, but you're a direct reason for the election loss.
Not that it breaks me up... I just think if we're going to put all our eggs in this Republican basket, we ought to know why it ain't working.

----------


## TheGrinch

> So no, this movement doesn't automatically have my vote, and here's why.
> 
> First, you have no business complaining about "necessary and proper" nor "regulate commerce among the states".  If you're willing to stretch the meaning of words to mean something they don't obviously say, then you're just as guilty as Nanci Pelosi at ignoring the spirit of the constitution.
> 
> Second, you obviously subscribe to the idea that rights are granted by the state.  
> This idea is nonsense on stilts before it even gets out of the gate.  If a right is contingent on whether or not the state thinks I should have it, it is, plainly and simply, not a right.
> 
> So yeah, if you believe in a living document, and you believe that the state-god is the source of privileges we pretend are rights, then immigration law makes perfect sense.


You're putting words in mouth, so I won't even bother to address where I think rights come from (hint, I do believe in natural rights, but also property rights and voluntary association of groups of people).

I guess you missed this edit, that sums up your question, "You may disagree, but the Constitution clearly felt it was important to not just have an open borderless society where any person can lay claim to citizenship without going through the process. "

So don't try to play gotcha and mischaracterize my views. You'll lose every time. You asked how it was constitutional to have immigration and citizenship laws. It's very clearly laid out in Article 1 Section 8. You're welcome.

----------


## TheGrinch

> And in case you haven't picked up on it, I'm doing this for new members or those who may have missed it the last couple times.
> You're not only wrong, you're not only not defending your position, but you're a direct reason for the election loss.
> Not that it breaks me up... I just think if we're going to put all our eggs in this Republican basket, we ought to know why it ain't working.


Dude, don't pull a hammy jumping to conclusions. You're putting an awful lot of words in people's mouths over what was a very simple question of constitutionality, not morality (which is more debateable).

----------


## fisharmor

> You're putting words in mouth...So  don't try to play gotcha and mischaracterize my views.






> hint, I do believe in natural rights





> Put simply, *if you want to enjoy the rights* that people in this country enjoy, *then you have to become a naturalized citizen*.


Emphasis mine, but did you or did you not write these words?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Emphasis mine, but did you or did you not write these words?


OK, so you do just want to play gotcha, since you left out the part where I said that I also believe in property rights and voluntary association.

And regardless, that wasn't even your original argument that you're currently losing, since it is constitutional to enforce naturalization "rules".

----------


## angelatc

> Playing devils advocate, I was listening to Marsha Blackburn talk to a local conservative talk show host about the election results.  She pointed out that while Latinos shared a lot of republican values (anti abortion, pro traditional family etc) they largely voted for Obama.  He dismissed that by saying "Well they must not share our values."  Obvious guy says "Maybe they care more about immigration than they do abortion."  Take away point, stupid or dishonest republican pundits will never admit the real reasons they keep losing.  That said, I think we need to work on disengaging the welfare state before opening the floodgates.  But that's just me.


The Democrats have it all - they give away free stuff *and* support a path to citizenship.  Even if you get the GOP to give up and offer a path to citizenship, we're still trumped by free stuff.

But I just saw that Obama is mucking around in Latin America.  Seems like a good Democrat war or two down there could get the Latinos to switch parties.  Worked for the Muslims.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And in case you haven't picked up on it, I'm doing this for new members or those who may have missed it the last couple times.
> You're not only wrong, you're not only not defending your position, but you're a direct reason for the election loss.
> Not that it breaks me up... I just think if we're going to put all our eggs in this Republican basket, we ought to know why it ain't working.


That's not why.  Get real.

----------


## angelatc

> And in case you haven't picked up on it, I'm doing this for new members or those who may have missed it the last couple times.
> You're not only wrong, you're not only not defending your position, but you're a direct reason for the election loss.
> Not that it breaks me up... I just think if we're going to put all our eggs in this Republican basket, we ought to know why it ain't working.


I said you were right. I don't know what else you want me to say.  

If you want me to say that if we just explain things to the anti-immigration people they'll see things our way, I won't, because I don't believe it.  You can't deny that the postings and debates haven't changed a single person's mind, even here.  And therefore it is pretty unlikely that the base is going to change theirs.  Even President Bush couldn't change their mind.

You're right - the GOP platform doesn't appeal to the lower income working class immigrants.  Imagine that.

----------


## staerker

"All natural born US citizens are created equal."

----------


## fisharmor

> OK, so you do just want to play gotcha, since you left out the part where I said that I also believe in property rights and voluntary association.
> 
> And regardless, that wasn't even your original argument that you're currently losing, since it is constitutional to enforce naturalization "rules".


There is no such thing as property right if the right to property doesn't exist unless the state grants it.

And it absolutely is related to my original argument.  "Illegal immigrants" have a right to life, liberty, property, a right to a jury trial, a right to bear arms, a right to free speech, a right to peaceably assemble, and the rest of it too.
If you say they don't, you can't also claim to believe in natural rights.

I'm far from losing the argument because I have a coherent understanding of the Constitution - and also the English language.
At no point does the US Constitution say "people who were born here or are naturalized citizens have a right to peaceably assemble".
It doesn't say "people who we define as citizens have a right to bear arms".

If you believe this to be the case, then you're not reading the same document.  And you're practicing the revisionism I accused you of.
It's not gotcha - it's you dealing a death blow to _your own_ argument.

Rights either extend to "illegal immigrants", or they aren't rights.

If on the other hand you believe that there are natural rights and they aren't contingent on the state, then either

a) we as human beings have a 9th amendment right to travel and to cross borders, or
b) we don't have a right to do this, because this is controlled by the state and therefore a privilege.

----------


## fisharmor

> I said you were right. I don't know what else you want me to say.


... um, I apologize.  I thought the "but they aren't" meant you were being snarky.
Really, I apologize.

----------


## erowe1

> From your link:
> 
> _the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful,_
> 
> So invasions are in the eye of the beholder.


That's one of the problems with the Constitution. There's a lot in it that's like that.

----------


## erowe1

> All of the other points can be addressed by the answer to #1.
> _
> 2) require residents to produce proof of citizenship for any reason
> 3) limit the amount of time visitors can spend on US soil
> 4) kick out people who have broken these statutes
> _
> Would not all these fall under the "uniform rules" for naturalization?


I don't think #3 has anything to do with naturalization. But #2 is an even bigger problem. If the Constitution empowers the federal government to kick us all out of the country if we can't give it the papers it decides count as proof of citizenship, then the whole document is just a trojan horse for tyranny.

----------


## TheGrinch

Seems you guys want to have an argument about what you want the constitution to say, not what it does.

So for over 100 years these rights didn't even apply to women or slaves, but I'm revisionist for assuming they didn't apply to non-naturalized citizens? And regardless, this isn't an argument of whether the bill of rights applies to them, it's a question of if there are constitutional rules for citizenship. There are.

You know there's a reason why in the 10th amendment they use "the States, or the people" as interchangeable terms.

I mean, do you think they just had naturalization rules just for fun? Clearly these rules are in place to restrict who can become a citizen, and how to handle those who've not gone the proper route to become a citizen. You don't like it, take it up with the founding fathers, not me.

----------


## erowe1

> Seems you guys want to have an argument about what you want the constitution to say, not what it does.
> 
> So for over 100 years these rights didn't even apply to women or slaves, but I'm revisionist for assuming they didn't apply to non-naturalized citizens? And regardless, this isn't an argument of whether the bill of rights applies to them, it's a question of if there are constitutional rules for citizenship. There are.
> 
> You know there's a reason why in the 10th amendment they use "the States, or the people" as interchangeable terms.
> 
> I mean, do you think they just had naturalization rules just for fun? Clearly these rules are in place to restrict who can become a citizen, and how to handle those who've not gone the proper route to become a citizen. You don't like it, take it up with the founding fathers, not me.


I don't understand what you mean by "those who have not gone the proper route to become a citizen." If they're not citizens, they're not citizens. That's all there is to it. It's not like you have to be a citizen to have any right to exist in the borders of the country.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I don't understand what you mean by "those who have not gone the proper route to become a citizen." If they're not citizens, they're not citizens. That's all there is to it. It's not like you have to be a citizen to have any right to exist in the borders of the country.


Then why do you think they relegated Congress the power to determine naturalization rules? Just for $#@!s and giggles?

----------


## erowe1

> Then why do you think they relegated Congress the power to determine naturalization rules? Just for $#@!s and giggles?


I'm not following you.

How do you get from naturalization to being in the country?

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm not following you.
> 
> How do you get from naturalization to being in the country?


Article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to form "unified rules for naturalization".  Nationalization is defined as "the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.". Clear enough?

Thus, why bother with naturalization rules if anyone can enter the country and be treated as if they were a citizen? Not only does it make no sense that they'd have rules for something that you claim isn't valid, it would make absolutely no sense for anyone to even bother with naturalization, if it didn't matter, and they could live here as a defacto citizen without having to go through any process?

----------


## erowe1

> Article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to form "unified rules for naturalization".  Nationalization is defined as "the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.". Clear enough?
> 
> Thus, why bother with naturalization rules if anyone can enter the country and be treated as if they were a citizen? Not only does it make no sense that they'd have rules for something that you claim isn't valid, it would make absolutely no sense for anyone to even bother with naturalization, if it didn't matter, and they could live here as a defacto citizen without having to go through any process?


I never said anything about people being treated as citizens. There are tons of people in the country who aren't treated as citizens. That doesn't mean we kick them out. You seem to be saying it does.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I never said anything about people being treated as citizens. There are tons of people in the country who aren't treated as citizens. That doesn't mean we kick them out. You seem to be saying it does.


That's up to congress, as per the constitution. So actually, don't bother taking it up with the founding fathers, take it up with congress.

----------


## erowe1

> That's up to congress, as per the constitution. So actually, don't bother taking it up with the founding fathers, take it up with congress.


Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to kick noncitizens out of the country?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to kick noncitizens out of the country?


Still Article 1 Section 8, and according to usconstitution.net, was upheld by the Supreme Court:



> The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, *includes the power to regulate immigration* (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). *It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.*
> 
> There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, *it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power*.


Almost identical to what I've been saying all thread. There would be no need for naturalization "rules" if they didn't pertain to non-naturalized citizens.

----------


## erowe1

> Still Article 1 Section 8, and according to usconstitution.net, was upheld by the Supreme Court:
> 
> 
> Almost identical to what I've been saying all thread. There would be no need for naturalization "rules" if they didn't pertain to non-naturalized citizens.


So you agree with the Supreme Court?

I don't know why it wouldn't make sense. Becoming a citizen and merely being in the country are two totally different things.

Congress makes a uniform code of naturalization, i.e. laws defining how people become citizens. People come into the country with no intention of becoming citizens. Thus that code has nothing to do with them. Where does the part about kicking out those people that the uniform code of naturalization doesn't apply to come in?

----------


## erowe1

By the way, isn't that pretty much Ron Paul's position?

He doesn't want illegal immigrants to be made into citizens. But he also doesn't want them to be deported.

----------


## TheGrinch

> So you agree with the Supreme Court?


Yes in this case logos trumps preconceptions about ethos.

At the risk of repeating myself, this sums it up very well: "It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration."




> I don't know why it wouldn't make sense. Becoming a citizen and merely being in the country are two totally different things.


"Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life".... 

In other words, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country (the issue of travel and passports is separate from this conversation). People get deported for attempting to work and live in a country the same as a citizen, without going through the naturalization process. 

Not sure how this is tough to understand why this falls under "unified naturalization rules".




> Congress makes a uniform code of naturalization, i.e. laws defining how people become citizens. People come into the country with no intention of becoming citizens. Thus that code has nothing to do with them. Where does the part about kicking out those people that the uniform code of naturalization doesn't apply to come in?


Again, citizenship is associated with working and living in a country.  This does not preclude Congress from allowing the issuing work visas for non-citizens like they do now, but neither does it preculde them from excluding non-citizens who don't naturalize from living and working in the country like a naturalized citizen.

----------


## TheGrinch

> By the way, isn't that pretty much Ron Paul's position?
> 
> He doesn't want illegal immigrants to be made into citizens. But he also doesn't want them to be deported.


You guys have a very strange view of what citizenship is. It's as if the word is meaningless to you, since I don't know why anyone wuold go through all the trouble and big expense to become a citizen, if all was was an official, but meaningless title.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes in this case logos trumps preconceptions about ethos.
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, this sums it up very well: "It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration."
> 
> 
> "Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life".... 
> 
> In other words, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country (the issue of travel and passports is separate from this conversation). People get deported for attempting to work and live in a country the same as a citizen, without going through the naturalization process. 
> 
> ...


It is not hard to understand. You are being very succinct and concise in this thread.

----------


## erowe1

> At the risk of repeating myself, this sums it up very well: "It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration."


But it doesn't sum it up because being in a country and being a citizen are two totally different things.




> "Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life"....


Exactly. But what about all the people who live in a country and don't have a right to participate in political life? Just because they can't vote doesn't mean they can't live there. Naturalization has nothing to do with them.




> In other words, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country (the issue of travel and passports is separate from this conversation). People get deported for attempting to work and live in a country the same as a citizen, without going through the naturalization process.


No they don't. They can get deported for being illegal immigrants, whether they make any attempt to be the same as citizens (i.e. participate in politics, as you said) or not. You seem to be saying this is authorized by the Constitution somewhere. I'm wondering where the Constitution mentions this.

If logos trumps preconceived ethos, then go ahead, offer an actual argument based on something the Constitution actually says. If it doesn't make sense to you that simply being in a country is not the same as being a citizen, then that's due to your own lack of imagination. But you're putting that into the Constitution, not getting it out of it.

----------


## jmdrake

> The Democrats have it all - they give away free stuff *and* support a path to citizenship.  Even if you get the GOP to give up and offer a path to citizenship, we're still trumped by free stuff.
> 
> But I just saw that Obama is mucking around in Latin America.  Seems like a good Democrat war or two down there could get the Latinos to switch parties.  Worked for the Muslims.


You're assuming that Latinos care more about "free stuff" than do whites as well as assuming that they care more about "free stuff" than they care about abortion and gay marriage.  The "free stuff" has been there all along.  What's changed has been the recent emphasis by democrats on paths to citizenship and republicans on cracking down on illegal immigration.  The Cuban American vote, which typically goes *very* republican, was largely split this year.  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Ameri...-American-vote  It wasn't because of "free stuff".

----------


## erowe1

> Again, citizenship is associated with working and living in a country.  This does not preclude Congress from allowing the issuing work visas for non-citizens like they do now, but neither does it preculde them from excluding non-citizens who don't naturalize from living and working in the country like a naturalized citizen.


I just noticed this part. Since when does citizenship have anything to do with living and working in a country?

You seriously think that when the framers of the Constitution said "uniform code of naturalization" that they meant Congress could dictate who's allowed to have a job anywhere in the country?

----------


## TheGrinch

> But it doesn't sum it up because being in a country and being a citizen are two totally different things.


And as I said before, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country. So no, being in a country isn't the issue, it's living and working in the country.

Again, jsut because our normalization laws (as relegated by Article 1 section 8) allow a certain number of visas for people to live and work here for an extended amount of time, doesn't mean that has to be the case. This is why it's left up to Congress to determine the process of who can work or live here.




> Exactly. But what about all the people who live in a country and don't have a right to participate in political life? Just because they can't vote doesn't mean they can't live there. Naturalization has nothing to do with them.


The irght to participate in political life is not synonymous with citizenship, it's jsut a common characteristic of it... Perhaps you could make a similar argument that it doesn't include living and working in a country, but then if you take out those basic traits, you're left without any definition whatsoever of a citizen or normalization. They would be utterly pointless terms if they do not relate to living and worknig in a country.

What is your definition of citizen then, because it seems a very hollow distinction in your eyes.




> No they don't. They can get deported for being illegal immigrants, whether they make any attempt to be the same as citizens (i.e. participate in politics, as you said) or not. You seem to be saying this is authorized by the Constitution somewhere. I'm wondering where the Constitution mentions this.


Again policitcal participatino is a common trait of citizenship, it is not synonymous with it, so this is a very flawed argument you're making. 

As for where it's mentioned in the Constitution, I've backed up under the "unifrom normalization rules". Where is it backed up in the Constitution that anyone can just stay, live, work and enjoy the same rights as American citizens indefinitely? 

I could even use the argument of national defense as for why not everyone can just be allowed to come into our country, ignore normalization and go on about enjoying the privileges of it's citizens, but the normalization rules are sufficient, IMO.




> If logos trumps preconceived ethos, then go ahead, offer an actual argument based on something the Constitution actually says. If it doesn't make sense to you that simply being in a country is not the same as being a citizen, then that's due to your own lack of imagination. But you're putting that into the Constitution, not getting it out of it.


I would argue that you are the one that lacks imagination, when you cannot seem to grasp the point that, if being in a country is different than being a citizen, why the hell would you waste Congress' time determining citizenship laws?

It's a big problem in this country that people have to have everything explicitly spelled out in writing to use basic reasoning... But if having it explicitly spelled out helps, please find me your definition of citizen so we can pick that apart.

----------


## erowe1

> And as I said before, you don't get deported for vacationing in a country. So no, being in a country isn't the issue, it's living and working in the country.


Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizenship has anything to do with living and working in the country. That seems to be your own made-up definition of the word.

Work visas didn't even exist until the 20th century.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I just noticed this part. Since when does citizenship have anything to do with living and working in a country?
> 
> You seriously think that when the framers of the Constitution said "uniform code of naturalization" that they meant Congress could dictate who's allowed to have a job anywhere in the country?


Again, find me a definition of citizen or citizenship or naturalization that doesn't imply the features of having the right to live and work there. I'll wait.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizenship has anything to do with living and working in the country. That seems to be your own made-up definition of the word.
> 
> You don't really think the framers thought this, do you? Work visas didn't even exist until the 20th century.


So what your saying is that there was no uniform naturalization law regarding work visas until the 20th century, and it was different before that. 

OK, that changes absolutely nothing that I've said.

----------


## erowe1

> So what your saying is that there was no uniform naturalization law regarding work visas until the 20th century, and it was different before that. 
> 
> OK, that changes absolutely nothing that I've said.


Work visas have nothing to do with uniform naturalization. Naturalization is about becoming a citizen. It isn't about being allowed to work here.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Work visas have nothing to do with uniform naturalization. Naturalization is about becoming a citizen. It isn't about being allowed to work here.


Yes, they absolutely have to do with naturalization rules, as it was a rule in place to allow people to come in to work and live without being naturalized.

Kind of like the saying, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. An allowance for visas in the naturalization rules is still a naturalization rule (i.e. law)

----------


## erowe1

> Again, find me a definition of citizen or citizenship or naturalization that doesn't imply the features of having the right to live and work there. I'll wait.


From the Oxford English Dictionary:



> citizen, n.
> View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all
> Pronunciation:  /ˈsɪtɪzən/
> Forms:  ME citisein, citisain, citiseyn(e, citesayne, citeceyn, citezeyn, citizein, ME ... (Show More)
> Etymology:  Middle English citesein, etc., < Anglo-Norman citeseyn, -zein, sithezein... (Show More)
>  1.
> Thesaurus »
> Categories »
> 
> ...


and later in the same entry:



> 2.
> Thesaurus »
> Categories »
> 
>  a. A member of a state, an enfranchised inhabitant of a country, as opposed to an alien; in U.S., a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of voting for public offices, and is entitled to full protection in the exercise of private rights.
> 
> 138.   Wyclif Sel. Wks. II. 69   [He] clevede to oon of þe citizeins of þat countre.
> a1538   T. Starkey Dial. Pole & Lupset (1989) 31   The nombur of cytyzyns in every commynalty cyty or $#@!rey.
> a1640   P. Massinger Guardian v. iv. 265 in 3 New Playes (1655) ,   To save one Citizen is a greater prize, Then to have kill'd in War ten Enemies.
> ...


Nowhere in the entire definition of "citizen" in the Oxford English Dictionary does it make any mention of having a right to work somewhere.

Also, again, look how the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution. The idea of it meaning a person who has the right to have a job anywhere in the country is totally absent.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, they absolutely have to do with naturalization rules, as it was a rule in place to allow people to come in to work and live without being naturalized.
> 
> Kind of like the saying, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. An allowance for visas in the naturalization rules is still a naturalization rule (i.e. law)


But that's not what naturalization rules are. Naturalization has nothing to do with being allowed to come in and work somewhere. It's about being a citizen.

----------


## TheGrinch

> But that's not what naturalization rules are. Naturalization has nothing to do with being allowed to come in and work somewhere. It's about being a citizen.


As I asked before, what is a citizen then? Why would I want to be a citizen, and why would they bother Congress with this, if it is in no way different than any schmuck who enters the country and enjoys the same rights.

There is literally not a definition relevant to this conversation that doesn't imply being a resident, along with rights residents are afforded.

----------


## erowe1

> As I asked before, what is a citizen then? Why would I want to be a citizen, and why would they bother Congress with this, if it is in no way different than any schmuck who enters the country and enjoys the same rights.


Have you even bothered to look up the word yourself?

I just gave you the OED's definition. I checked dictionary.com and it wasn't very different.

And where did I ever say anything about noncitizens enjoying the same rights as citizens? Obviously they don't have the same rights. But that doesn't mean you can kick them out of the country. It just means they don't have the rights of citizens.

Why would you want to be a citizen? According to the Constitution, being a citizen is a prerequisite for several things. Merely being in the country and having a job here are not among those things.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Have you even bothered to look up the word yourself?
> 
> I just gave you the OED's definition. I checked dictionary.com and it wasn't very different.
> 
> And where did I ever say anything about noncitizens enjoying the same rights as citizens? Obviously they don't have the same rights. But that doesn't mean you can kick them out of the country. It just means they don't have the rights of citizens.
> 
> Why would you want to be a citizen? According to the Constitution, being a citizen is a prerequisite for several things. Merely being in the country and having a job here are not among those things.


Where does the constitution say that they can't kick them out of the country?

I must have missed your defintion of citizen. Mine all have the feature of being a resident, which yes implies the right to live and work there.

----------


## erowe1

> Where does the constitution say that they can't kick them out of the country?
> 
> I must have missed your defintion of citizen. Mine all have the feature of being a resident.


My definition was post 53.

Of course the definition has the feature of being a resident. But it's not just being a resident. You can be a resident and not a citizen. When the Constitution uses the word "citizen" it clearly doesn't just mean "resident." I'm still waiting for your definition where having a right to live and work somewhere is part of the definition of "citizen". And more importantly, I'd love to see your evidence that that's the definition it has in the Constitution, because it's pretty clear to me that it isn't. I'm guessing that any definition that has those components would be 20th century or later, if you can find one at all.

Where does the Constitution say they can't kick them out? The 10th Amendment. If it's not a power enumerated for the Congress, then they don't have it.

----------


## TheGrinch

> You can be a resident and not a citizen.


Yes you can, due to natrualization laws.

I'll stop now though, as we're going in circles to where it's becoming unreadable. 

I'll be back if/when I can find further clarification, but obviuosly we're not agreeing on this point.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes you can, due to natrualization laws.


It's not a matter of agreeing on a point like it's your opinion versus mine. You're simply making things up.

The ball's in your court. Find a definition of "citizen" that includes the right to live and work somewhere, and where that meaning is shown to have been in use in the 18th century.

Because if you can't do that, then you have no basis for saying that Congress's authority to make a uniform code of naturalization has anything to do with saying who can live and work in the country.

You're the one who threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to find a definition of citizen that didn't mean that. I find it ironic that you can't find one that does. You pulled your definition out of thin air and got caught.

The whole idea that naturalization was a prerequisite for living and working in the country was totally absent from the minds of the people who ratified the Constitution. Those representatives of the states had no notion that they were empowering the federal government to dictate to their citizens that they couldn't employ people to work for them without its permission. The idea that it had that power was never imagined until much later.

----------


## TheGrinch

LOL, I provide sources, legislation and supreme court rulings backing up my interpretation of what falls under naturalization laws, and I'm the one making stuff up?

I'm done if you're jsut going to start acting liek a fool trying to call me out. Either find some hard justifcation that you have the right to live and work in this country without going through naturalization laws (and ya know, green cards are actually part of the naturalization process, as it is a requirement to first live here under one in many cases).

----------


## erowe1

> Either find some hard justifcation that you have the right to live and work in this country without going through naturalization laws (and ya know, green cards are actually part of the naturalization process, as it is a requirement to first live here under one in many cases).


Since the word "naturalization" in the Constitution has nothing to do with having a right to live and work here, what more evidence do I need? The Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to say who can live and work here, it gives them authority to say how people who live and work here can go on to get the rights of citizenship (which are not the same thing as living and working here).

I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm not even going to bother reading what you posted from them. They don't have the right to put something in the Constitution that isn't there.

You have presented absolutely zero actual evidence that the term "naturalization" in the Constitution could have been understood by those who ratified it could have been construed to mean that those who are not naturalized have no right to live and work in the country. It's inconceivable that they could have taken it that way, regardless of what any judge who treats the Constitution like toilet paper has to say about it. Green cards have nothing to do with anything anywhere in the Constitution.

The rights of citizenship aren't natural rights that all human beings have, such as the right to offer one's labor to another person in exchange for that person's money. They're special rights, like the right to vote or run for office. Look through all the occurrences of the word "citizen" in the Constitution and tell me you can't see this is the case.

As for calling you out, that's exactly what happened. You brought of the definition of "citizen" as though you already knew it, when it turned out you hadn't bothered looking it up and had no idea that when you did, it wouldn't say what you were claiming it said. You got caught in your own trap. If you were going to get into an argument in this thread, you should have figured out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about before you did.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Since the word "naturalization" in the Constitution has nothing to do with having a right to live and work here, what more evidence do I need? The Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to say who can live and work here, it gives them authority to say how people who live and work here can go on to get the rights of citizenship (which are not the same thing as living and working here).
> 
> I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm not even going to bother reading what you posted from them. They don't have the right to put something in the Constitution that isn't there.
> 
> You have presented absolutely zero actual evidence that the term "naturalization" in the Constitution could have been understood by those who ratified it could have been construed to mean that those who are not naturalized have no right to live and work in the country. It's inconceivable that they could have taken it that way, regardless of what any judge who treats the Constitution like toilet paper has to say about it.
> 
> The rights of citizenship aren't natural rights that all human beings have, such as the right to offer one's labor to another person in exchange for that person's money. They're special rights, like the right to vote or run for office. Look through all the occurrences of the word "citizen" in the Constitution and tell me you can't see this is the case.
> 
> As for calling you out, that's exactly what happened. You brought of the definition of "citizen" as though you already knew it, when it turned out you hadn't bothered looking it up and had no idea that when you did, it wouldn't say what you were claiming it said. You got caught in your own trap. If you were going to get into an argument in this thread, you should have figured out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about before you did.


Dude, just stop, that whole tangent didn't go anywhere. I said that every definition of citizen or citizenship implies residency (and thus subsequently to work), you said that it did not mean that you had to be a citizen to live or work, and then we argued from there. 

We can agree to disagree on interpretations of the constitution as well as what normalization does and doesn't cover, such as happens frequently, but the only one being disengenous in this debate is you trying to put words into my mouth in a lame gotcha attempt to discredit all of the sound points I've made, many of which you've ignored answering yourself as you deflect the burden of proof on me for points you're disputing without any documentation whatsoever.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Invasion handbook published by the Mexican government.  *It's official, we're being invaded by Mexico.* 
> 
> In addition the Constitution authorizes congress to pass legislation to control immigration.  Ike Eisenhower was the last president to uphold his oath of office and enforce immigration law.  From JFK to present, they've all been scofflaws.


Are we being invaded?  
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...143325289.html




> *Net migration from Mexico dips to zero*
> 
> By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – Tue, Apr 24, 2012.
> 
> Mexican migration into the United States *has come to a standstill and may soon reverse,* according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center. This marks a dramatic change in the wave of Mexican migration that brought 12 million people to America over four decades.
> 
> About 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States between 2005 and 2010, which is roughly the same number of Mexicans who left over the same period.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Are we being invaded?  
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...143325289.html


So the solution to immigration is a crappy economy? Hell, we'll probably do even better if we get the government to go to war against us.

----------


## erowe1

> I said that every definition of citizen or citizenship implies residency (and thus subsequently to work)


Do you have as little of a grasp of logic as you're letting on here?

The definition of citizenship, especially as used in the Constitution, involves more than just living here. The fact that it does involve living here is not sufficient to make the case that noncitizens don't have a right to live here.

We're not agreeing to disagree on interpretations of the Constitution. It's not up to differing interpretations. You're making up a definition that couldn't conceivably have been in the minds of the ratifiers of the Constitution and pretending they meant it.

----------


## erowe1

> So the solution to immigration is a crappy economy?


Solution to immigration? As if immigration is some kind of a problem?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Do you have as little of a grasp of logic as you're letting on here?
> 
> The definition of citizenship, especially as used in the Constitution, involves more than just living here. The fact that it does involve living here is not sufficient to make the case that noncitizens don't have a right to live here.
> 
> We're not agreeing to disagree on interpretations of the Constitution. It's not up to differing interpretations. You're making up a definition that couldn't conceivably have been in the minds of the ratifiers of the Constitution and pretending they meant it.


Or maybe you're making up a definition that makes citizenship and natrualization rather meaningless. I'd think they relegated the power to Congress for a reason. So what was that reason in your point of view?

You love to poo-poo on my view, but you've not done a good job of even explaining why they'd be given this power. Please elaborate.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Solution to immigration? As if immigration is some kind of a problem?


Oh my god, you're worse than arguing with a liberal. It's pretty clear now you just want to play gotcha socratic-method BS, but yes, there are plenty of problems associated with illegal immigration and unsecure borders. Probably why they put provisions in the constitution about naturalization (and the part I haven't even gotten into yet, the federal government's role in national security, which I'm sure has more explicit rights to protect the country from just being a haven for whatever criminal or even deadly contagious disease-ridden person wants to enter into)

----------


## erowe1

> Or maybe you're making up a definition that makes citizenship and natrualization rather meaningless. I'd think they relegated [sic] the power to Congress for a reason. So what was that reason in your point of view?
> 
> You love to poo-poo on my view, but you've not done a good job of even explaining why they'd be given this power. Please elaborate.


Delegated.

The reason was for citizenship. Period. Naturalization includes nothing more than that. For example, a person can't run for office if they're not a citizen. Congress has the authority for establishing the code of who goes from merely living here to furthermore having the privileges of citizenship. It doesn't have the authority to say who can merely live and work here even though not being a citizen. The fact that you can't understand this is not an excuse for pretending that a word used in the Constitution had to have a definition it could not have had.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The only thing the Constitution says about immigrants is that they cannot become President and that they may be naturalized (become citizens). Many of the Founding Fathers were immigrants themselves. It says nothing about who can and can't come here and what they can and can't do once they get here (besides becoming President).

Naturalization means that people can come to this country and earn the right to be called "Citizens".

Thomas Payne:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1898163.html



> "If there is a country in the world where concord... would be least expected, it is America," he wrote. "Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable." But he argued that if the government protects the equal rights of all, "there is nothing to engender riots and tumults," and "all the parts are brought into cordial unison."





> In Common Sense, Paine upheld "this new world" as "the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty." Jefferson argued for "a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them." Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is "always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult," so "the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> By the way, isn't that pretty much Ron Paul's position?
> 
> He doesn't want illegal immigrants to be made into citizens. But he also doesn't want them to be deported.


He doesn't support illegal immigration.  Sorry.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The only thing the Constitution says about immigrants is that they cannot become President and that they may be naturalized (become citizens). Many of the Founding Fathers were immigrants themselves. It says nothing about who can and can't come here and what they can and can't do once they get here (besides becoming President).
> 
> Naturalization means that people can come to this country and earn the right to be called "Citizens".
> 
> Thomas Payne:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1898163.html


There you go again, confusing legal immigration with illegal immigration.

----------


## erowe1

> He doesn't support illegal immigration.  Sorry.


Right. That's what I said. He doesn't want to give illegal immigrants citizenship.

But he also doesn't want to deport them.

He wants them to stay here, just not as citizens.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.  If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad.  But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.
> 
> In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?
> 
> What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society.  They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.
> 
> Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? Jefferson asked.  If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.





> Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength.  The safety of a republic, according to him, depended essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.  He then drew out the implications of this point: The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.  In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.


read the rest...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Right. That's what I said. He doesn't want to give illegal immigrants citizenship.
> 
> But he also doesn't want to deport them.
> 
> He wants them to stay here, just not as citizens.


He also wants to deter more from coming ILLEGALLY, wants to end birthright citizenship and most assuredly not give illegal aliens free anything.

----------


## erowe1

> He also wants to deter more from coming ILLEGALLY, wants to end birthright citizenship and most assuredly not give illegal aliens free anything.


Yep.

For him, it's not about simply having the right to live and work here. It's about getting special privileges beyond that. Kind of like what I've been saying in this thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yep.
> 
> For him, it's not about simply having the right to live and work here. It's about getting special privileges beyond that. Kind of like what I've been saying in this thread.


Actually, he believes in doing it legally.  Cleaning up the bogged down immigration process; using work visas, etc.  But, certainly not the continued illegal invasion of our country, no.  And he most certainly does not agree with the apparent intent of this thread, which seems to be that we should turn a blind eye to said invasion.  He knows this is extremely harmful to our economy with the welfare system currently in place.

I find it somewhat interesting that some seem to have forgotten that Dr. Paul on more than one occasion as talked about bringing our troops home and using them to defend the border.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Where is it backed up in the Constitution that anyone can just stay, live, work and enjoy the same rights as American citizens indefinitely?


 Since that was, in fact, the actual situation in his country up until 1875 (when some very minor immigration rules were passed), one should consider why that might be.  There no immigration laws whatsoever until 1875, and then no real restrictive rules, numerical limits, etc., until the 1920s.  Why?

Open -- completely, totally, wide-open free-for-all -- immigration was the policy of America for all of its history, up until the Progressive Era.  Now most of what happened in the Progressive Era was utterly unconstitutional -- would you agree?  Should we therefore consider the possibility that the idea they invented of restricting immigration was unconstitutional also?  I think it's worth considering.

Open immigration  -- completely, totally, wide-open free-for-all immigration --  is clearly and indisputably part of the American Tradition.  If we're wanting to go back to our roots, to the way things were when the freedom-loving founders were running things, if we think they had the right idea more often than not, then it behooves us to realize that absolutely open immigration -- free and 100% unregulated -- was the way they did it and the way they wanted it.  Why did they do it that way?  Why did they want it that way?  Is there any chance that they were right?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Definition:
> An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.


/thread

----------


## idiom



----------


## twomp

> 


A picture worth a thousand words!

----------


## erowe1

> I find it somewhat interesting that some seem to have forgotten that Dr. Paul on more than one occasion as talked about bringing our troops home and using them to defend the border.


The people who think that has something to do with immigration are xenophobes looking desperately for a way to count Ron Paul as one of their own.

----------


## RonZeplin

> are xenophobes


Race pimpin', you've lost the debate. Thanks for playing.

----------


## georgiaboy

Enforce existing laws, reduce incentives for illegal immigration, pursue a more welcoming approach for legal immigration.

----------


## erowe1

> Race pimpin', you've lost the debate. Thanks for playing.


What other explanation is there for thinking something as irrational as that defending our borders with the military involves curtailing peaceful immigration?

----------


## erowe1

> Enforce existing laws,


Really? Like laws that tell us we can only hire people to work for us who have the permission of the government?

Actually, if we got rid of those existing laws, there would not be any illegal immigration problem at all. Then the people who say that they don't oppose immigration, only illegal immigration, will have a chance to show they meant it by approving of that situation.

----------


## georgiaboy

> Really? Like laws that tell us we can only hire people to work for us who have the permission of the government?
> 
> Actually, if we got rid of those existing laws, there would not be any illegal immigration problem at all. Then the people who say that they don't oppose immigration, only illegal immigration, will have a chance to show they meant it by approving of that situation.


So you're completely opposed to any form of immigration control or enforcement?

I'd say as long as we have the welfare state and mandates that anyone here can participate, we need to control who legally gets access across the border.

Get rid of mandates/welfare, and we can be much more relaxed about entrance/participation requirements.

----------


## Pericles

> Playing devils advocate, I was listening to Marsha Blackburn talk to a local conservative talk show host about the election results.  She pointed out that while Latinos shared a lot of republican values (anti abortion, pro traditional family etc) they largely voted for Obama.  He dismissed that by saying "Well they must not share our values."  Obvious guy says "Maybe they care more about immigration than they do abortion."  Take away point, stupid or dishonest republican pundits will never admit the real reasons they keep losing.  That said, I think we need to work on disengaging the welfare state before opening the floodgates.  But that's just me.


Agree - without the handouts, the people who will come to the US will be those who want to lead lives based on liberty and the opportunity to earn wealth.

----------


## erowe1

> Get rid of mandates/welfare, and we can be much more relaxed about entrance/participation requirements.


Exactly. When you have a problem caused by big government, the solution should always be to undo whatever the government did to cause it, not to come up with some other big government solution that creates its own problems that will then demand more big government solutions ad infinitum.

And really, if the problem is giving out too many handouts to immigrants, then how could the solution be to prevent them from being able to get jobs?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Actually, he believes in doing it legally.  Cleaning up the bogged down immigration process; using work visas, etc.  But, certainly not the continued illegal invasion of our country, no.  And he most certainly does not agree with the apparent intent of this thread, which seems to be that we should turn a blind eye to said invasion.  He knows this is extremely harmful to our economy with the welfare system currently in place.
> 
> I find it somewhat interesting that some seem to have forgotten that Dr. Paul on more than one occasion as talked about bringing our troops home and using them to defend the border.


He said this cycle he doesn't want troops on the border; he'd want to use a portion of the resources saved overseas to open up the immigration process. He's also said this cycle (and in previous times, especially 1988) that free and open trade and travel across borders is the ideal, and that there is no reason not to move in that direction immediately.

Those who feel the Constitution gives the government the right to deport people or restrict them from living and working here are guilty of holding a positivist view of government, and contrary to the claims that it's the anarchists who are helping the one worlders, are forking tons of power and resources to the government - which, of course, is slamming the pedal to the floor in the race to global governance.

----------

