Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants?

[theczar1776]

nm

 

[Danke]

Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants? I personally can't see any use for keeping them here.

Well, how about the method they (the authorities) would need to inplement such a plan?


Would every American have to carry identification at all times to prove they are here "legally."

Can they pull me aside at any place and any time to check my credentials out?

Sounds like a police state...

 

[Truth Warrior]

The government claims that it is impossible to find them. If found, it's too expensive to catch and deport them. Preventing their illegal entry is not feasible due to the expense, and prevention resources availabe. Bottom line: They don't wanna.

Reality: Too many very important people are making/saving really big money from their being here. It also helps clear the way for the NAU.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Because we're not nazis?

 

[reaver]

Because there isn't a fence yet?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Where in the constitution is the authority to limit immigration for non-specific individual reasons (contagious disease, etc.)? Or don't we think we should follow the constitution anymore?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136673

 

[Truth Warrior]

Where in the constitution is the authority to limit immigration for non-specific individual reasons (contagious disease, etc.)? Or don't we think we should follow the constitution anymore?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136673

Article I

 

[Bradley in DC]

Article I

More specifically?

Obviously Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress its authority--but which clause, what words?

 

[Truth Warrior]

More specifically?

Read it.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Read it.

Yup, naturalization for citizenship but no authority for immigration. Great read.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Just to make it easier for you:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Article I Section 8 Clause 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

What the Founding Fathers' meant, for anyone interested in the original intent (and not the "living constitution" followers ):


An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization


First Congress, Session 2, Chapter 3
March 26, 1790

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

APPROVED, March 26, 1790.

 

[liberteebell]

As long as the welfare gravy train is alive and well, I have a big problem with illegal immigration. Welfare gone and a "level" playing field and I'm an open-borders kind of person.

And besides, if 12 million of us decided to not pay our taxes next year, I'm certain the feds would have no problem whatever finding and rounding every last one of us up.

 

[Bradley in DC]

So, aside from being unconstitutional, against our philosophy and bad for the country, how much higher do you want to raise my taxes for your idea and how much more of a police state would you institute to pull this off? Please elaborate on exactly how intrusive and costly it would be for what you think would be necessary?

More broadly, the people here who send money back home mitigate the problems there that reduce the disparities and local problems that create the conditions for those to come here. Your plan would marginally increase the demand to come here.

So, that round of unconstitutional government intervention would fail, which, I suppose, would be the justification for the next, greater, round of government interventions of higher taxes and more intrusive government creating even greater incentives for migrants to come here.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Bradley in DC]

As long as the welfare gravy train is alive and well, I have a big problem with illegal immigration. Welfare gone and a "level" playing field and I'm an open-borders kind of person.

Yup. The welfare state is the problem.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

The government claims that it is impossible to find them. If found, it's too expensive to catch and deport them. Preventing their illegal entry is not feasible due to the expense, and prevention resources availabe. Bottom line: They don't wanna.

Reality: Too many very important people are making/saving really big money from their being here. It also helps clear the way for the NAU.

The problem is... the State & Federal Governments mandatory to send a complete BILL for ALL expenses in the ILLEGAL sector. If they do not pay, do what the state and Federal governments do to AMERICAN CITIZENS everyday... put LIENS, GARNISHMENTS, &/or REPROCESS property, assets, wages, etc.

The US Federal just FROZE ALL ASSETS of the country, VENEZUELA, which is retaliation for ASSETS Venezuela SEIZED for American Petroleum Corporations Oil assets related to the ORINCO Heavy Oil region.

BILL ALL the ILLEGALS country of ORIGIN/CITIZENSHIP... WITH PENALTIES, FINES, INTEREST, FEES, SURCHARGES, etc... just like the US governments do to Americans


SIMPLE

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yup, naturalization for citizenship but no authority for immigration. Great read.

They read, find and fabricate their power and authority, from between the lines, dontcha know?

Amendment X ( X for unkown )

 

[familydog]

Where in the constitution is the authority to limit immigration for non-specific individual reasons (contagious disease, etc.)? Or don't we think we should follow the constitution anymore?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136673

Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that Congress has implied powers that carried over from the Articles of Confederation. Congress was the holder of national sovereignty in the Articles, and he believes that this sovereignty carried over into the Constitution since the framers never addressed the issue in the Constitution. If we look at Article I, more specifically the necessary and proper clause, he determined that Congress has implied powers as the national sovereign to regulate international commerce, immigration, U.S. citizens overseas, etc. Again, as the holder of national sovereignty, he believes Congress has more foreign affairs powers than specifically enumerated since there are many foreign affairs issues left unenumerated for both the executive and the legislative branch.

See Henkin's book Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

 

[Bradley in DC]

Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that Congress has implied powers that carried over from the Articles of Confederation. Congress was the holder of national sovereignty in the Articles, and he believes that this sovereignty carried over into the Constitution since the framers never addressed the issue in the Constitution. If we look at Article I, more specifically the necessary and proper clause, he determined that Congress has implied powers as the national sovereign to regulate international commerce, immigration, U.S. citizens overseas, etc. Again, as the holder of national sovereignty, he believes Congress has more foreign affairs powers than specifically enumerated since there are many foreign affairs issues left unenumerated for both the executive and the legislative branch.

See Henkin's book Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

Yeah, Dr. Paul's all over reading things into the constitution that aren't there.

 

[torchbearer]

The sugar cane farmers in louisiana wouldn't have any labor... even with the cheap labor they are coming up short.
The plant nurseries of Forest Hill would close...they would have to raise the prices of their plants to pay higher wages, sales are already slumping due to higher cost of living..
It's amazing how much of louisiana's farm economy is still built on quasi-slavery.

The local law enforcement knows all about the illegals, but do nothing about it.
When asked why... well, the illegals just come right back after we deport them.

While working at the battered women's shelter, we had criminal complaints against illegals.
They showed up in court, admitted they were illegal, and were allowed to leave because the owner of the "plantation" shows up and is good friends with the judge.

this is the state i live in.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that Congress has implied powers that carried over from the Articles of Confederation. Congress was the holder of national sovereignty in the Articles, and he believes that this sovereignty carried over into the Constitution since the framers never addressed the issue in the Constitution. If we look at Article I, more specifically the necessary and proper clause, he determined that Congress has implied powers as the national sovereign to regulate international commerce, immigration, U.S. citizens overseas, etc. Again, as the holder of national sovereignty, he believes Congress has more foreign affairs powers than specifically enumerated since there are many foreign affairs issues left unenumerated for both the executive and the legislative branch.

See Henkin's book Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

It looks to me that the Federalists merely overthrew ( replaced ) the Articles in an illegal coup.