Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[No Free Beer]

Looking back through the posts, I see NO ONE is able to show constitutional "authority" for the feds controlling immigration. Since it seems we are all in agreement that it's NOT IN THERE

Define "immigration" in the context of your statement, please.

I don't want to refute your claim without understanding your position/opinion first.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Define "immigration" in the context of your statement, please.

I don't want to refute your claim without understanding your position/opinion first.

I would define "immigration" as the movement of people from one geographical location to another...

 

[No Free Beer]

I would define "immigration" as the movement of people from one geographical location to another...

Well, based on that, I would say that the Feds DO have authority to prevent people from illegally entering our country.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Well, based on that, I would say that the Feds DO have authority to prevent people from illegally entering our country.

Please list the specific section of the Constitution that grants such "authority"...

 

[No Free Beer]

Please list the specific section of the Constitution that grants such "authority"...

ill be glad to.

when i get back from running.

 

[No Free Beer]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

http://usconstitution.com/constitution#articleiv

in·va·sion
[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
infringement by intrusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

Now, whether you agree with policy or not is another discussion My point is that the authority is there.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

http://usconstitution.com/constitution#articleiv

in·va·sion
[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
infringement by intrusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

Now, whether you agree with policy or not, my point is that the authority is there.

Very good, you got exactly what I was thinking of, except for your quoting of the Preamble was entirely irrelevant. The Preamble delegates no authority. None whatsoever. There are no powers vested in the U.S. Federal Government by virtue of the Preamble. All powers delegated are listed in Article 1, Section 8 (with modifications via amendment, notably the Income Tax and Prohibition).

But yes, you're right, that under such an expansive definition of immigration as ChristianAnarchist's, the federal government can regulate it, prevent it, "repel" it, etc.

I would define immigration much more traditionally: A normal private citizen peacefully changing his place of residence from one country to another. "Immigration" referring to the coming-in-to-the-new-country part of it, while "emigration" refers to the leaving of the old country. Using this normal, standard definition we stipulate that immigration is non-invasive, non-violent, non-treasonous, not interfering with the Post Office nor commerce with the various Indian Tribes, etc. It also is separate from citizenship, which is another issue and one which the US gov't does have authority over according to the Constitution. And with that, I see no authority to make laws abridging immigration.

 

[No Free Beer]

Very good, you got exactly what I was thinking of, except for your quoting of the Preamble was entirely irrelevant. The Preamble delegates no authority. None whatsoever. There are no powers vested in the U.S. Federal Government by virtue of the Preamble. All powers delegated are listed in Article 1, Section 8 (with modifications via amendment, notably the Income Tax and Prohibition).

But yes, you're right, that under such an expansive definition of immigration as ChristianAnarchist's, the federal government can regulate it, prevent it, "repel" it, etc.

I would define immigration much more traditionally: A normal private citizen peacefully changing his place of residence from one country to another. "Immigration" referring to the coming-in-to-the-new-country part of it, while "emigration" refers to the leaving of the old country. Using this normal, standard definition we stipulate that immigration is non-invasive, non-violent, non-treasonous, not interfering with the Post Office nor commerce with the various Indian Tribes, etc. It also is separate from citizenship, which is another issue and one which the US gov't does have authority over according to the Constitution. And with that, I see no authority to make laws abridging immigration.

The only reason I included the Preamble was because some people go beyond the legalities of immigration and insert citizenship into the argument.

I was trying to prevent that from the get-go.