Ron Paul on Immigration. Do you agree or disagree with Ron Paul?

[jmdrake]

Not much has changed since the 5th act of Congress. Federal courts are legislatively defined by districts of federal jurisdiction. Hell even the Federal Reserve is done by districts.

I have made a distinction between Rule and Law in that not observing a law is criminal/civil/penal not observing a rule means you are not a citizen.

Rule and Law are two distinct terms. Are you objecting to the definitions I am using or proposing alternate definitions?

I think there is a huge difference in necessary and proper with regards to Rule and Law. Rules require no police power, Laws do.

Earlier you kind of dismissed customs but if it is going to be included and cited it must be recognized the power to tax is a wholly different power than the power to create a rule. The powers of taxation can extend beyond any concept of borders because "United States" can be defined in a context that is not geographical.

I'm not exactly sure how you "tax" the importation of something if you can't tell that it's been imported. I'm not sure how you tell if something is important if you don't have some kind of defined border. But maybe you have a different way of looking at this.

When reflecting on the Commerce Clause and all the resistance to Immigration its ironic Immigration pioneered strategies to circumvent. With immigration we have something not delegated to the fed (regulating tourists and visitors) and something prohibited the states (impairing the obligation of contracts).

I think you have a different understanding of "impairing the obligation of contracts" than I do. My understanding was that was originally meant to keep states from passing laws invalidating otherwise valid contracts. It was never meant as an end run around law. For example a contract to commit a murder is never a valid contract. Or here's a less extreme example. Someone is "contracted" to do a job, but he is put in prison for some other reason. Does the "right of contract" mean he should be let out of prison just so that he can fulfill his contract obligations? Applied to immigration, if the person seeking to come in is a wanted criminal in another country, does he have to be let in just because he has a contract to do some work? Of course once someone is in the country already it's a different story, just like once someone is released from jail its a different story. Maybe the states shouldn't be allowed to say whether or not someone can work once they get here. Maybe the states shouldn't be able to say where some person can work after they've been released from prison. How do you feel about state laws barring convicted sex offenders from holding certain jobs?

I really don't care all that much about the Arizona court of public opinion issue. This issue can fall off the discussion since it's not all that relevant to the constitutional arguments.

Ok.

Under the Articles of Confederation garrisons were expressly delegated. How does something expressly delegated under the Articles of Confederation give credibility to a federal army exercising police power within a state under the constitution?

Good point. But were any of these garrisons abandoned our turned over to state hands once the constitution was ratified? Apparently Ft Sumter wasn't. Ok, to be fair Ft. Sumter wasn't built until after the war of 1812. But nobody objected to it being built and garrisoned by federal soldiers.

Letting the Trail of Tears fall off the conversation since it's only purpose to the discussion is rebutting the union army comment I made.

Ok.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Will a moderator please remove this thread from the Schiff section post haste. Put it in hot topics or some other rhetorical oubliette.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm not exactly sure how you "tax" the importation of something if you can't tell that it's been imported. I'm not sure how you tell if something is important if you don't have some kind of defined border. But maybe you have a different way of looking at this.

You keep bringing up a border. Where is the United States border defined?

You keep bringing this up as if the United States has a King and all land is owned by the King and the King has set a border. You are not acting as if the United States is a system of federalism and jurisdiction with regards to United States depends on the subject matter or objects at hand, branch of government, and powers that have been delegated.

And whereas, The States of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and North Carolina, have not as yet ratified the present Constitution of the United States, by reason whereof this act doth not extend to the collecting of duties within either of the said two States, and it is thereby become necessary that the following provision with respect to goods, wares or merchandise imported from either of the said two States should for the present take place:[2]

Goods imported from, subject to same duties as from foreign countries.Sec. 39. Be it therefore further enacted, That all goods, wares and merchandise not of their own growth or manufacture, which shall be imported from either of the said two States of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, or North Carolina, into any other port or place within the limits of the United States, as settled by the late treaty of peace, shall be subject to the like duties, seizures and forfeitures, as goods, wares or merchandise imported from any State or country without the said limits.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unite...e/Volume_1/1st_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_5

Wiki link has other acts by the first Congress like the judicial court districts etc.

I think you have a different understanding of "impairing the obligation of contracts" than I do. My understanding was that was originally meant to keep states from passing laws invalidating otherwise valid contracts. It was never meant as an end run around law. For example a contract to commit a murder is never a valid contract. Or here's a less extreme example.

That is not a valid objection. There is nothing illegal about contracting with foreign labor. Obviously they were perfectly lawful for 100 years until the federal government intervened In the actual text I cited the federal government did not outlaw foreign labor contracts it impaired them using the courts.

Are you suggesting states could have violated constitutional prohibitions and impaired perfectly legal labor contracts?

Someone is "contracted" to do a job, but he is put in prison for some other reason. Does the "right of contract" mean he should be let out of prison just so that he can fulfill his contract obligations?

I don't see what the issue is. A civil suit takes place and even though the person is in jail they are still in default and held liable for breaching the contract. It would be an open and shut case. Are mortgages or credit card contacts any less valid just because you go to jail? Having a right to contract only implies a right to remedy via the courts not a right to coerce.

Applied to immigration, if the person seeking to come in is a wanted criminal in another country, does he have to be let in just because he has a contract to do some work? Of course once someone is in the country already it's a different story, just like once someone is released from jail its a different story. Maybe the states shouldn't be allowed to say whether or not someone can work once they get here. Maybe the states shouldn't be able to say where some person can work after they've been released from prison.

Let's keep in mind the constitutional protection is against impairing the obligations of contracts not impairing a right to contract. The difference being if it is lawful to contract for murder it is lawful to hold the other party to the contract.

Since I am not a governor and not running for political office I do not have a platform of well thought out solutions. I have unqualified thoughts on regulating contracts where one party is a non-citizen, non-resident, alien, or foreign national but I haven't spent any time thinking them through. If you want to brainstorm on this topic over skype or a conference call let me know.

How do you feel about state laws barring convicted sex offenders from holding certain jobs?

I am not excited about institutionalized discrimination by the state against people that have repaid their debt to society. Gun ownership and the natural right to defend oneself is not a privilege of citizenship and I am not excited about states infringing upon peoples natural rights as if they are privileges after they have repaid their debt to society.

I can accept revoking citizenship privileges as part of any punishment for severe crimes but if everything wasn't deemed a privilege by government citizenship would not be a super big deal. They wouldn't be able to vote, obtain residency in other states, etc. but they would be able to defend themselves.

Good point. But were any of these garrisons abandoned our turned over to state hands once the constitution was ratified? Apparently Ft Sumter wasn't. Ok, to be fair Ft. Sumter wasn't built until after the war of 1812. But nobody objected to it being built and garrisoned by federal soldiers.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

In some Civil war threads I have previously posted Acts of Congress regarding Ft. Sumter. South Carolina conditionally granted Ft. Sumter to the federal government.