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

[jmdrake]

Right, but I've never argued that Congress doesn't have the authority to call up the militia to protect the borders... so I'm not sure what point you're trying to score here.

Other than trying to get all uppity again, "i take it you still haven't read..."

No more uppity than you claiming others are "lying" or "ignorant" about the constitution. Also the garrisons in question were not the militia. But I guess you missed that.

No one said the states can't petition fedgov to protect the borders. It is the regulation of immigration that is the unconstitutional power grab.

Here you mischaracterize my argument twice IN ONE POST to try and score some points.

If the states have asked the federal government to protect the borders (and they have) how is the federal government protecting the borders an unconstitutional power grab? The federal government trying to overturn the Arizona law would be an unconstitutional power grab under your argument, but not the federal government doing what the states asked and patrolling the borders.

Oh, but you're owed all the civility in the world, and a response to your every question... right.

Lame.

I'm not going to be baited. Nice try though.

 

[Dr.3D]

Actually, Dr. 3D your trite argument from ignorance betrays the fact that I've asked you personally, several times now, to cite the clause in the constitution that gives congress the authority to regulate immigration, which you've never done...

(because it's not there)

Go figure...

(btw, you are familiar with "original intent," yes? are you one of those "constitution as a living document" types?)

Seems others have done the citations for me. As for my ignorance, I'll leave that to others to decide. You do not seem qualified to do so.

Oh... and no.... I'm not one of those "constitution is a living document" types.

Have a nice day...

 

[Nathan Hale]

Somebody get this divisive, waste of time thread out of the Peter Schiff section, PLEASE.

 

[senatorpjt]

I only agree with RP in a pragmatic sense. In the current situation, we need to keep illegal immigrants out. The two key reasons he mentions we need to do this are welfare abuse and driving down wages, which are valid points.

The position is ideologically inconsistent with libertarianism, but you can't be ideologically consistent in an inconsistent system. It's similar to how a libertarian can advocate tax increases in our current system - a welfare state with a balanced budget is better than a welfare state with massive deficits. You can't eliminate taxes or allow open immigration in the presence of a welfare state, however if the welfare state were first eliminated, you could do both.

The wages situation is much more complicated. I have firsthand experience with this. Surprisingly enough, illegal immigrants make more money than you might think, substantially more than minimum wage. However, even though their take home pay is above minimum wage, the total cost to the employer is lower than that of a legal citizen employee at minimum wage.

When an employer hires an illegal immigrant for $12/hour, they pay $12/hour. I was working through a day labor employment agency for $7.25/hour. The employer who hired me through them had to pay the agency $15/hour to cover all the taxes, insurance, and administrative overhead involved in legally hiring someone. There are citizens willing to do this work, as I observed while sitting in the office with many other people waiting for a job.

Contrary to popular opinion, citizens are doing the work that illegals won't do. On days where the office is getting work tickets, the supply of illegal labor has been exhausted, and there is a 1:1 correlation - for every American sitting in that office waiting for a ticket, there is a job that he is willing to do for $7.25/hour that an illegal immigrant is doing for $12/hour.

So why don't the citizens just work under the table? Because they generally can't. If a legal citizen becomes disgruntled, he can report the employer for tax violations. If he becomes injured, he can sue. The illegal immigrant can not do these things for threat of deportation, so employers hiring day labor prefer them.

So, this is more of a problem. One is that the government makes it much more expensive to hire a legal citizen. However, the only reason they can enforce this is because the illegals can use their deportability as an advantage, an assurance that they will not report the employer for circumventing the law. It's a catch-22. More enforcement of immigration law only increases the incentive for employers to hire them. And even then, I don't think anyone wants to eliminate the ability of citizens to sue for damages.

According to this, the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration would actually be to allow them to file a workers comp claim or report an employer for violations, and grant citizenship if the suit/report is of merit. There would actually be very few amnesties granted - because employers would stop hiring illegals immediately.

 

[jmdrake]

Somebody get this divisive, waste of time thread out of the Peter Schiff section, PLEASE.

Word! It was initially posted in General Politics. I have no idea why the mods moved it here of all places.

 

[ProBlue33]

Great Post

The position is ideologically inconsistent with libertarianism, but you can't be ideologically consistent in an inconsistent system. It's similar to how a libertarian can advocate tax increases in our current system - a welfare state with a balanced budget is better than a welfare state with massive deficits. You can't eliminate taxes or allow open immigration in the presence of a welfare state, however if the welfare state were first eliminated, you could do both.

The wages situation is much more complicated. I have firsthand experience with this. Surprisingly enough, illegal immigrants make more money than you might think, substantially more than minimum wage. However, even though their take home pay is above minimum wage, the total cost to the employer is lower than that of a legal citizen employee at minimum wage.

When an employer hires an illegal immigrant for $12/hour, they pay $12/hour. I was working through a day labor employment agency for $7.25/hour. The employer who hired me through them had to pay the agency $15/hour to cover all the taxes, insurance, and administrative overhead involved in legally hiring someone. There are citizens willing to do this work, as I observed while sitting in the office with many other people waiting for a job.

Contrary to popular opinion, citizens are doing the work that illegals won't do. On days where the office is getting work tickets, the supply of illegal labor has been exhausted, and there is a 1:1 correlation - for every American sitting in that office waiting for a ticket, there is a job that he is willing to do for $7.25/hour that an illegal immigrant is doing for $12/hour.

So why don't the citizens just work under the table? Because they generally can't. If a legal citizen becomes disgruntled, he can report the employer for tax violations. If he becomes injured, he can sue. The illegal immigrant can not do these things for threat of deportation, so employers hiring day labor prefer them.

Very enlightening post from somebody on the front lines of this issue.
Now this is what people who think the free flow of people under the present
system need to understand.
If you still don't think illegals are effectively stealing jobs from Americans after reading this then your logic is strange.

How do these people get jobs without a Social Security number (SSN)?
The agencies are just as guilty, I would get a new law real fast no SSN no job.
And any employer caught doing it gets a $30,000 fine, per employee.
Very simple.
And that would send them home of their own free will, with no work or ability to procure work.
Yup freedom works awesome once again.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That's what I've been wondering too. I keep hearing the mantra that there is something unconstitutional about enforcing Immigration Laws, but those same people never express what is unconstitutional about those laws.

The only power delegated to the federal government is to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

That means the federal government can make a uniform rule of allegiance.

In other threads I have made a distinction between a rule and law based on action.

If government only has power delegated to make a uniform rule for people who wish to become loyal to the United States and become citizens how does the federal government derive the power to regulate tourists or visitors?

I have articulated it over and over is there something that doesn't make sense here?

Even if we are going to extend delegated power with the necessary and proper clause we are still talking about a power that only relates to people who want to become citizens of the United States not tourists or visitors.

I do not see why it is so complicated. People don't have much of a problem understanding the Commerce Clause. Government has done the same thing it just redefines the word immigrant to mean tourist.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I take it you still haven't read Federalist paper # 24 talking about the role of the militia in backing up the garrisons (manned by the central government prior to their even being a federal government) in protecting the borders. Anyway, the point LFOD was making is that it's constitutional for states to petition the federal government to come in and help them patrol the borders. Since the states have done so (by his own definition) there is no "unconstitutional power grab". Your own side is arguing against you.

Yes I recognize a state can petition the federal government but like any other petition the federal government can refuse to acknowledge it or say no.

The federal government has no obligation with regards to any petition and the burden is on the petitioner to make a case to win over the court of public opinion which Arizona is doing a shitty job of.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How are Immigration Laws unconstitutional?

Is it Constitutional for government to define a word to mean anything it wants in the law We The People chained government with to keep it limited?

Can the government define an immigrant, which is someone wanting to become a citizen of the United States, as a tourist or visitor which are individuals who have no intention of becoming a citizen?

Can the government define the word commerce to mean whatever it wants?

This is what really pisses me off. You folks bitch about the commerce clause and government redefining the term but when it comes to the delegated power to create a uniform Rule of Naturalization not only do you support government redefining words you support government taking action as if the word rule means law.

How about you cite how it IS constitutional....

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think it's a great example. Arizona doesn't want Mexicans coming across the border willy nilly and Georgia didn't want Indians remaining in their state. In both cases you have state interest and federal action coinciding. I know of no elected official in Arizona or any border state making a states rights claim that the federal government should quit patrolling the borders.

I said it was a bad example because you were referring to federal garrisons when the trail of tears was primarily state actors.

Ummm....I was referencing to the garrisons mentioned in the Federalist papers. Florida had not been purchased then. The constitution hadn't even been written. So I'm not sure why you leaped ahead to the next century and started talking about Florida. Do you have any evidence of an "federal territory" before there was even a federal government?

Ok I thought your additional Florida garrison comment was related to the trail of tears.

Regarding garrisons before the constitution where military power was restructured what relevance does it have?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Mass Illegal Immigration is a form of Invasion. The United States is constitutionally obligated to protect against Invasion.

JBS makes itself look stupid regurgitating that crap. Who gets to define the word invasion... We The People and the States when we adopted the law or Congress?

Mass amounts of tourists or visitors is a form of invasion... give me a break. If it is unconstitutional for Congress to redefine the word commerce in the law We The People chained government with in order to keep it limited it is also unconstitutional for Congress to redefine the word invasion or Rule or Naturalization (ie. immigrant).

What sympathy should I extend to intellectual dishonesty when I have repeatedly ask for some citations for your side of the argument?

If you can demonstrate and cite how it is constitutional for Congress to redefine words in the law We The People chained government with instead of obtaining a constitutional amendment I might consider not laughing at your claims of being a constitutional advocate.

If a state does not want tourists or guests it is up to the state to police it's own borders defined in its own state constitution. Self government is about responsibility and if the only thing you are going to do is leave the front door wide open with no signage to boot... don't start bitching and moaning when visitors drop in.

 

[Arion45]

Very enlightening post from somebody on the front lines of this issue.
Now this is what people who think the free flow of people under the present
system need to understand.
If you still don't think illegals are effectively stealing jobs from Americans after reading this then your logic is strange.

How do these people get jobs without a Social Security number (SSN)?
The agencies are just as guilty, I would get a new law real fast no SSN no job.
And any employer caught doing it gets a $30,000 fine, per employee.
Very simple.
And that would send them home of their own free will, with no work or ability to procure work.
Yup freedom works awesome once again.

Amazing, you blame immigrants when it is obvious that because of the force of government the American worker looses 50% of their pay, and because of the all the rules and regulations, are less desirable. This is when compared to a "illegal" worker who is basically working in a free market. So while I see free people (the "illegals")that get paid more and are more desired than the citizen workers, you see people intruding and stealing from you. Thus you say "I want more laws and government!". When in actuality the government is what caused the problem in the first place and you ask for more. Ludicrous.

 

[FrankRep]

JBS makes itself look stupid regurgitating that crap. Who gets to define the word invasion... We The People and the States when we adopted the law or Congress?

I bet you Arizona has defined Mass Illegal Immigration as an Invasion! Arizona and 9 other states who want AZ style immigration laws.

The JBS is siding with the states.


Opinion article I found:


Arizona has right to defend borders against 'invasion'

The Daily Journal
July 21, 2010

 

[jmdrake]

I said it was a bad example because you were referring to federal garrisons when the trail of tears was primarily state actors.

Well there are probably more police in Arizona than border patrol so you could say that's "primarily state actors". Anyway 3,000 federal troops participated in the trail of tears. I think the example holds. You don't. We simply disagree.

Ok I thought your additional Florida garrison comment was related to the trail of tears.

Regarding garrisons before the constitution where military power was restructured what relevance does it have?

They were mentioned in the federalist papers in connection with the militia. If we are getting to a question of "original intent" (as opposed to what's in the "four corners" of the document) it's relevant.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Do you have any objections to any of the other posts? Such as the power that has been delegated or how Congress has redefined the terms Rule or Naturalization to mean immigrants also includes tourists and visitors?

Is there any objection Congress asserted customs jurisdiction via taxing power and taxing immigrants for being immigrants not via the Rule of Naturalization? The power to tax human beings seems to go back to the Hamilton brief on the carriage tax defining direct to mean land and indirect to mean everything else. For purposes of direct taxation human beings seem to have gotten the shaft since anything taxable about you is an indirect tax and only required to be uniform among the several states not equal for all human beings.

Well there are probably more police in Arizona than border patrol so you could say that's "primarily state actors". Anyway 3,000 federal troops participated in the trail of tears. I think the example holds. You don't. We simply disagree.

They were mentioned in the federalist papers in connection with the militia. If we are getting to a question of "original intent" (as opposed to what's in the "four corners" of the document) it's relevant.

The conversation has been about federal power versus state power and borders. I think the gist of your argument is military garrisons are examples of colonial border patrol. I posed only one question. Were the garrisons you have cited within state borders or federal territory? The first part of the question went unanswered and you addressed the second part citing the Trail of Tears. I am only objecting to the context of the Trail of Tears in that the primary actors were states not the federal government although regulars were also formed with state militias after the second treaty.

You seem to be only objecting to my framing of within state borders or federal territory. Ok, if there was no federal territory with regards to Federalist #24 then it was foreign territory which is still federal in scope.

 

[jmdrake]

Do you have any objections to any of the other posts? Such as the power that has been delegated or how Congress has redefined the terms Rule or Naturalization to mean immigrants also includes tourists and visitors?

I'll demure on that point. (Neither agree nor disagree). Even without the immigration/naturalization power, you have to be able to assert a border if you are going to be able to repel a foreign invasion.

Is there any objection Congress asserted customs jurisdiction via taxing power and taxing immigrants for being immigrants not via the Rule of Naturalization? The power to tax human beings seems to go back to the Hamilton brief on the carriage tax defining direct to mean land and indirect to mean everything else. For purposes of direct taxation human beings seem to have gotten the shaft since anything taxable about you is an indirect tax and only required to be uniform among the several states not equal for all human beings.

If there is indeed a "customs role" then how pray tell is that role enforced without a border? Forget "taxing people". We can do away with "port taxes" (if visitors to the country have to pay such a tax) and still have defined secured borders. But if there are no borders or border security then there can be no customs tax on anything. Even border security that merely checks to make sure you're not carrying anything that you could possibly sell into the country without paying the proper tax is border security.

The conversation has been about federal power versus state power and borders. I think the gist of your argument is military garrisons are examples of colonial border patrol. I posed only one question. Were the garrisons you have cited within state borders or federal territory? The first part of the question went unanswered and you addressed the second part citing the Trail of Tears. I am only objecting to the context of the Trail of Tears in that the primary actors were states not the federal government although regulars were also formed with state militias after the second treaty.

I've answered the first part of the question as best as I can. As far as I know there was no territory that was part of the colonies but not part of a state at that time. So the garrisons had to be within state borders. I do not have the numbers for the participants of the trail of tears (other than the 3,000 federal troops I told you about), but even assuming you're right, I'm pretty sure there are more police officers in Arizona than there are border patrol. So Arizona's law puts it within your "primary state action" criteria.

You seem to be only objecting to my framing of within state borders or federal territory. Ok, if there was no federal territory with regards to Federalist #24 then it was foreign territory which is still federal in scope.

Or it was within state borders. I think that's more likely. I don't think we had any garrisons inside French / Spanish / British territory. If we did then the French / Spanish / British were real punks.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'll demure on that point. (Neither agree nor disagree). Even without the immigration/naturalization power, you have to be able to assert a border if you are going to be able to repel a foreign invasion.

Since federal territory is defined in federal treaty and state borders defined in state constitutions wouldn't repelling an invasion of the United States (used in a geographical context) include repelling any foreign invasion of federal territory or state(s)?

I think we should also note states are not obligated to wait for the federal government before Arizona defends from foreign invasion. For instance if the Mexican army invaded Arizona would you be expecting your governor to start bitching about the federal government not doing their job on tv?

I think it has always been held federal jurisdiction on different subjects hinges upon the context of "United States" not a national border.

If there is indeed a "customs role" then how pray tell is that role enforced without a border? Forget "taxing people". We can do away with "port taxes" (if visitors to the country have to pay such a tax) and still have defined secured borders. But if there is no borders or border security then there can be no customs tax on anything.

It would appear to me actual customs enforcement is done in a cost/benefit/kickback manner. If it makes sense to have customs somewhere whether it is in a terminal, port, or checkpoint the fed puts customs there. Let's take checkpoints since there was just recently a case of imminent domain in Vermont with a farmer. I don't think the fed shows up and says this is our border, move over, we are the fed. I think the fed acquires property where it finds a good cost/benefit ratio or good kickback opportunity first and then tells the state FU, were the fed and we don't pay state taxes.

Regarding enforcement I think the fed says here is the deal folks... we are getting our cut. We have tried to make it as convenient as possible for you peasants but if it is not quite convenient enough and we catch you were bringing out the guns to collect.

I've answered the first part of the question as best as I can. As far as I know there was not territory that was part of the colonies but not part of a state at that time. So the garrisons had to be within state borders.

I don't see how that makes sense. Why would you consider foreign territory part of a state? We did make treaties with Indians which means we recognized territory as foreign. We also recognized other countries.

I do not have the numbers for the participants of the trail of tears (other than the 3,000 federal troops I told you about), but even assuming you're right, I'm pretty sure there are more police officers in Arizona than there are border patrol. So Arizona's law puts it within your "primary state action" criteria.

Are there any events leading up to the Trail of Tears involving the forced location of Indians and the United States violating it's treaties or defying SCOTUS rulings you would consider unconstitutional?

I will admit a primary actor objection is weak. I will try to find and read the actual treaty text for the Trail of Tears further to see if I have a more principled objection. I am not sure if I have one because my answer to the above question is yes. From what I presently know about the Trail of Tears I think there were some very appalling events that defied any rule of law standard.

Or it was within state borders. I think that's more likely. I don't think we had any garrisons inside French / Spanish / British territory. If we did then they French / Spanish / British were real punks.

I am thinking your best case is maybe a state had a claim on unsettled territory but even if that is the case it would not make it part of a state. I think there were several states that had conflicting claims and disputes over unsettled territory. I do not feel I should be the one doing the research on it because I am not asserting a garrison argument, you are and you should be able to back it up to scrutiny. At this point my location objection is valid but it is in limbo because you are not able to substantiate the exact locations of the garrisons claimed.

 

[osan]

This thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the Welfare State we'd be well on our way.

Have to agree, at least in principle. If Ron Paul were to openly advocate the end of the welfare state, every welfare sucking, drug-addled hillbilly in WV would be looking to put his nuts on a platter, not to mention all the inner city slime who have no job nor any intention of ever getting one.

 

[jmdrake]

Since federal territory is defined in federal treaty and state borders defined in state constitutions wouldn't repelling an invasion of the United States (used in a geographical context) include repelling any foreign invasion of federal territory or state(s)?

I think we should also note states are not obligated to wait for the federal government before Arizona defends from foreign invasion. For instance if the Mexican army invaded Arizona would you be expecting your governor to start bitching about the federal government not doing their job on tv?

I think it has always been held federal jurisdiction on different subjects hinges upon the context of "United States" not a national border.

Yes, yes and yes. Whether the border patrol is defined as patrolling the border of the United States or the border of Arizona, California, Texas etc. is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If the dispute is over what we call the border that is patrolled than I think there's really no issue.

As far as the governor "bitching about it on tv", it sounds to me like the "bitching" started after the governor of Arizona tried to do something only to have her attempt attacked by the federal government. I don't think repelling an invasion and "bitching" about the federal government getting in the way are mutually exclusive.

It would appear to me actual customs enforcement is done in a cost/benefit/kickback manner. If it makes sense to have customs somewhere whether it is in a terminal, port, or checkpoint the fed puts customs there. Let's take checkpoints since there was just recently a case of imminent domain in Vermont with a farmer. I don't think the fed shows up and says this is our border, move over, we are the fed. I think the fed acquires property where it finds a good cost/benefit ratio or good kickback opportunity first and then tells the state FU, were the fed and we don't pay state taxes.

Regarding enforcement I think the fed says here is the deal folks... we are getting our cut. We have tried to make it as convenient as possible for you peasants but if it is not quite convenient enough and we catch you were bringing out the guns to collect.

Ok. Well and good. That doesn't affect the point I was making. If the federal government has a right to enforce customs it has a right to enforce a border. Otherwise customs are irrelevant. Maybe the federal government doesn't have a right to enforce customs? That's a different discussion.

I don't see how that makes sense. Why would you consider foreign territory part of a state? We did make treaties with Indians which means we recognized territory as foreign. We also recognized other countries.

I don't consider foreign territory part of a state. That's my point. It was impossible for there to be federal territory before their was a federal government. And the central government under the "articles of confederation" was too weak to own squat. Therefore the assertion that the "frontier garrison" was not within state borders doesn't really hold water.

Are there any events leading up to the Trail of Tears involving the forced location of Indians and the United States violating it's treaties or defying SCOTUS rulings you would consider unconstitutional?

Sure there is. I didn't bring up the Trail of Tears as an example of constitutional government. I brought it up as an example of state governments welcoming an action by federal troops and specifically to counter your example of Virginia not wanting Lincoln to march across its territory. That had far more to do with the fact that this country was in a state of civil war than some idea that a state would never want the federal government to do anything within its borders. I suppose I could have simply argued against your Virginia example without bringing in a counter example and avoided some confusion.

I will admit a primary actor objection is weak. I will try to find and read the actual treaty text for the Trail of Tears further to see if I have a more principled objection. I am not sure if I have one because my answer to the above question is yes. From what I presently know about the Trail of Tears I think there were some very appalling events that defied any rule of law standard.

Yes. The trail of tears was a horrible blight on our country's history. My argument is not that it was constitutional, but rather that this was a case where certain states welcomed action by the federal government. The action they welcomed was probably unconstitutional on various other grounds though.

I am thinking your best case is maybe a state had a claim on unsettled territory but even if that is the case it would not make it part of a state. I think there were several states that had conflicting claims and disputes over unsettled territory. I do not feel I should be the one doing the research on it because I am not asserting a garrison argument, you are and you should be able to back it up to scrutiny. At this point my location objection is valid but it is in limbo because you are not able to substantiate the exact locations of the garrisons claimed.

You're asking me to prove a negative? What research do you want for me to prove that there was no federal territory before there was a federal government? I think the proof is self evident.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes, yes and yes. Whether the border patrol is defined as patrolling the border of the United States or the border of Arizona, California, Texas etc. is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If the dispute is over what we call the border that is patrolled than I think there's really no issue.

Ok. Well and good. That doesn't affect the point I was making. If the federal government has a right to enforce customs it has a right to enforce a border. Otherwise customs are irrelevant. Maybe the federal government doesn't have a right to enforce customs? That's a different discussion.

5th Act of the first Congress of the United States establishes 59 customs collection districts in the 11 states that had ratified the constitution. Ports, of entry, under the jurisdiction of a Collector of Customs, were designated by the Act, and the organization would soon come to be known as the U.S. Customs Service

1853 U.S. Customs Border Patrol
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act (Enforced by Collectors of Customs and Customs Agents)
1882 50 cent head tax on non-citizens arriving by vessol at a port of entry.
-----> This is the period of transition
1891 Immigration Act creating Superintendent of Immigration and also did something states are prohibited from doing

I brought this one up because this act is worth reading just to see how differently things were characterized.

That no suit or proceding for violations of said act of February 26th, 1895, prohibiting the importation and migration of foreigners under contract or agreement to perform labor, shall be settled, compromised, or discontinued without the consent of the court entered of record with reasons therefor.

Placing foreign ads for workers also outlawed.

That the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe rules for inspection along the borders of Canada, British Columbia, and Mexico (kind of interesting description for patrolling a border eh? How come not United States border?)
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/26 stat 1084.pdf

1906 Bureau of Immigration Created
1924 U.S. Service Immigration Border Patrol created

Source: U.S. Customs Service

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.

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).

As far as the governor "bitching about it on tv", it sounds to me like the "bitching" started after the governor of Arizona tried to do something only to have her attempt attacked by the federal government. I don't think repelling an invasion and "bitching" about the federal government getting in the way are mutually exclusive.

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.

I don't consider foreign territory part of a state. That's my point. It was impossible for there to be federal territory before their was a federal government. And the central government under the "articles of confederation" was too weak to own squat. Therefore the assertion that the "frontier garrison" was not within state borders doesn't really hold water.

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?

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

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.