Point of order, Radar. Pierre is in South Dakota, not Idaho.

Carry on.

:corn: :dedhorse:

Are you serious, regular.joe? Do you think that the statement mercy made that the constitution doesn't apply to non citizens is the same argument from the previous hundred posts?

I don't.

I see this as a different question altogether.

I would also be very interested in hearing your input on this. I have found your recent posts on this topic to be quite valuable. You're reasonable, articulate, informed, intelligent and engaged in the discussion.

Thanks bigV. It's beating a horse for me. I'm all posted out for now. Perhaps later, after I take a break. I'll keep reading.

It does apply. They are merely attempting to dehumanize others and suggest that merely being born in America entitles you to more rights than someone else. Humans are born with rights. Those rights don't come from governments. The Constitution was written to limit the power and authority of government and to defend the rights of all people who are governed by the United States....this of course applies to the undocumented and LEGAL immigrants who came here without checking in with Uncle Sam. :)

Now that we have settled this and we all know the Constitution defends the rights of all people governed in the United States, and that the federal government has zero Constitutional authority over immigration we can finally put this thread to rest. :jig:

epic fail

totally; not the sharpest tack in the box.

Written by, and intended for the citizens of the United States. It was not written for people of Mexico, Canada, Japan, or China. Once legal migrants come here and become US citizens they are afforded all the rights of our Constitution as it was written. It was not written for the ciminals to enter our country illegally.

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 It is important to notice that this is a government of the people, not of the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, in effect as our first form of "national" government, agreed to by the Continental Congress on November 15,1777 and in force after ratification by Maryland on March 1, 1782 until the ratification of the Constitution for the United States in 1788 and George Washington's inauguration as the nation's first President under the Constitution on April 30, 1789, the States as political entities, and not the people, entered into "a firm league of friendship", each State retaining "its sovereignty, freedom and independence." The new Constitution for the United States brought in a new Nation, the United States of America, deriving its "just powers from the consent of the governed."

"The people, the highest authority known to our system," said President Monroe, "from whom all our institutions spring and whom they depend, formed it."

"Its language, 'We the People,' is the institution of one great consolidated National government of the people of all the States, instead of a government by compact with the States for its agents," exclaimed Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying assembly while leading opposition to its adoption, "The people gave the [Constitutional] Convention no power to use their name." Some States restricted the authority of their delegates to revising the Articles of Confederation. It was claimed that the casting aside of the Articles of Confederation (which could be altered or amended only by the concurrence of every State) for a constitution to become effective when adopted by nine of the thirteen States was revolutionary. It was, in fact, a coup d'Etat. Revision only was uppermost in the minds of many. On February 21, 1787, the Congress existing under the Articles called a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." But it was the belief of the Constitutional Convention that as the new instrument was to go to the people for ratification or rejection, the objections stated by Henry and others were really unimportant.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

Thank you. So it's settled. ALL PEOPLE living within the borders of the United States have the same Constitutional protection of their rights and the federal government has absolutely no Constitutional authority over immigration.

End of story.

You're wrong mercy.

Let's follow your argument a bit to it's logical conclusions.

You say, The Constitution applies only to US citizens. That the Constitution does not apply to illegal immigrants. This is ridiculous on its face. By what definition and authority are these immigrants illegal then? It's pretty easy to understand what makes them immigrants. They were there, they are here.... not so tough.

But you insist on calling them illegal, implying that there's some law that they're breaking. How can they break a law that doesn't apply to them?

OMG! We should have all just read the first post and that would have been the end of it.

Silly us!

mercy, let's take it in the other direction too.

The Constitution applies to US citizens. Ok, then. When you, a US citizen, travel to another country, are you still covered by the Constitution? A better question is this: Are you subject to the laws of the country you're in?

My dear radar - you nutty lil fruitcake - please, please, please at least keep your dignity. :jig:

( yeah, I stole ur smilie)

I'm glad we finally got that straightened out. :p

Someone here gets it.

dignity? When did I get that? I certainly want to keep that. :jig:

It doesn't say so. Are you bringing in something from outside the Constitution?

Slaves don't migrate.

...not by choice anyway.

They migrate the same way cattle do. Their masters take them from one place to another. Slaves are imported. Slaves are property for which you paid a duty or a tax to import. Free people are not imported, are not property, and do not require a tax or a duty. The clause can only refer to slavery and our founders said so, the Supreme Court said so, the U.S. government and every single law school in America say so, and most of all the U.S. Constitution says so through the use of words like import, duty, tax, and migration rather than immigration.

Owned animals don't migrate; free ones do.

The tax applies to imports (slaves), not migrants. The paragraph bars Congress from interfering with imports AND migration, up to a certain date, but allows a tax or duty on imports only. No tax for migration.

The Supreme Court, the US Government, and every single law school in America all say the Federal government can regulate immigration. I thought you didn't want to bring them into the argument.

Migration refers to movement, not merely natural migrations, but forced ones. The Duty and Tax refer to an imported good; specifically the slave. The importation (bringing property into America) and migration (moving the livestock...aka slaves into different states to be sold) of slaves can only apply to slaves, and not the immigration of free people.

The Constitution says that the federal government may not have implied powers or the power to restrict or legislate immigration.

Radar, you keep telling us what this or that particular passage "refers to" ??? If it is so clear, then why do you have to keep explaining what it means, is applicable to, defining or relegating?
I was thinking about what UT showed us a few days back - we are all wrong! Those guys were way ahead of us and foresaw these very same arguments that we are having today. Thats why some argue that passages or phrases in the constitution are intentionally vague. Perhaps they entrusted future leaders to do the right things and apply the "implied meaning" to the current world or situations.
Certainly they didn't want us to stagnate in our thoughts and ideas or our direction for this most awesome country. I hope that we as a people have the ability and wisdom to, as a collective, choose those leaders. :2cents:

Coconuts migrate.

Here's my grate
http://www.fireplacemall.com/Grates/...26300_sp65.jpg

It's a beauty, too, Spexx. :)

Yeah, its great.

LOL! :biggrinje

Birds migrate.

Plenty of people who come here are subject to our laws, tourists from anywhere. If they break a law here they are subject to penalty, and deportation. The illegal immigrants who cross the border illegally have broken laws by doing so. Just because you step foot in the US does not give you all the rights afforded our Constitution. That is where this whole thread started with me. Just because you are here does not make you an American citizen. Tourists, visitors, illegal aliens, and even documented aliens are not American citizens.

My new years resolution is to migrate off this thread for good. I keep coming back, (it feels like when you pass a traffic accident and have to look). But no more.

Are you referring to a European or African swallow?

Go to rehab

How does a mig rate? Well they used to be good fighter jets - no?

For some reason this made me think of the Danish woman who was arrested in NYC for leaving her baby outside a restaurant while she ate. The city dropped the charges and she sued and won.

:headshake

Has more to do with our legal system than it does our Constitution. Good on her, hope she got rich.

What's that supposed to mean? Radar Blows?!?! You bastard!

It has more to do with our laws than our highest law?

The duty only applies to the importation, not migration. And even if we accept that slaves migrate, so do any other "Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".

The clause refers to the migration (movement) of slaves or importation of slaves (bringing them into the country). It does not refer to the immigration of free people entering the country.

O.K., I'm back for more. Food for thought.

The definition of constitution in the context in which we have been using it is: the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed...or... the document embodying these principles.

The document that embodies the principles according to which the United States is governed.

Principles. I'm going to include the entire compliment of definitions:

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use.
7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.
8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle.
9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.
10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life.
11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.
12. Chemistry. a constituent of a substance, esp. one giving to it some distinctive quality or effect.
13. Obsolete. beginning or commencement.
—Idioms
14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.
15. on principle,
a. according to personal rules for right conduct; as a matter of moral principle: He refused on principle to agree to the terms of the treaty.
b. according to a fixed rule, method, or practice: He drank hot milk every night on principle.

So, what are the principles embodied by our constitution? Just a question. I think they can be found in the opening paragraph.

I stand by my statements earlier. General welfare is not dealing with only the defense of the nation.

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.

Definition of the coma: the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, esp. when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point.

We've had to go into some discussion as to the meaning of these things. It's important to understand perhaps.

Notice the coma between the phrase "provide for the common defence", and the phrase "promote the general Welfare". It is no mistake later that among the powers given to congress is to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. Hey, two of the different things that were outlined in the opening paragraph of the document.

So, if the people elected to congress, decide to pass a law for the general welfare of the United States, and that law deals with immigration they are well with within the spirit and principle of the Constitution. The constitution is not law, it is the document that embodies the principles which formed our nation and governmental system. Congress makes the laws.

As an example, in 1974 there was a law passed enacting a national speed limit of 55 MPH. It does not specify in the constitution that congress can do that. The law was not repealed on it's constitutionality or lack there of. The law was enforce until 1995 when it was passed back to the states. Although the constitution does not specifically give congress this ability to set a national speed limit, they did just that based on the general welfare of the U.S.

Fighting over the word "of" didn't work so now you want to dispute a comma?

The phrase "promote the general welfare" does not grant any power to Congress PERIOD. Promote the general welfare means allowing citizens to enjoy peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. It means nothing more or less than that.

How you might ask am I so sure about what the phrase "general welfare" meant when they wrote the Constitution? Because the 1828 copy of Webster's has the phrase defined so someone won't try to twist it. Here's an actual photocopy of the entry...

http://alanchapman.org/libertyvault/...alwelfare.html


Contrary to what you're attempting to twist "general welfare" into, it is NOT a blank check for the government to create any laws it wishes and it grants no powers to the federal government at all.

How does diplomatic immunity play into this? On one hand, it shows that some people in this country are not subject to our laws and constitution. On the other hand it shows that to get this immunity, there needs to be a formal accepted agreement constructed.

Bottom line, after all the comas and "the"'s, immigration law is not unconstitutional in theory, or in practice. Radar, you should be a lawyer and start representing those who are currently considered illegal aliens. I'm sure they would appreciate your help and assistance.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here...maybe there should be an amendment that says, "congress has the power to regulate immigration". Are you arguing on principle here? Are you saying that we should not regulate immigration to our country? Bottom line is we should, and we do. It may not lie within the letter of the constitution, it certainly lies with the spirit and principle of the constitution.

What I really see with Radar is a man who intensely reveres the constitution and intensely distrusts the people elected by the process set up by the constitution. What a conflict. I'm not saying that all of our elected officials are worthy of trust. The process is worthy of trust. We have the power to remove them, or not, based on the constitution. Not only do we have to abide by the letter of the words written, the spirit of the document as well.

I'm going to include a list here of all sections of the United Sates Code that are unconstitutional, since there is no specific power granted to congress to regulate these areas.

TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 13 CENSUS
TITLE 16 CONSERVATION
TITLE 20 EDUCATION
TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 23 HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 29 LABOR
TITLE 30 MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 49 TRANSPORTATION

Wow, why am I not in law school, I obviously belong there.

:eyebrow: :headshake

I thought this debate was settled when we all realized Radar was right as always?

Actually, the Constitution does grant congress power over making roads...postal roads to be specific, and a census so taxes can be apportioned according to the population.

Everything else on the list would be better off in private hands.

As far as whether or not I think immigration should be regulated, my personal opinion is that we should keep up our tradition of welcoming a free flow of immigrants with open arms. But at the very least we should not allow the federal government to regulate immigration unless the Constitution is amended to grant such powers to Congress. The same goes for everything else you mentioned.

Allowing the government to control any area not specifically granted to them by the Constitution is wrong. Also, it's good to keep in mind that the federal government wasn't meant to control these things. It was meant to involved in our lives as little as possible, to settle disputes among states, etc.

The states were meant to have power over other areas IF the people grant the state such powers, but neither the states, nor the fed should ever have any authority to limit or restrict our rights any more than the boundary of another person's equal rights.

I was going to raise this when you folks were arguing about whether immigration could be construed as "invasion", but you all seemed busy.

Suppose the Chinese government has an agent reading the Cellar, and they realize that they can send people to the US at will. They start a program to send, say, 350 million people to the US over, say, 5 years. Huge ships carry massive numbers to the west coast where they are put on rafts and paddle themselves ashore.

They are completely unarmed, wave American flags as they wade ashore, avow no hostile intentions, obey the laws, totally swamp the local infrastructure, seek citizenship and voting rights ... and are arriving at about 70 million per year, and within five years will make up more than half of the population.

This example is very far fetched. I'm trying to illustrate the point that there comes a time when uncontrolled migration would be very bad for the receiving country and the people who are there now.
What would you do, Radar? Grit your teeth and keep holding the door open? Or limit immigration?
This is no longer a question about the constitution. Rather about what should be done.

What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries? Nothing but common sense. Most likely any Chinese that came here would love the economic and social freedoms and they would be flying those flags for real.

Would having a half Chinese population be a bad thing? How about half Irish? If enough people immigrated here that opportunity started drying up, they would start to go somewhere else.

More people would mean we'd need more workers to service them and would certainly drive the economy to build housing and more infrastructure. My opinion is the only limit on our immigration should be the desire for others to come here.

Well, every country that I know about has laws that control immigration.
I think the people and thus the government of a country have a right to protect their interests (to a certain degree - humanitarian refugees being an exception) by limiting immigration. I was wondering if you agreed.

And there are two types of limiting - the first (which we've already discussed) being limiting the total number, the second being preventing certain individuals from migrating: criminals, trouble-makers, agents of hostile powers, etc.

If you wouldn't limit the overall number, would you prevent certain individuals, based on their behaviour or intentions? I would. You?

Do you justify by using xenophobia? Xenophobia is the only basis for America's fear of immigration using the exact same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. Ironically, many of those who believed that Saddam lie also fear immigration using the same logic. The Economist of 5 January 2008 describes this situation with proper perspective. Xenophobia of immigration is based in myths, lies, and propaganda. Rush Limbaugh preaches this xenophobia as Rush routinely does - facts be damned. Therefore these immigration problems exist right alongside another Limbaugh truth - Saddam's WMDs. Why did Saddam have WMDs? As even stated by some here in the Cellar - only because we feared he might. Great nations have greater immigration.

What is a major problem for the Silion Valley? Immigration restrictions because so many Americans fear as Cheney and George Jr do rather than promote a stronger American future.

Immigration problems in America are from those who would exercise their fears rather that learn reality. More specifically, those are same people who believe Rush Limbaugh decrees. Immigrants mean net profits for America; not the massive welfare myths promoted by extremists. Oh. And those whose jobs are at risk due to immigrants? Why were they so anti-American as to not get educated?

TW, if you follow the exchange from posts 350 to 352, you might see that my comments were in the context of a huge flood of people. Doubling the population in five years kind of scenario. I cannot imagine this would be in any country's interest - the infrastructure would simply be swamped.
I was talking about whether a nation has the right to regulate immigration to manage this sort of situation. I was not saying that all immigration is bad.

My perspective is that of an Australian. A constant, moderate flow if diverse immigration is definitely good for Australia. A huge wave would create a lot of problems.

Please do not suggest I am xenophobic. Right now I am a xeno. And a quick think of my friends from the last decade or so shows that a good deal less than half are old-style "anglo" Australians.
And please, do not ever liken me in any way to Rush Limbaugh. Ever.

Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? It is the assumption found in Rush Limbaugh logic. But where are the numbers - the facts? That assumption is not proven by history. Your intent may not be to agree with Rush – who does preach xenophobia to promote a political agenda as Goebels did in Nazi Germany. You have assumed reasoning based in the xenophobia found in Limbaugh logic. Obviously that does not even imply you are xenophobic.

Of course no reasonable person is suggesting population doubling even with unrestricted immigration. Those doubling numbers are also provided by the myths and fears from Limbaugh types.

Of course a massive influx would create problems. The Economist said same. Problems that mean only good things when solved as The Economist also notes. Did Rush logic forget to mention that part - the good part? Of course. Did he forget to mention addressing those problems means only good things? Of course. It promotes his poltiical agenda of preaching to those who 'know by entertaining their fears'.

Are you xenophobic? I don't know, I don't care, I never stated it, and it is not relevant. But you should be asking a question in the last sentence of this paragraph. In the deep south, when your conclusions or actions correspond with others who were overtly racist, then at what point do you question your actions? You may not intend to be racist, you may dislike reacists, and do not regard yourself as racist. But does it matter when your actions correspond with racists? Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?

Now don't do as classicman so often does. Do not read superficially to assume I have called you racist (or xenophobic). Do not entertain your emotions to ignore the statements here. I am intentionally making it easy to come to two radically different conclusions based upon whether you entertain the logic or entertain personal biases (emotions). The 'your' in that previous paragraph is not the same as something else called ZenGum. It was intentionally written so that you might jump to wild conclusions - as Rush Limbaugh supporters do. Or step back, read with greater care, and then grasp an underlying point and the associated questions. Only thing relevant in any of my posts are the facts.

There is a fine line between those who use xenophobia to make conclusions and those who come to the same conclusion but do not intend to be xenophobic. Again I ask the question. Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? The assumption is converted to fact by the xenophobic. Others used same reasoning to ‘know’ Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any facts that say a massive immigration influx is 'destructive'. Somehow the xenophobic have converted ‘problems’ into ‘disaster’. They are completely different. Only emotion to converts problems into something destructive. It is a game that Limbaugh can play with great affect.

Problematic? Of course massive immigration creates problems. So what? Confronting and solving those problems means an even greater nation as proven by this nations history and the point bluntly made by The Economist. We are suppose to learn from history – not rewrite it.

But again, this simple question that Rush disciples do not ask because they automatically believe what they are told: Why is a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? Source of such ‘fact’ comes from those with a ‘them verses us’ mentality. Same intolerants also believed Saddam would conspire to attack the US – when obvious facts said otherwise. But again, they knew Saddam wanted to attack the US because their fears converted wild speculation into facts. Their fears also assume massive immigration is bad – using same speculation declared as fact.

Any assumptions of an “I am xenophobic” suggestion was 100% your assumption. It did not exist in anything I posted; may be posted so that you might make that assumption (to test your ability to separate what was posted from personal assumptions), and is completely contradictory to the purpose of that post. “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?” Did you apply this fact when reading that post? Actions and intents are two completely different concepts that may coincide or contradict. Did I specifically say ZenGum is xenophobic? Now reread the paragraph that ends with “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?”

Then ask "Why is a massive inflow of immigrants bad?" when history and the above The Economist quote say otherwise.

tw, so what you are saying is that if, IF,there was an influx of 350,000,000 immigrants into America over 5 years this would be a good thing. Yes I am asking seriously. Since there was no link to your Economist article, I am questioning where the line is drawn. Where do the laws of diminishing return come into play here? How many is too many? Is there such a number? Logic and common sense says that at some point a MASSIVE influx would overwhelm a system not designed for that many people. Food, housing, waste removal, education, employment.... all of these things cannot happen immediately, as you an engineer certainly knows. Please address these issues. I , for one, am very open on immigration.

No one wants to immigrate to China. Hell hole of pollution and global warming.

They must become citizens. Illegal aliens are not citizens of this country, they are criminals.

They are here on legal visas, granted by the government. Until we get a documentation program for those who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas illegally the others are criminal elements sapping our resources dry from those who are legal and natural born citizens.

For one thing, if there were a huge influx of migrants in australia, legal or otherwise, there'd be nowhere for them to live. Already there are many families who have nowhere to live. Increasing the population without having time to build housing would be just plain stupid.

If people are living on the street or camping out or whatever, there'd be increases in crime for starters, and that's not the only problem.

Any socioligist will tell you that overcrowding in any species is likely to lead to tension between groups which obviously we already have enough of in the world.

No, allowing a huge influx of immigrants would be bad for any economy, not to mention the social structure of the community.