William's Fail

[MaineShark]

I just fail to see the criticism of Williams' article. After all, his main point in the article seems to be that the United States has a right to make laws regarding immigration. And if you're opposed to even that idea, then I have to assume that the only alternative that one who opposes Williams would be total anarchy with zero government of any kind -- not even to enforce contracts or defend individual rights.

As I already noted, the Constitution doesn't allow the Feds to control immigration (immigration is a power reserved to the States, to regulate - or not - as they see fit; the Feds only get to decide who becomes citizens of the US).  So even a Constitutionalist (who wants a Federal government to exist) would have to be opposed to William's article, to be consistent with his/her believe in the Constitution.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

I was afraid this thread was going to be about The President.

*whew*!

I thought he was referring to the other president

[Pat McCotter]

I just fail to see the criticism of Williams' article. After all, his main point in the article seems to be that the United States has a right to make laws regarding immigration. And if you're opposed to even that idea, then I have to assume that the only alternative that one who opposes Williams would be total anarchy with zero government of any kind -- not even to enforce contracts or defend individual rights.

Let them in. Why would you begrudge them a chance to make a better living for their families than they would at home? Are you afraid they sponge off the welfare system? Change the welfare system.

Also, repeat of MaineShark's post.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I don't know.  If laws were passed making it impossible to live off of others, we'd probably just get more Mexicans

[MaineShark]

The way it's "theoretically" supposed to work is that all states allow "naturalized" persons (citizens, etc.) to live and work there.  The Feds determine who can become naturalized.

The states can restrict (or not) immigration, and the ability of non-naturalized persons to live and work.  So if Arizona wants to say that only citizens and such can work there, they can.  If California wants to say, "door's open, come on in," they can.

There was a debate at the time the Constitution was written, as to what point of balance would be best in the future.  At the time, they were still expanding, and knew they needed all the warm bodies they could get.  But some folks in the more densely-populated areas were already getting concerned about the influx.  So this is the compromise that was struck.  The idea was that states which wanted to keep their population density in check could impose controls on immigrants, and states that wanted cheap labor could have fewer controls.

Of course, as with all concentrations of power, corruption grew, and we have the mess we have now.

Joe

[EthanLeeVita]

I was afraid this thread was going to be about The President.

*whew*!

I did too when I first saw it. 

[Ogre]

The Constitution doesn't allow the Feds to control immigration (immigration is a power reserved to the States, to regulate - or not - as they see fit; the Feds only get to decide who becomes citizens of the US).  So even a Constitutionalist (who wants a Federal government to exist) would have to be opposed to William's article, to be consistent with his/her believe in the Constitution.

Ah, now I see the position more clearly, thank you for re-stating that so I could see it again.

I've not really considered what the Constitution says about immigration. I guess I just always assumed that a sovereign country would be free to determine who may enter and who may not enter their country. Hmmmm...you have me thinking now...

Well, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress may regulate commerce with foreign nations. I don't think that could be applied to immigrants... It does state that Congress can establish "an uniform rule of Naturalization..."

Section 9 has this weird: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." But that just puts a limit in place until 1888.

Hmmm... I guess I can't find anything in the Constitution that gives the US the power to regulate who enters the country. However, I still have a hard time answering Williams' question: "Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? " with a "Yes." But maybe they do.

But as for the free crap for anyone who doesn't work, well that's a whole 'nuther thread...

[MaineShark]

Well, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress may regulate commerce with foreign nations. I don't think that could be applied to immigrants... It does state that Congress can establish "an uniform rule of Naturalization..."

Yup.  Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen.

Section 9 has this weird: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." But that just puts a limit in place until 1888.

That was the prohibition on tampering with slavery, necessary to get the slave states to join up.

After 1808, Congress was free to ban slavery.

However, I still have a hard time answering Williams' question: "Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? " with a "Yes." But maybe they do.

Sure, they do.

Of course, they have to find folks willing to sell them places to live.  It's not like they have a right to squat.  There's only so much space.

I have a natural right to leap off my roof and fly.  Gravity may have other ideas.

[edited to fix tenses and eliminate side-issue]

Joe

[Pat McCotter]

That was 1808 not 1888.

[MaineShark]

That was 1808 not 1888.

Correct.  That'll teach me to reply after spending half the night at a bonfire instead of sleeping.

Joe

[Ogre]

Whoops, slippery finger on the "8" key.