(04-26-2010 09:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I find it inane because you have an opinion that isn't going to be changed by some "person" on a blog. Unless I could point to a line in the Constitution that said... THIS... you'd think it was wrong... and if I could, I suspect you'd have already seen it... so its a waste of time. MOST people, myself included, have their opinions about what the Constitution says and doesn't say.

Actually, my mind isn't made up because I haven't been able to find the justification for granting congress the right to restrict immigration. I've been unable to find the supreme court decision which restricted immigration regulation to congress, but I swear I read there was one.

I just finished a biography of Thomas Jefferson, which is part of what got me thinking about the historical apsects. It was my sense that he would not have supported restrictions on immigration, which these quotes would seem to back up, depending on how you read "established rules" in the "Rights of Immigrants" section (of course, they may be cherry picked to give that impression but the source seems less likely to be partisan that a pro/anti-immigration group). I looked for something similar from other founders but couldn't find anything similarly organized.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quot...ff1280.htm

According to the Cornell annotated Constitution, restrictions on immigration aren't authorized by Article I, Section 8 (you have to page back to the previous section for their discussion on naturalization). Rather, it is just "an attribute of the United States as a sovereign nation." Claiming the federal government has unenumerated sovereign powers seems unwise and in direct conflict with the 10th Ammendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/a..._user.html

(04-27-2010 01:17 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:46 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

Quote:U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called on President Barack Obama to fight the controversial law. He urged the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if the tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

Uh, isn't this where Mach jumps in and screams about obeying the law?

And shouldn't this be cause for removal of Grijalva? He has violated his oath of office. Or doesn't that matter anymore b/c this is a post-modern country?

Why cooperate with an unconstitutional law?

You do realize this law is the same as the Federal one.......right?

Really? The federal law says you can stop someone for no reason if the "look" like they are illegal? I don't think so. That is what the Arizona law says. They must be really good if a person can tell if someone is illegal by just looking at the person. Btw, could you provide proof that you are a citizen if a cop stopped you and asked you for yours?

The law specifically states that law enforcement must act in a "lawful way". You continue to ignore the plain language of the law, which mirrors Federal Law.

My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

(04-27-2010 08:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

You understanding would be incorrect.

(04-27-2010 06:47 AM)jh Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 09:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I find it inane because you have an opinion that isn't going to be changed by some "person" on a blog. Unless I could point to a line in the Constitution that said... THIS... you'd think it was wrong... and if I could, I suspect you'd have already seen it... so its a waste of time. MOST people, myself included, have their opinions about what the Constitution says and doesn't say.

Actually, my mind isn't made up because I haven't been able to find the justification for granting congress the right to restrict immigration. I've been unable to find the supreme court decision which restricted immigration regulation to congress, but I swear I read there was one.

I just finished a biography of Thomas Jefferson, which is part of what got me thinking about the historical apsects. It was my sense that he would not have supported restrictions on immigration, which these quotes would seem to back up, depending on how you read "established rules" in the "Rights of Immigrants" section (of course, they may be cherry picked to give that impression but the source seems less likely to be partisan that a pro/anti-immigration group). I looked for something similar from other founders but couldn't find anything similarly organized.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quot...ff1280.htm

According to the Cornell annotated Constitution, restrictions on immigration aren't authorized by Article I, Section 8 (you have to page back to the previous section for their discussion on naturalization). Rather, it is just "an attribute of the United States as a sovereign nation." Claiming the federal government has unenumerated sovereign powers seems unwise and in direct conflict with the 10th Ammendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/a..._user.html

My apologies for assuming you were simply stirring the pot. I should have known better.

Is the case you're referring to the one I cited??
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]

If not, it might refer you to it.

(04-27-2010 11:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 08:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

You understanding would be incorrect.

Your understanding, or lack there of, based on your own posting of the law, which you fail to comprehension, as your guilty of on every issue, possibly due to a brain injury, or the mental illness brought about by your ideology, (do your parents every let you out of the basement?) if I may repeat what you are saying, "I, Roberta, being of sound mind, (I like to pretend I'm normal sometimes) know nothing", is wrong.

(04-27-2010 11:57 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 11:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 08:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

You understanding would be incorrect.

Your understanding, or lack there of, based on your own posting of the law, which you fail to comprehension, as your guilty of on every issue, possibly due to a brain injury, or the mental illness brought about by your ideology, (do your parents every let you out of the basement?) if I may repeat what you are saying, "I, Roberta, being of sound mind, (I like to pretend I'm normal sometimes) know nothing", is wrong.

First, it is "comprehend" not "comprehension". Second, I compehend the bill just fine. I know what the first 2 words say and I know what they mean. Unfortunately, you have dificulty thinking logically(actually, thinking in general) so I can understand your lack of comprehension. .

(04-27-2010 12:37 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 11:57 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 11:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 08:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

You understanding would be incorrect.

Your understanding, or lack there of, based on your own posting of the law, which you fail to comprehension, as your guilty of on every issue, possibly due to a brain injury, or the mental illness brought about by your ideology, (do your parents every let you out of the basement?) if I may repeat what you are saying, "I, Roberta, being of sound mind, (I like to pretend I'm normal sometimes) know nothing", is wrong.

First, it is "comprehend" not "comprehension". Second, I compehend the bill just fine. I know what the first 2 words say and I know what they mean. Unfortunately, you have dificulty thinking logically(actually, thinking in general) so I can understand your lack of comprehension. .

Stones - Glass houses....Pot-Kettle....et al. (I hope I spelled that right, troll.)

I notice that those who complain about this bill often cite things the historical "melting pot" image of America... about the founding fathers, about the Constitution, about the Nazi's.

What they FAIL to address is the fact that certain states are being over-run. You cannot properly budget/tax/staff for things if you cannot accurately count people. How are we supposed to staff schools, hospitals, police... you name it. We have a census, don't we? Why do we register aliens anyway?? This law, or any attempt to curtail illegal immigration IN NO WAY stops LEGAL immigration. It merely stops what is an admittedly illegal act. (I understand some may say it SHOULDN"T be illegal, but for the moment, it is... you don't like it, lobby to change THAT law, not THIS one). Your options are to decriminalize illegal immigration, or enforce penalties. Like it or not, decriminalization isn't particularly popular right now. I'm not talking about amnesty... I'm talking about having no borders... everyone can just show up and get services.

As to Robert's fears... I'm QUITE certain that the ACLU will argue and win that "looking hispanic" is not reasonable cause to suspect someone is here illegally... and reasonable cause is part of the language... and MANY of our laws like this. These claims of Nazi-ism are childish.

(04-27-2010 12:37 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 11:57 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 11:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 08:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

You understanding would be incorrect.

Your understanding, or lack there of, based on your own posting of the law, which you fail to comprehension, as your guilty of on every issue, possibly due to a brain injury, or the mental illness brought about by your ideology, (do your parents every let you out of the basement?) if I may repeat what you are saying, "I, Roberta, being of sound mind, (I like to pretend I'm normal sometimes) know nothing", is wrong.

First, it is "comprehend" not "comprehension". Second, I compehend the bill just fine. I know what the first 2 words say and I know what they mean. Unfortunately, you have dificulty thinking logically(actually, thinking in general) so I can understand your lack of comprehension. .

Robert tends to make at least four mistakes every time he points out one that another makes.

(04-27-2010 11:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 08:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  My understanding is that this works like the seatbelt laws in most states... you must be pulled over for a legitimate reason (speeding, tail light out, etc.), then they can ask you to show proof of residence... pretty much the same as a driver's license.

You understanding would be incorrect.

Apparently law enforcement in the state is taking the law in the way I described it... I heard an interview on the radio this morning discussing the whole issue and what the law truly means.

Now maybe the way the law is written can open up some loop holes down the road, but it is not being taken in your way to start.

I'd love to see the current laws enforced before adding new laws, personally. Anybody found to be here illegally should be deported immediately.

(04-26-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36778647/ns/...hite_house

From the link within this story:

Quote:The measure, which will make it a crime under state law to be an illegal immigrant, "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement," Calderon said.

Calderon said he had instructed the Foreign Relations Department to double its efforts to protect the rights of Mexicans living in the United States and seek help from lawyers and immigration experts.

"We consider the bill clearly discriminatory against immigrants, and especially against immigrants from Latin America," Jose Miguel Insulza said during a visit to El Salvador.

But wait....

Quote:Mexican officials relentlessly emphasize abuses at their northern border instead of at the Mexican-Guatemala frontier, but the conditions on the nation's southern border are beginning to attract international attention.

"Mexico is one of the countries where illegal immigrants are highly vulnerable to human rights violations and become victims of degrading sexual exploitation and slavery-like practices. They are also denied access to education and health care," Gabriela Rodriguez, the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner's special envoy on migrants' rights, said after visiting the Mexico-Guatemala border.

Cleaning up Mexico's own backyard would enhance Fox's credibility as he doggedly lobbies for immigration reform in Washington. At the same time, cracking down on criminal activity in the south would lessen the chance that illegal aliens, criminals and terrorists could use Mexico as a thoroughfare for entering the United States.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Guarding+t...0142107531

And there's still more....

Quote:Even as the Mexican government chides the U.S. for tightening its southern border against migrants, Mexican authorities appear to be doing some squeezing of their own near their frontier with Guatemala. And Tecun Uman teems with deported migrants whose dreams have collided with the harsh reality of how Mexico treats unwanted visitors.

Mexico expelled to Guatemala about 200 illegal migrants a day last month, up from 150 a day in January 1995. Mexican officials deny employing new measures to stop the flow, but migrants, journalists and other observers report more military and immigration roadblocks in the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca, a continuation of a two-year trend.

Moreover, the abuses that Central Americans long have suffered in Mexico persist.

In the early 1980s, tens of thousands of Guatemalans seeking refuge from their bloody civil war fled into southern Mexico. Before the Mexican government officially promised to provide sanctuary, some of those refugees were forcibly turned back into the waiting gun sights of the Guatemalan army. Others made it to refugee camps only to suffer crimes and indignities at the hands of Mexican officials and citizens alike.

Now at a time when many of those war-weary Guatemalans are returning home, fellow Central Americans who consider themselves economic refugees are encountering similar trials.

Miguel Angel Tovar, 29, made it from El Salvador to within sight of the Texas border at El Paso before being arrested in Ciudad Juarez this month. He said police took what money he had and then threw him in jail for three days. They fed him once, he said.

When Tovar tried to tell the Mexican police of his rights, such as the right to eat, they swore at him, he said.

"You have no rights," Tovar said they screamed, "You have no right to talk. You are a violator of the law."

Other migrants, the luckier ones, complain of similar abuses. The unlucky, such as Orlando Chochon of Guatemala, said they were assaulted by police.

Chochon, 19, said he was pistol-whipped by an immigration officer recently after bandits robbed him of about $400 and all his clothes. He and six Salvadoran traveling companions were left in Oaxaca with only their underwear.

Mexico's federal judicial police are widely considered the worst rights violators. According to reports, they take what they can from migrants before turning them over to immigration authorities, and punish those who carry nothing of value.

"If you can't pay with money, then you'll have to pay in another way," said Rev. Ademar Barilli, a Brazilian known as the "priest of the immigrants" in Tecun Uman. "And so the police beat them."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2..._572.shtml

Since I know you all are dying to know what I found out, it looks like it's the Commerce Clause.

Quote:It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immigration as a part of commerce of this country with foreign nations

http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/580/case.html

There was apparently a similar case in 1849, but it resulted in eight different opinions. Even I only have so much time.

It seems like an awfully big stretch, but at least it's a little better that merely asserting it as a sovereign power.

I actually came across a possibly better justification on a random webpage - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. This prohibit congress from prohibiting "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. I have always understood this clause to relate exclusively to slavery, but a literal reading of the clause doesn't require such a limitation.

(04-30-2010 04:59 AM)jh Wrote:  Since I know you all are dying to know what I found out, it looks like it's the Commerce Clause.

Quote:It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immigration as a part of commerce of this country with foreign nations

http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/580/case.html

There was apparently a similar case in 1849, but it resulted in eight different opinions. Even I only have so much time.

It seems like an awfully big stretch, but at least it's a little better that merely asserting it as a sovereign power.

Does that mean Congress is going to advocate human trafficking?

Actually, it seems these state/city led Arizona Boycotts should come under congressional scrutiny.

(04-30-2010 05:52 AM)jh Wrote:  I actually came across a possibly better justification on a random webpage - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. This prohibit congress from prohibiting "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. I have always understood this clause to relate exclusively to slavery, but a literal reading of the clause doesn't require such a limitation.

Does it have no effect after 1808?

(04-30-2010 08:49 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 05:52 AM)jh Wrote:  I actually came across a possibly better justification on a random webpage - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. This prohibit congress from prohibiting "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. I have always understood this clause to relate exclusively to slavery, but a literal reading of the clause doesn't require such a limitation.

Does it have no effect after 1808?

The way that I had always understood the clause is that it was intended to allow slave importation, in those states that wanted it, until 1808, after which the federal government would be allowed to ban slave importation (you could still trade the slaves already here). The straight literal reading would be that states regulate immigration until 1808 after which the federal government takes over.

(04-30-2010 02:41 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 08:49 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 05:52 AM)jh Wrote:  I actually came across a possibly better justification on a random webpage - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. This prohibit congress from prohibiting "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. I have always understood this clause to relate exclusively to slavery, but a literal reading of the clause doesn't require such a limitation.

Does it have no effect after 1808?

The way that I had always understood the clause is that it was intended to allow slave importation, in those states that wanted it, until 1808, after which the federal government would be allowed to ban slave importation (you could still trade the slaves already here). The straight literal reading would be that states regulate immigration until 1808 after which the federal government takes over.

My next question, Did the Fed. regulate immigration after 1808? Answer Yes. I remember that to immigrate to the US in the 20s 30s 40s, You had to be able to work, disease free, and had a sponsor that was responsible to get you assimilated. i.e. Job, learn language, prepare for test. So here is the question, When did they stop enforcement of immigration laws?

(04-30-2010 03:57 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 02:41 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 08:49 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 05:52 AM)jh Wrote:  I actually came across a possibly better justification on a random webpage - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. This prohibit congress from prohibiting "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. I have always understood this clause to relate exclusively to slavery, but a literal reading of the clause doesn't require such a limitation.

Does it have no effect after 1808?

The way that I had always understood the clause is that it was intended to allow slave importation, in those states that wanted it, until 1808, after which the federal government would be allowed to ban slave importation (you could still trade the slaves already here). The straight literal reading would be that states regulate immigration until 1808 after which the federal government takes over.

My next question, Did the Fed. regulate immigration after 1808? Answer Yes. I remember that to immigrate to the US in the 20s 30s 40s, You had to be able to work, disease free, and had a sponsor that was responsible to get you assimilated. i.e. Job, learn language, prepare for test. So here is the question, When did they stop enforcement of immigration laws?

My question in this thread has never been about whether or not the federal government has ever regulated immigration. It is whether or not there is sufficient Constitutional justification for it to do so.

Other than to put a tax on immigrants, the federal government did not regulate immigration for over 70 years after 1808. The initial regulations were designed to keep out "undesirables", indigents, rabble-rousers, asians, southern & eastern europeans, and the like.

I'm not sure what you mean by your final question. Ever since there have been restrictive immigration laws, there has been illegal immigration. One of the most entertaining times was during the period of the Chinese exclusion acts. The Chinese who were already here were allowed to stay but no more could come over. Unfortunately for the racists (and yes, I do believe this term applies), there was a fire in San Francisco which destroyed all the government's birth records. Production of San Francisco birth documents became a cottage industry in China & immigration continued.