Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

[Weatherman2020]

Thanks for validating my point. Taliban and ISIS can walk into America anytime and you're happy if it was only so.

What makes you think they can't do that already? And when you get to the point of saying people are going to walk here from Afghanistan and Syria then you've lost this debate.

The OP can't find one conservative who says the Taliban should be able to walk into America unchecked. Or Democrat. Or even a Communist.

Wrong.
Go look up Jeffrey Tucker.
That wasnt even the contention. You move the goalposts because yo've lost.

It's your topic headline. And you can't name one.
Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

I already named one, so you're shit outta luck moving those goalposts.

I'm sorry. I should have said name one that more than 15 people (including family) would recognize.

 

[The Rabbi]

Synth things the "Bill of Rights" is something you get in the mail every month you'ev got to pay.

That's ok, you think "migration or importation of persons", only applies to black people.

No, actually I KNOW that clause in the Constitution refers to slavery. And I cited sources that agree with me while you have yet to cite one.
Damn you're losing big here.

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

Yet we still have modern day slaves imported virtually daily. What's wrong can't find anything that says the Article I cited isn't in full effect? STFU till you do.

Really? We have slaves imported into this country? Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

What makes you think they can't do that already? And when you get to the point of saying people are going to walk here from Afghanistan and Syria then you've lost this debate.

The OP can't find one conservative who says the Taliban should be able to walk into America unchecked. Or Democrat. Or even a Communist.

Wrong.
Go look up Jeffrey Tucker.
That wasnt even the contention. You move the goalposts because yo've lost.

It's your topic headline. And you can't name one.
Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders

I already named one, so you're shit outta luck moving those goalposts.

I'm sorry. I should have said name one that more than 15 people (including family) would recognize.

Mooove those goalposts.

 

[OKTexas]

That's ok, you think "migration or importation of persons", only applies to black people.

No, actually I KNOW that clause in the Constitution refers to slavery. And I cited sources that agree with me while you have yet to cite one.
Damn you're losing big here.

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

Yet we still have modern day slaves imported virtually daily. What's wrong can't find anything that says the Article I cited isn't in full effect? STFU till you do.

Really? We have slaves imported into this country? Link?

Initial estimates cited in the TVPA suggested that approximately 50,000 individuals were trafficked into the United States each year. This estimate was subsequently reduced to 18,000 20,000 in the U.S. Department of States June 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report, and in its 2005 and 2006 reports, altered again to an estimate of 14,500 17,500 individuals trafficked annually into the United States.

According to official administrative data, since 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted 360 defendants in human trafficking cases, and secured 238 convictions (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).

Additionally, as of June 2007, 1,264 foreign nationals (adults and children) have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as victims of human trafficking, eligible to receive public benefits. Of these, 1,153 are adults, with 69 percent female victims. Of the 111 minor victims certified, 82 percent were female. For some victim service providers and NGOs, these figures are not considered representative of the actual number of human trafficking victims in the country. They believe that many victims go unreported (and uncounted) because they do not want to cooperate with law enforcement and, therefore, are never reported to authorities or receive Federal assistance (Caliber Associates, 2007).

Human Trafficking Into and Within the United States: A Review of the Literature

 

[The Rabbi]

No, actually I KNOW that clause in the Constitution refers to slavery. And I cited sources that agree with me while you have yet to cite one.
Damn you're losing big here.

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

Yet we still have modern day slaves imported virtually daily. What's wrong can't find anything that says the Article I cited isn't in full effect? STFU till you do.

Really? We have slaves imported into this country? Link?

Initial estimates cited in the TVPA suggested that approximately 50,000 individuals were trafficked into the United States each year. This estimate was subsequently reduced to 18,000 20,000 in the U.S. Department of States June 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report, and in its 2005 and 2006 reports, altered again to an estimate of 14,500 17,500 individuals trafficked annually into the United States.

According to official administrative data, since 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted 360 defendants in human trafficking cases, and secured 238 convictions (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).

Additionally, as of June 2007, 1,264 foreign nationals (adults and children) have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as victims of human trafficking, eligible to receive public benefits. Of these, 1,153 are adults, with 69 percent female victims. Of the 111 minor victims certified, 82 percent were female. For some victim service providers and NGOs, these figures are not considered representative of the actual number of human trafficking victims in the country. They believe that many victims go unreported (and uncounted) because they do not want to cooperate with law enforcement and, therefore, are never reported to authorities or receive Federal assistance (Caliber Associates, 2007).

Human Trafficking Into and Within the United States: A Review of the Literature

OK so there is no legal slavery, as per the 13th Amendment.
Thanks, Capt Obvious.

 

[Boss]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives.

I am a constitutional conservative, I listen to constitutional conservatives speak, I read books by them, I have never heard THIS argument made by any of them. The only people I've ever heard advocating open borders are Socialists who hope to flood our country with illegal immigrants in order to collapse the infrastructure and bring down the capitalist beast.

With open borders, we ostensibly cease to have a country. A constitution means nothing with no country. I'm not sure about what kind of point you're trying to make, I've scratched my head through this whole thread wondering about that. Sometimes, people can be absurd to illustrate absurdity... but I don't think that's the case here, I think you're being genuine. This is not the principle of any constitutional conservative I know of and I don't see where you've posted any examples of a prominent conservative uttering such a thing. This gets my vote for most bizarre thread of the week.

 

[OKTexas]

Of course it couldn't possibly apply to immigration and human smuggling, that's your ignorant assertion, not mine. Tell me, what amendment voided Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1? Provide proof, not your opinion.

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

Yet we still have modern day slaves imported virtually daily. What's wrong can't find anything that says the Article I cited isn't in full effect? STFU till you do.

Really? We have slaves imported into this country? Link?

Initial estimates cited in the TVPA suggested that approximately 50,000 individuals were trafficked into the United States each year. This estimate was subsequently reduced to 18,000 20,000 in the U.S. Department of States June 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report, and in its 2005 and 2006 reports, altered again to an estimate of 14,500 17,500 individuals trafficked annually into the United States.

According to official administrative data, since 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted 360 defendants in human trafficking cases, and secured 238 convictions (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).

Additionally, as of June 2007, 1,264 foreign nationals (adults and children) have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as victims of human trafficking, eligible to receive public benefits. Of these, 1,153 are adults, with 69 percent female victims. Of the 111 minor victims certified, 82 percent were female. For some victim service providers and NGOs, these figures are not considered representative of the actual number of human trafficking victims in the country. They believe that many victims go unreported (and uncounted) because they do not want to cooperate with law enforcement and, therefore, are never reported to authorities or receive Federal assistance (Caliber Associates, 2007).

Human Trafficking Into and Within the United States: A Review of the Literature

OK so there is no legal slavery, as per the 13th Amendment.
Thanks, Capt Obvious.

All I said is it's happening, not that it was legal, and congress has the Constitutional authority to pass laws concerning that, but also migration into the country per Article 1, Section 9. So take you childish snide comments and shove them up your obviously regressive ass.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

Read the Schooner Exchange from 1812 -

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.


All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself.


A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although not expressly plighted, which should suddenly and without previous notice exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the civilized world.


The full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereignty and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power, does not contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign can be supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent, sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication and will be extended to him.

Prior to 1819, the Steerage Act, the states controlled entry, which rolled over from the Articles of Confederation Article 4.

 

[The Rabbi]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives.

I am a constitutional conservative, I listen to constitutional conservatives speak, I read books by them, I have never heard THIS argument made by any of them. The only people I've ever heard advocating open borders are Socialists who hope to flood our country with illegal immigrants in order to collapse the infrastructure and bring down the capitalist beast.

With open borders, we ostensibly cease to have a country. A constitution means nothing with no country. I'm not sure about what kind of point you're trying to make, I've scratched my head through this whole thread wondering about that. Sometimes, people can be absurd to illustrate absurdity... but I don't think that's the case here, I think you're being genuine. This is not the principle of any constitutional conservative I know of and I don't see where you've posted any examples of a prominent conservative uttering such a thing. This gets my vote for most bizarre thread of the week.

OK then if you are a Constitutional Conservative you can cite what authority Congress has to regulate immigration. Don't give me the Naturalization clause because we've already covered that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please cite authorities who say that clause applies to anything other than slavery. I'll wait.
The 13th Amendment voided it as it outlawed slavery.

Yet we still have modern day slaves imported virtually daily. What's wrong can't find anything that says the Article I cited isn't in full effect? STFU till you do.

Really? We have slaves imported into this country? Link?

Initial estimates cited in the TVPA suggested that approximately 50,000 individuals were trafficked into the United States each year. This estimate was subsequently reduced to 18,000 20,000 in the U.S. Department of States June 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report, and in its 2005 and 2006 reports, altered again to an estimate of 14,500 17,500 individuals trafficked annually into the United States.

According to official administrative data, since 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted 360 defendants in human trafficking cases, and secured 238 convictions (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).

Additionally, as of June 2007, 1,264 foreign nationals (adults and children) have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as victims of human trafficking, eligible to receive public benefits. Of these, 1,153 are adults, with 69 percent female victims. Of the 111 minor victims certified, 82 percent were female. For some victim service providers and NGOs, these figures are not considered representative of the actual number of human trafficking victims in the country. They believe that many victims go unreported (and uncounted) because they do not want to cooperate with law enforcement and, therefore, are never reported to authorities or receive Federal assistance (Caliber Associates, 2007).

Human Trafficking Into and Within the United States: A Review of the Literature

OK so there is no legal slavery, as per the 13th Amendment.
Thanks, Capt Obvious.

All I said is it's happening, not that it was legal, and congress has the Constitutional authority to pass laws concerning that, but also migration into the country per Article 1, Section 9. So take you childish snide comments and shove them up your obviously regressive ass.

It's so fun to see people bitter when they lose an argument. Better luck next time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

Read the Schooner Exchange from 1812 -

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.


All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself.


A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although not expressly plighted, which should suddenly and without previous notice exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the civilized world.


The full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereignty and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power, does not contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign can be supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent, sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication and will be extended to him.

Prior to 1819, the Steerage Act, the states controlled entry, which rolled over from the Articles of Confederation Article 4.

I still see no authority from the COnstitution, which delegates specific powers to Congress, to regulate ingress and egress in this country.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

Read the Schooner Exchange from 1812 -

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.


All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself.


A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although not expressly plighted, which should suddenly and without previous notice exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the civilized world.


The full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereignty and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power, does not contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign can be supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent, sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication and will be extended to him.

Prior to 1819, the Steerage Act, the states controlled entry, which rolled over from the Articles of Confederation Article 4.

I still see no authority from the COnstitution, which delegates specific powers to Congress, to regulate ingress and egress in this country.

Immigration falls under many different clauses/articles. Here's a good link

Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

Who controls the nation’s immigration laws? Although the question seems straightforward, the historical picture is mixed, and the text of the U.S. Constitution does not point clearly to the answer. While the Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions.

Federal Immigration Power

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become naturalized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th century that Congress began to actively regulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. A unanimous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Commerce Clause grounds.

From that time on, the Court upheld federal immigration regulations against constitutional challenges, although the underlying rationale shifted. With the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, the Court began issuing a series of decisions in which it treated congressional power over the regulation of immigration as a virtually unreviewable, plenary power. The Court upheld congressional immigration laws and executive enforcement of those laws against a series of challenges, in spite of their patently discriminatory nature and lack of due process guarantees for noncitizens. The Court repeatedly suggested that this federal power flowed from the federal government’s prerogative to control foreign affairs.

Looks like the Naturalization Clause and the Commerce Clause and the Plenary Power, to include the inalienable right of the country to its own sovereignty.

Even the UN recognizes that people don't have the right to immigrate, they only have the right to leave their own country (and that can be regulated), not to enter another country.

 

[kaz]

National security? Seriously?

National security, obviously. Just like the fence around your home or a nuclear power plant. Or those aren't for security in your world either? Yeah ...

 

[The Rabbi]

National security? Seriously?

National security, obviously. Just like the fence around your home or a nuclear power plant. Or those aren't for security in your world either? Yeah ...

As I said, in that light everything is national securrity. Which means your argument is self-defeating.

 

[The Rabbi]

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

Read the Schooner Exchange from 1812 -

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.


All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself.


A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although not expressly plighted, which should suddenly and without previous notice exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the civilized world.


The full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereignty and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power, does not contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign can be supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent, sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication and will be extended to him.

Prior to 1819, the Steerage Act, the states controlled entry, which rolled over from the Articles of Confederation Article 4.

I still see no authority from the COnstitution, which delegates specific powers to Congress, to regulate ingress and egress in this country.

Immigration falls under many different clauses/articles. Here's a good link

Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

Who controls the nation’s immigration laws? Although the question seems straightforward, the historical picture is mixed, and the text of the U.S. Constitution does not point clearly to the answer. While the Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions.

Federal Immigration Power

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become naturalized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th century that Congress began to actively regulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. A unanimous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Commerce Clause grounds.

Looks like the Naturalization Clause and the Commerce Clause and the Plenary Power, to include the inalienable right of the country to its own sovereignty.

Even the UN recognizes that people don't have the right to immigrate, they only have the right to leave their own country (and that can be regulated), not to enter another country.

The same Commerce Clause that authorizes drug enforcement and civil rights. Based on that everything comes under the commerce clause, whcih would give the fed gov unlimited power. Which defeats the notion of limited government.
So another fail.

 

[kaz]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives. And since you pretend to be a Libertarian I would think you'd take it seriously

I "pretend?" What does that mean? You're being ridiculous

Where does the fed gov get the authority in the Constitutioon to regulate the border?

National Security

It isn't there. Your argument is the EXACT same one used to support universal background checks on gun purchases. We need to check out who is buying guns and why. Now anyone can go to a gun show and buy what they want, including criminals.
It's a fail when applied to gun control and a fail when applied to immigration. In both cases you cannot stop malfeasors from acting badly ahead of the fact.

Gun control isn't a national security issue. I've argued consistently that gun rights should be no more or less than any other Constitutional right. You have to seen that, I argue it all the time.

Another difference is that national security is about protecting us from foreign threats. Domestic gun crimes are a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

When terrorists walk across the Mexican border with nuclear material and and blow a dirty bomb in your neighborhood and kill your family, go ahead then and tell me there wasn't a national security issue. By your logic, we can't stop planes from flying across the border and attacking cities either.

It's ridiculous, defending the border's just directly a national security issue

National security? Seriously? We existed as a nation for 100 years without any border control at all.
On your view everything is national security. NSA spying is national security. Drug dealing is national security. TSA is national security. You can make a case for everything being part of national security and thus everything is authorized under the Constitution. But then there's that limited powers thing so it wont wash.
Yours is a self-refuting argument.

The world was more civilized until the left began to destroy civilization in the 60's. Kids could take their rifle to school to go hunting afterwards 60 years ago. Now kids have a sandwich chewed into the shape of a gun all the "adults" in the school freak out.

We didn't have the capability of defending the borders for that "100 years," it wasn't possible. He's just diverting attention from his stupid argument that defending our borders isn't a national security issue

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Im not claiming we can control the entry of aliens. You are claiming that. I claim there is no authority under the Constitution to do such a thing.

Read the Schooner Exchange from 1812 -

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.


All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself.


A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although not expressly plighted, which should suddenly and without previous notice exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the civilized world.


The full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereignty and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power, does not contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their sovereign rights as its objects. One sovereign can be supposed to enter a foreign territory only under an express license or in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent, sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication and will be extended to him.

Prior to 1819, the Steerage Act, the states controlled entry, which rolled over from the Articles of Confederation Article 4.

I still see no authority from the COnstitution, which delegates specific powers to Congress, to regulate ingress and egress in this country.

Immigration falls under many different clauses/articles. Here's a good link

Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

Who controls the nation’s immigration laws? Although the question seems straightforward, the historical picture is mixed, and the text of the U.S. Constitution does not point clearly to the answer. While the Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions.

Federal Immigration Power

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become naturalized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th century that Congress began to actively regulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. A unanimous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Commerce Clause grounds.

Looks like the Naturalization Clause and the Commerce Clause and the Plenary Power, to include the inalienable right of the country to its own sovereignty.

Even the UN recognizes that people don't have the right to immigrate, they only have the right to leave their own country (and that can be regulated), not to enter another country.

The same Commerce Clause that authorizes drug enforcement and civil rights. Based on that everything comes under the commerce clause, whcih would give the fed gov unlimited power. Which defeats the notion of limited government.
So another fail.

It falls back to how you define limited govt, I'm betting your definition isn't the same as the Conservative platforms.

 

[kaz]

National security? Seriously?

National security, obviously. Just like the fence around your home or a nuclear power plant. Or those aren't for security in your world either? Yeah ...

As I said, in that light everything is national securrity. Which means your argument is self-defeating.

Yes, you did say that, and it's as stupid now as it was when you said it the first time. Defending our borders isn't a national security issue. Anyone should be able to just walk across them any time they want, bringing whatever they want, no security problems involved in allowing that at all. You really believe that. I hope this is tongue in cheek because I never thought you were an imbecile before

 

[Weatherman2020]

It isnt ridiculous. It is the principle of Constitutional Conservatives. And since you pretend to be a Libertarian I would think you'd take it seriously

I "pretend?" What does that mean? You're being ridiculous

Where does the fed gov get the authority in the Constitutioon to regulate the border?

National Security

It isn't there. Your argument is the EXACT same one used to support universal background checks on gun purchases. We need to check out who is buying guns and why. Now anyone can go to a gun show and buy what they want, including criminals.
It's a fail when applied to gun control and a fail when applied to immigration. In both cases you cannot stop malfeasors from acting badly ahead of the fact.

Gun control isn't a national security issue. I've argued consistently that gun rights should be no more or less than any other Constitutional right. You have to seen that, I argue it all the time.

Another difference is that national security is about protecting us from foreign threats. Domestic gun crimes are a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

When terrorists walk across the Mexican border with nuclear material and and blow a dirty bomb in your neighborhood and kill your family, go ahead then and tell me there wasn't a national security issue. By your logic, we can't stop planes from flying across the border and attacking cities either.

It's ridiculous, defending the border's just directly a national security issue

National security? Seriously? We existed as a nation for 100 years without any border control at all.
On your view everything is national security. NSA spying is national security. Drug dealing is national security. TSA is national security. You can make a case for everything being part of national security and thus everything is authorized under the Constitution. But then there's that limited powers thing so it wont wash.
Yours is a self-refuting argument.

The world was more civilized until the left began to destroy civilization in the 60's. Kids could take their rifle to school to go hunting afterwards 60 years ago. Now kids have a sandwich chewed into the shape of a gun all the "adults" in the school freak out.

We didn't have the capability of defending the borders for that "100 years," it wasn't possible. He's just diverting attention from his stupid argument that defending our borders isn't a national security issue

Even so, we had the occasional Banditos crossing, but there was no threat for the sake of terrorism or murder like today.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.

Securing our borders is clearly a defense issue

Clearly it is not. If it were Congress would have enacted border control prior to the 1870s. Until then anyone who wanted to come here came.

Those that wanted to come came, yet they weren't all allowed in as the states controlled their ports and borders, roughly 30% were denied entry, and half of those that were let in ended up going back to where they came from.