The Federal Government Has No Immigration Powers

[Radar]

You claim that "We the People" have granted the federal authority to regulate immigration even if it's not in the Constitution. This is false. We the people have given the federal government certain powers and We the people have limited those powers to being only what is enumerated in the Constitution. We the people have prohibited the federal government from creating or enforcing any laws which do not pertain to those specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.

The only way for "We the People" to grant such power to the federal government (which violates every principle America was built upon) is to amend the Constitution. This has not been done yet.

The Constitution isn't a "living document". It's the highest law in our land. It's higher than all 3 branches of government, and it's the foundation of freedom and peaceful society in America. Yes, it was created by men. And luckily for us, it was created by men who knew they didn't know everything. This is why they allowed it to be changed, but not changed easily.

No part of government that was unconstitutional in 1790 is Constitutional now unless the Constitution has been amended to allow it. That which is unconstitutional now, may only become Constitutional later through an amendment to the Constitution and NOT an act of Congress that is ignored by the Supreme Court.

The Constitution was created to put chains on the federal government and to keep most power in the hands of the states and in the people themselves.

I most certainly do not have to come up with a "better rationale" for why the government shouldn't regulate immigration other than it being a direct violation of the highest law in our land. The Constitution works for the people by limiting the powers of our federal government. Limiting immigration when the Constitution prohibits it is not working for the people.

The Constitution isn't to be ignored or thought of as some quaint old relic of our past. It's the foundation of our entire society and it is what makes America more free than other nations. It locks down our government and keeps real power in the hands of the people. It's what makes us citizens rather than subjects. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's meaning and intent are clear and are in simple English, not Swahili. No interpretation is needed, and those who try to interpret it are usually looking for loopholes or ways around it, or to destroy it.

Originally Posted by Radar

You claim that "We the People" have granted the federal authority to regulate immigration even if it's not in the Constitution. This is false. We the people have given the federal government certain powers and We the people have limited those powers to being only what is enumerated in the Constitution. We the people have prohibited the federal government from creating or enforcing any laws which do not pertain to those specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.

My statement stands as factual since this practice is in practical application. The part of your statement that I've placed in bold type is the defect in your position. The federal government already has immigration regulatory effect under the "law" (figuratively speaking) of implied consent. We the People have chosen not to stop it from happening at this time. The Constitution is just a piece of paper with writing on it: it requires people to make it happen.

The only way for "We the People" to grant such power to the federal government (which violates every principle America was built upon) is to amend the Constitution. This has not been done yet.

Which is not to say that it won't be done in consonance with every principle America will build a successful future upon.

The Constitution isn't a "living document". It's the highest law in our land. It's higher than all 3 branches of government, and it's the foundation of freedom and peaceful society in America. Yes, it was created by men. And luckily for us, it was created by men who knew they didn't know everything. This is why they allowed it to be changed, but not changed easily.

You're playing with the semantics of the terms "living document" and "Living Constitution." My point is that the Constitution was created with a provision for changes and you acknowledge above that it was.

No part of government that was unconstitutional in 1790 is Constitutional now unless the Constitution has been amended to allow it. That which is unconstitutional now, may only become Constitutional later through an amendment to the Constitution and NOT an act of Congress that is ignored by the Supreme Court.

There's room for agreement on this point among proponents for both the Living Constitution and Originalism. See the Judicial Activism paragraph in the above linked web page.

The Constitution was created to put chains on the federal government and to keep most power in the hands of the states and in the people themselves.

The Constitution, as created, also put chains on categories of We the People.

I most certainly do not have to come up with a "better rationale" for why the government shouldn't regulate immigration other than it being a direct violation of the highest law in our land. The Constitution works for the people by limiting the powers of our federal government. Limiting immigration when the Constitution prohibits it is not working for the people.

Yes, it is. Furthermore, your reluctance "to come up with a 'better rationale' for why the government shouldn't regulate immigration" is why We the People are allowing it to happen.

The Constitution isn't to be ignored or thought of as some quaint old relic of our past. It's the foundation of our entire society and it is what makes America more free than other nations. It locks down our government and keeps real power in the hands of the people. It's what makes us citizens rather than subjects. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's meaning and intent are clear and are in simple English, not Swahili. No interpretation is needed, and those who try to interpret it are usually looking for loopholes or ways around it, or to destroy it.

Those who try to interpret the Constitution for the times we live in are striving to maintain it as the foundation of our evolving society. Those who claim that no interpretation is needed undermine the evolution of this great society by favoring stagnation in pursuit of their own agendas.

Those who wish to read about the Living Constitution theory of constitutional interpretation versus Originalism can get the gist of the matter from Wikipedia.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

My statement stands as factual since this practice is in practical application. The part of your statement that I've placed in bold type is the defect in your position.

There is no defect in my position. The defect in your position is that you don't recognize the indisputable fact that the powers of the government are limited strictly by the U.S. Constitution.

My position is practical in its application and was used successfully in practice for the first 100 years of America's existence before the government started routinely violating it and America started going down the toilet.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

The federal government already has immigration regulatory effect under the "law" (figuratively speaking) of implied consent. We the People have chosen not to stop it from happening at this time. The Constitution is just a piece of paper with writing on it: it requires people to make it happen.

The Federal Government has absolutely zero implied powers and is in fact PROHIBITED from having implied powers by the 10th amendment.

You are saying that because the people haven't stopped it, this means they consent to it. This is like saying a woman who didn't struggle to your satisfaction while being raped, really wanted it.

The Constitution isn't merely a "piece of paper" and isn't a "living document". The Constitution is the foundation of all our government. Without strict limits on the powers of our government, America is no better than Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Which is not to say that it won't be done in consonance with every principle America will build a successful future upon.

Not at all. The timeless principles which built America are as true and practical today as they were at the time the founders created the Constitution. Violating those principles will not build a successful future. It will bury any chance for a successful future.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

The Constitution, as created, also put chains on categories of We the People.

No, it actually doesn't. The Constitution does nothing to limit or infringe upon our rights. The Constitution (as created) includes all amendments that were legally ratified throughout America's history. They are part of the creation.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Yes, it is. Furthermore, your reluctance "to come up with a 'better rationale' for why the government shouldn't regulate immigration" is why We the People are allowing it to happen.

[b]No, it isn't. No violation of the Constitution on the part of the government is working for the people. If the people want the federal government to have authority over immigration, it takes nothing less than a Constitutional amendment. Stopping the government from violating the Constitution is the highest of all rationales. There are none better.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Those who try to interpret the Constitution for the times we live in are striving to maintain it as the foundation of our evolving society. Those who claim that no interpretation is needed undermine the evolution of this great society by favoring stagnation in pursuit of their own agendas.

Those who wish to read about the Living Constitution theory of constitutional interpretation versus Originalism can get the gist of the matter from Wikipedia.

Those who try to "interpret" the Constitution are trying to find ways around it or to violate it. If they want to change it, there is one and only one way to allow government to have powers outside the scope of the Constitution and that is through a Constitutional amendment. The "living document" nonsense you keep linking to means that the Constitution can be changed by amendments.

You don't "interpret" the Constitution to mean what you want. You amend it to say what you want, and you need 3/4 of both houses to do this. Nothing else is acceptable, and nothing else is working for the people. All violations of the Constitution by government are wrong regardless of someone's intentions.

When you allow the government to violate the Constitution for even the best reason, you open the door to abuse and for people to violate it for the most heinous, racist, xenophobic, and evil reasons....like restricting immigration.