There are no illegal immigrants in America

[Radar]

Originally Posted by binky

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.

Go to rehab

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Birds migrate.

Are you referring to a European or African swallow?

[classicman]

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

[TheMercenary]

[Radar]

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

[Radar]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

It refers to "Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".

[regular.joe]

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.

[Radar]

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Spexxvet]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

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

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

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

[regular.joe]

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

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.

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.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

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.