IBCoupe wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that the founders would have a big problem with the way the Federal government is (or isn't) responding to the problems along the Mexican border. There are two entirely different forms of border security - national sovereignty, and individual movement. The people that come across our southern border are not, by and large, agents working for the Mexican government. They are individuals working for themselves.
But the founders did place the ball under the Legislative branch and for very good reason. They did so knowing that the Legislative branch would be the one to make the rule of law, which is also granted in the same article of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Legislative Branch then went on to create regulations determining that it is illegal to enter the US without due process. Due process covers everyone, not just enemies or armies that threaten the US Sovereignty but individuals as well. The reason it was placed under the Legislative Branch is because they are publicly elected officials. Publicly elected officials having the ability to make new law and amendments as time progresses and change. Current law declares that it is illegal for ANYONE to enter the US without due process. There is nothing left open to interpretation where this is concerned.
IBCoupe wrote:
The first illegal immigration law wasn't passed until the late 19th century, targeting Chinese laborers, nearly a century after the signing of the Constitution. There were hordes of non-citizens living and working in the United States, and the Constitution is eerily silent on the issue. Libertarians that many of the founding fathers were, one can't help but wonder if they'd say, "They want to come here and get none of the legal rights and privileges associated with citizenship, work horrible hours, be exploited by employers, and still, by a majority, pay taxes into the system? Sounds pretty foolish, but, hey, go ahead." Michelle Malkin will be quick to tell you that a few of the founding fathers each had a sentence or two about the need for cultural assimilation, as per her column on July 2d, but she didn't seem to come up with anything that suggested they saw having proper papers as being important.
Again, the Legislative Branch is in control of Naturalization because it has the ability to make law as time changes. Also, I'd have to see some type of proof that the majority of illegals pay taxes. If they did I'd have a lot less reason to see the current population deported and be for a larger grant of amnesty as long as the borders are secured and properly enforced as part of the same "bargain" struck in Congress. Still, the Legislative Branch has already made written law governing illegal entry into America. So we're bound by that law until it is amended.
IBCoupe wrote:
This country was founded with laissez-faire ideals when it came to individual freedoms. I don't think that border security is any exception. Throughout history (and pre-history), human beings have always traveled where they wanted to, through porous borders, settling where they felt best, and doing what they felt was best for them. This doesn't change just because we erect some fencing and pass some laws, and I'd be surprised if the founding fathers had any preconceptions to the contrary.
IMHO
laissez-faire has far more to do with a citizens right to pursue profit without the intervention of the Gov be it State or Federal.
Laissez-faire is about Capitalism for me, at least that's my understanding. If you mean it in terms of allowing people to do whatever without Gov interference, then I agree...sort of. They can do whatever as long as they don't break the law, which in this case we've already shown illegals to be, wait for it....illegal
IBCoupe wrote:
I have one question, though: what constitutionally-assured rights are to be protected by illegal immigration laws? That was a very interesting parting shot of yours, and I'm curious as to where it's coming from.
I said the State was trying to protect it's citizens Constitutional rights. This doesn't necessarily mean the law of Naturalization, although allowing illegals to go unchecked does violate my rights.
Article IV, Section 4
Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
4 cups of coffee later
