Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Give me your tired, your poor


"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

-- From a Poem by Emma Lazarus on the pedestal, Statue of Liberty, New York


Nearly all of the people in the United States today are either immigrants or are descended from immigrants, no matter how far back one wants to go. With the exception of the indigenous population, from the beginning of colonization of the New World in the 1500’s, we or our forefathers came here from other places.


Now, in the late 20th and early 21st century, we are dealing with another problem that has come to the forefront of political debate from time to time, and a solution continues to vex American politicians of both parties. That is the problem of immigration reform. There is nearly universal agreement that the US immigration system has massive problems; the agreement on how to fix it is less clear.


First, let’s define terms. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the following definition: An illegal alien is a person who is not a US Citizen and who in this country and who falls into one of two categories: Entry Without Inspection (meaning crossing a valid US Border checkpoint and being admitted by a customs inspector), or Entry With Inspection (but who has violated the terms of their visa permitting entry) Aliens who have entered without inspection are treated much more harshly than an alien who has entered with inspection and who has violated a term of their visa permitting them to remain in the US. There are at least 11 million illegal aliens, and this number is probably in error in that it is too low. The reason the number is probably too low is that there is no reliable way to count illegal aliens; most are not interested in showing up to be counted by the government for any reason.


Next, let’s examine what we do about illegal aliens currently. If someone is found to be in the US illegally, it can be because they were swept up in an ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) raid (such as the highly publicized raid in Iowa not too long ago), but more often, its due to a criminal conviction and/or jailing pending trial. Many jails routinely screen for immigration status and inform ICE if the person appears to be in the US in violation of immigration law. Once ICE has been advised, they normally place an “immigration hold” on the person. The tricky part is that if ICE doesn’t take custody of the person within 48 hours of completing the sentence (if the person is serving one) or being otherwise eligible for bail, the person has a right to petition for a writ of habeus corpus to be released from custody. Let’s assume, however, that ICE comes and takes custody.


The person will then be brought before an immigration judge, and asked if they agree that they are subject to removal from the US. If they agree, then they are either allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the US or are deported back to their country of origin. (Sometimes a bond is required if they are allowed to voluntarily remove themselves) If they disagree, they may be held pending a hearing at which point the government must prove that they are ineligible to stay in the US for a variety of reasons (that I won’t discuss here for brevity’s sake)


The reasons that people enter the US illegally are complex, but include the fact that there are opportunities available in the US that do not exist in their home countries. This includes jobs, better working conditions, and higher pay. The argument has been made that illegal immigrants take jobs away from US citizens. A counter argument has been made that illegal immigrants generally take low paying jobs that US citizens won’t take. Both sides of the debate present data which tend to back up their claims, and the truth is probably closer to both sides being correct. Illegal immigrants may very well take some jobs away from US citizens, but at the same time, they also take jobs that US citizens won’t take.


I always think it is disingenuous to identify a problem without a solution. I don’t think this is a crisis by any means. I think there is room for improvement in our system, and I do not think its feasible to simply round up and deport the huge numbers of illegal immigrants that we have in the US as some on the far right have demanded. Nor do I propose granting amnesty.


I give some credit to President Bush for daring to take on the problem of illegal immigration and for proposing some solutions which were very against the majority of the Republican party. In the field of immigration law reform, the Republican party is between a rock and a hard place. The right-wing base seems to have the idea that it would be practical to try to deport at least 10 million people from the United States. This is not an idea grounded in reality. Others within the Republican party enjoy the idea of having illegal workers in the US, because they can be exploited to work for practically slave labor wages.


My suggestion for the illegal immigration problem is two fold:


1. We must stop the economic incentive that illegal aliens have for coming to the US. This means we must pass and enforce strict new laws concerning employers or contractors who hire illegal aliens. A suggested regulation or statute would read as follows:
A. Upon acceptance for hire, all employers in the United States who collect payroll taxes from employees must examine government issued photo identification and an original social security card upon which the name matches the photo identification. Anyone who operates on a contract or subcontractor relationship shall also comply with this Act. The social security number thus provided bust be provided to the USCIS (US Customs and Immigration Service) for verification against the USCIS database within 72 hours of acceptance of employment. The USCIS shall maintain a database of all persons eligible to work in the US. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided does not match the name then:
(1) The employer must provide the prospective employee with this information and give the employee the name and address of the nearest social security office and the USCIS office.
(2) The employer may provisionally hire the prospective employee, but shall demand that they produce government issued photo identification and an original social security card and re-enter tha number thus provided into the USCIS database no less than 30 days nor more than 45 days after the initial entry. If the employer is notified by the USCIS that the social security number does not match the name or that the person is not eligible to work in the US, the employer must immediately terminate the employee until such time as USCIS can report that the social security number and name match and that the person is eligible to work in the US.
(3) The employer may not repeat the process in Section 1(A)(1) and (2) more than one time for any particular individual. The employer shall report to local law enforcement the name and last known address of any individual who produces more than 2 sets of identity documents showing different names.
B. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided is not valid for employment, the employer must immediately terminate or refuse to hire the individual.
C. Any employer who fails to comply with Sections A or B shal be deemed for the purpose of this act to have knowingly hired a person not authorized to work in the United States.
D. Any employer who knowingly hires a person not authorized to work in the United States is guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished as follows:
(1) For the first offense committed after this statute is effective, a fine in the sum of $25,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(2) For the second offense committed within ten years of a first offense, a fine in the sum of $50,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(3) For a third offense committed within ten years of a first offense, the employer shall be deeded to be operating a continuing criminal enterprise and all property of the employer, including real and personal, and any proceeds of the crime, shall be subect to forefeit to the United States. The Court shall determine, after hearing, the extent to which the property has been involved, but the Court shall include the physical location where the violation occurred in its determination.

The above proposed legislation would help with the people who are both here now, and are tempted to come in the future. Would it stop it entirely? No, it would not. There will always be some who are willing to come and gamble that they can find someone who would hire them and not pay any attention to the rules. It would help with the institutionalized hiring of illegal aliens that is routine in some American industries. Under this proposed legislation, any employer, not just large companies, would be required to comply with this requirement, as would anyone who hires "subcontractors" but who does not withhold payroll taxes.

2. As far as those who are currently here illegally, I would give the above legislation a chance to work, but would also given an opportunity for these people to bring themselves legal. I would show them that there is an opportunity in the US, but to earn the right to legally work in the US would not be easy, nor would it be free. Hopefully, many of those who are here illegally would decide to return home when they could not find work. For those who chose not to, beginning on the effective date of the statute and for a period of two years, those who are illegally in the US can apply for provisional residency status, with some provisions:
A. The illegal alien must show that they have been in the US for a period of at least five years prior to the effective date of the statute. The USCIS will develop a list of documentation which is acceptable for proof, including but not limited to employment records. Said employment records can only be used for proof of residency.
B. The illegal alien must undergo a criminal background check to determine if they are otherwise admissible for residency in the US.
C. The illegal alien must, within five years of being granted provisional residency status, complete the following:
(1) Pay a civil fine of $2,500 for every year that the illegal was in the US prior to application. Such civil fine is not discharged in bankruptcy.
(2) Declare, file and pay any income taxes due and owing for every year the illegal alien was in the US prior to application. If no W-2 can be obtained, the illegal alien must declare all income as self employment. The Internal Revenue Service shall share such income tax returns with USCIS upon request.
(3) Maintain continuous employment for the five year period of provisional residency. If unemployed during this time, such period of unemployment may not exceed 6 months nor may there be an aggregate of more than 1 year of unemployment. No person under 18 shall be required to maintain employment if a dependent or dependent spouse of a provisional resident. A person under 18 years who reaches the age of 18 years during the period of provisional residency shall, if not enrolled full time in a bona fide institution of post-secondardy education, be employed during the remaining period of provisional residency. No one above the age of 72 years or disabled pursuant to the Social Security Disability Act shall be required to maintain employment, but no provisional resident shall be eligible for payments under the Social Security Disability Act unless they otherwise qualify based upon eligible periods of employment.
(4) Demonstrate continuing compliance with all US and state laws and tax provisions.
D. If, after the five year period of provisional residency has expired, all requirements have been met, the provisional resident shall apply for and be granted permanent resident status. Failure to apply for permanent resident status within one year of the ending of provisional resident status shall terminate provisional residency and the provisional resident must leave the US.

The above may seem harsh, and a high burden to overcome, but it is better than deportation and it is far from granting amnesty. This proposal allows for those who find they truly wish to stay in the US to apply for permission to be here legally, but that the process of doing so will not be cheap and it won't be easy. It should not be. They chose to break our law and enter illegally, and they can comply with our law or go home.

35 comments:

  1. Two thoughts crossed my mind as I read this, or more questions I guess. Who collects and holds the funds from the fees you suggest? And do those fees return to reimburse the various local, state, federal, tribal, etc. agencies who might have more asked of them under this proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, the fees would be paid to the Treasury of the US like any other fine. Congress can do what it likes with the money. I would HOPE that congress would use some of the fees to help pay for the establishing of the USCIS database, (it doesn't currently exist), but with Congress, who knows how they would choose to spend the money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent point KR; and I would be very concerned that a proposal like this one not go unfunded; or be hobbled by having any money over the bare necessities be skimmed off for other projects instead of plowing it back into this area.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for your comments, K-Rod. I'm glad that we are fairly much in agreement. (although we've disagreed so much I had to make sure I was reading the right blog) (grin)

    Once this statute goes into effect, if an illegal alien doesn't qualify to apply for the provisional residency program, they should leave or be deported as soon as possible. I would support legislation which streamlines the deportation of illegal aliens who have entered without inspection (and who therefore have little if any claim to stay legally in the US)

    I think we're already tightening our border, although I honestly don't think it will do much good. We could, conceivably, erect a system similar to what was used between East and West Germany prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its client states. However, I will note that even then, people managed to sometimes make it through the border there. No amount of border protection is going to be truly effective while there is a better quality of life in the US for an illegal alien, and currently, that is the case.

    I'm not suggesting that a hardened criminal be asked nicely to leave. An illegal alien caught and convicted in criminal activity would not be "asked" to leave. We would deport them immediately after they serve their sentence, and usually, even under current law, they are issued a bar order which means if they're found again in the US, they are subject to additional prison time for illegal entry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A lot of the cross border trafficing in drugs and gangs could be stopped if we tried. We have national guard on the border now, armed only with binoculars. Give them their guns and orders that any obviously armed men crossing are considered to be invading and treated as such. Armed men crossing the border should not be a police matter, the police and border patrol handle the ones walking across peacefully, the soldiers handle the armed ones. It would require some training as you would not want a "I thought he was reaching for a gun" kind of shootings. I am talking about the groups of 10 guys with ak47s and a jeep with a mounted gun escorting a drug shipment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The first point/suggestion is easily the most important.

    Economics rule nearly all things - as they say, "Follow the money."

    Were there no jobs for illegals, there would be no illegals aliens, none, zero, zip.

    We talk about closing borders, we talk about prosecution, but truly, you can't stop people - no matter what - if they really want to get into a country (or out of one). The Russians/Soviets built a great big fence, it did not work. They built the iron curtain (i.e. beefed up that fence) it did not work.

    It seems ironic to me the same people who state the 'market will fix all ills' and who champion the iron-clad rule of supply/demand, seem unable to acknowledge that as long as the demand (jobs paying better than jobs in the home country) exists, the supply will continue.

    You have to stop the employers - make it too expensive to employ aliens - and the demand will dry up.

    But, that means we US citizens have to be ready to pay a bit more for food, for fast food, for housing work, for day labor. But then again, it's fairly easy to document how raising the wages at the bottom trickles up in terms of better wages overall.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Penigma's comments are exactly on the mark with my proposed solution. By steeply increasing the fines and making it economically unappealing to hire undocumented workers, the source of jobs dries up. When I lived in Nebraska some 10 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for the large packing plants in central Nebraska to have a raid by Immigration every year or 18 months. They would deport 200 or 300 workers. The plant would just hire 200 or 300 more illegals, negotiate a slap on the wrist with the immigration department, and do business as usual. Under the plan I proposed, an employer caught with 250 workers would pay a fine of $6,250,000. And, since it would be prosecuted as a felony against the company, it wouldn't be something that could be negotiate: one can't negotiate with a federal judge if the fine is set by statute. A second offense for the same number of workers would cost the employer $12,500,000. That's not small change. The board of directors and stockholders of a company would also not wish to risk that upon a third conviction, the entire plant would be subject to forfeiture. This means we're talking about potentially several hundred million dollars. Employers would be very, very careful to review documentation and comply with the requirements.

    Would there be problems with the system at first? Probably. Its impossible to design a system this complex and have it run by the government and make it work right the first time. But, I suggest that such a system would be better than the system we have now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Without meaning to be sarcastic, I actually have to ask why you perceive this as a responsibility of the Federal Government?

    It's not in the Constitution, and for 150 years there were NO restrictions on immigration at all - it was never defined as a role for the Federal Government.

    I ask because while I agree it represents a potential national security issue, that means that it, like MANY other issues, over time rise to the level of representing a national problem, and therefore a national issue.

    When we want to restrict our interests to parochial interpretations of the Constitution when convenient, then those same rules can be used to restrict our interests when something really truly matters.

    I think it's far better to recognize we ask for 'the government' to intercede, it's normally because we the people need change, and change organized in the way that helps MOST of us, rather than just a few of us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW, the comment above was addressed, and in reply to, KR's comments about this being the responsibility of the Federal Government to handle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. K-Rod said...
    Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

    August 13, 2009 3:28 PM
    Yes, KR, and the congress started establishing that with the 1790s legislation. May I point out to you however, that this is immigration, not naturalization. They are different subjects that are related. People come here as immigrants wishing to live and work here, but may or may not choose to become citizens. Naturalization as I undertand it more specifically refers to who, when, and how people are becoming citizens not immigrant residents.

    It could be argued that technically from a strict constructionist point of view, the constitution does not give the federal government that right, and that the founding fathers intended to restrict citizenship and voting, but not to restrict immigration given that so many classes of persons were included in other ways by them in the early laws of this country.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry, that should have read, "in the founding documents and the early laws of this country"

    ReplyDelete
  12. KR -

    You said, "DG, the Supreme Court agrees with me. (and, as a side note, I will actually point out a specific, unlike others that just say something like, "the supreme Court said it’s in the constitution!" with out providing specifics, but I won't name names, ahem)
    (I also will refrain from adding at the end of this comment the fact that I am right. ;)


    So, I hope we can all agree that it is most definitely "the responsibility of the Federal Government". :)"

    Of course we agree, but not for the reason you said.

    Article 8 doesn't specifically read that the Federal Government has such a right (to deport, to monitor borders, to use military force for such purpose as it pertains to alients - certainly as it pertains to invasion, but hardly aliens/immigrants). I would argue with confidence that the founding fathers never even invisioned this as an exercise the Federal Government would ever have to engage in. Given your past standard of demanding to know where the specific words exist to layout this exact application of policy, I think you can understand if someone suggests you seem to be using one standard for something you want, and a different one for something you don't.

    However, YES ABSOLUTELY, this is something the federal government should have an interest in. It imparis our national security by imperilling our economy - and as such, the government has a 'general welfare' interest in controlling it.

    You further go on to site a Supreme Court case in, "Supreme Court decision in Chae Chan Ping v. US ("Chinese Exclusion Case"). The ruling establishes that Congress can restrict immigration or deport immigrants because of a nation's "duty" to "preserve its independence and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment" by a foreign nation, "whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us."

    While I agree with the ruling, candidly, that's an activist position - it is essentially INTERPRETING the meaning of Article 8 and expanding the role of the government and vision of the founding fathers through it. I don't object to EXACTLY this kind of expansion and interpretation - but you seem to.

    As for jobs, dealing drugs can be done (and make money) in Venezuala, or Columbia, or Mexico etc.. no one has to come here. I stand with confidence by my statement, eliminate the demand, and the supply will go away.

    Your solution deals with the symptom, but not the illness - and in a way which is at best draconian, and targets not the unfortunate people who were born in some destitute land and so seek a better life, and SURE break our laws- but do so as opposed to what? starvation? Instead I suggest we hold accountable those who are so cheap that they would prefer to break the law to make a few extra dollars off the backs of the vulnerable - and so undercut salaries nationally.

    I don't oppose deportation, it's the law, and I'm fine with it, but your solution will not, in my opinion, get you want you want. It sounds tough, it seems tough, but in the end it's most just brutal, but ineffective. If it were effective, the East Germans wouldn't have become West Germans.

    Also, I saw you commented on Obama 'arrogantly withholding (his birth certificate" - that comment is silly. KR, the evidence is irrefutable, he has no requirement to spend furhter time on such silliness - nor do we. Your suggestion/implication makes it sound like he's either hiding something, or not being forthcoming neither of which are true or fair. He has done everything anyone should expect given the irrefutable other supporting facts, and he has better things to spend his time on - or do you think the President should be spending his days worrying about frivilous and meaningless complaints and conspiracy theories suggested by people even you feel are insane?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually using this part of Article 1, Section 8 might be better "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." I am not sure what the specific law is but I would definitely consider the armed drug dealers an invasion. I know a couple of people nearly deported for climbing a wall in Rome and ending up in Vatican city (part of the Pope's gardens in fact), what they were charged with was invading a foreign country because they did not enter by legal means.
    Another thing to consider is if some of these people are doing jobs no one wants then lets increase the number of people we let in legally and put those jobs above the table instead of below. Once the employers have to pay at least minimum wage I bet they would find some people who want those jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If one were to advance a strict construction argument to the Constitution of the US, I have no doubt that the a strict reading of the constitution would provide that while congress can determine who becomes a citizen, congress has no authority to determine who comes over our borders. This is one of the problems I have with those who try to argue that the constitution should be strictly constructed. Most of the people who believe in strict construction of the constitution are rabidly conservative, but I fail to believe that many of those who mouth the words strict construction truly believe them. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito aren't stupid men. Both have mouthed those words, many times because that is what their conservative audiences want to hear. Yet, both have authored opinions which interpret the constitution in ways which could be seen as "activist" or against the strict construction of the constitution. I believe that both justices are perfectly aware that its simply not possible to strictly construct the constitution in the 21st century.

    Armed drug dealers really aren't the majority of the aliens who are crossing our border illegally, and those aren't the people that I'm intending to be subject to this article. We already have laws on the books about drug smuggling. They are breaking those laws, regardless of their citizenship, and if caught, should be tried for those crimes. In fact, the drug smugglers, by the very nature of the act, aren't interested in staying in the US, they're interested in bringing their contraband across the border, unloading it to the next person, and going back to pick up more. I also point out that there are laws on the books which in general, prohibit our military from being civilian police. While I think the national guard along our borders should be armed and allowed to defend themselves, I don't think the National Guard needs to be doing law enforcement. If we need additional border patrol, let's hire them and let them do what they're trained to do.

    ReplyDelete
  15. KR, I wanted to see what it felt like to take the strict constructionist view of the contents of the constitution. I tend to agree, that you are correct in this instance, and that as a practical matter there are no other alternatives to the federal government heading immigration control.

    I do however, believe that ToE is correct, and I know that Pen supports the view as well as it being my own, that there is no specific language about this in the Constitution, that it is a modification not intended by the founding fathers, who eagerly sought immigration. Further, speaking only for myself, not Pen (although he may agree, I don't know) I believe that absent specific language in the Constitution an interesting argument could be made to give more powers to the state as regards handling illegal immigrants. A case in point involves the deportation of an illegal immigrant who was injured in a car accident, was seriously ill, who was deported ....by a state, NOT federal, government, giving rise to a jurisdictional dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually KR,

    First, as ToE pointed out, there is no such wording or interpretation under strict constructionism.

    Second, that wasn't the standard I pointed out - or not entirely - it was that you had required the wording, the EXACT words to be present when we were talking about health care, but now are chosing to use a later SCOTUS decision to justify reasoning that Article 8 speaks to this point.

    I will not argue against what I believe, I believe and clearly said I believe, this is a responsibility of the federal government - but.. and to be clear

    1. Under strict construction - our founding fathers would not have conceived of limiting imigration - probably the opposite

    2. The words aren't in the Constitution.

    TTuck, nor I, nor you, nor DG, none of us are lawyers, and certainly none of us teach Constitution Law - so in this case, I'll defer to ToE - but it appears he has confirmed my opinion that under strict construction this is NOT an expressed power granted under Article 8.

    Fortunately, we don't have a bench full of strict constructionists, nor did the ruling you site come FROM strict constructionists.

    As far as your quip about 'gang-bangers' goes - KR, the issue is that there aren't jobs here enticing people over the borders to be gang bangers. The jobs pulling people over the border are for those who seek otherwise lawful employment. If you want to stem that flow, stem the demand.

    You above all people it would seem should be one who could recognize pure market economics and the futility of trying to choke off supply while demand still exists.

    Further, if you understand the history of eastern Europe under the Soviets, you should also understand building walls is an equally futile exercise and MASSIVE waste of money. For someone who professes fiscal restraint in other areas, I would hope you would find such a waste to be something to be avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  17. K-Rod,

    During and prior to the revolution, it wasn't uncommon for British soldiers and sailors to desert and settle in the US. The habit of the US Navy and merchant marine of hiring deserters was in part one of the sparks of the War of 1812, in fact. The US didn't invite armed combatants onto US soil, but we certainly made welcome millions of British, Welch, Irish and Scots immigrants during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. In fact, up until the latter part of the 19th century, the US had virtually no restrictions on immigration to the US. Then, due to the influx of Chinese laborers (mainly to build the railroad), and a general lingering racism prevalent in the US, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 which limited the numbers of Chinese admitted to the US and even forbade those who were present from ever becoming US Citizens. Other immigration laws soon followed, which targeted other countries and ethnic minorities.

    The point of the history lesson, K-Rod, is that until the middle of the 19th century, the US welcome almost everyone with open arms. Later, extreme racism coupled with protectionism took over our immigration policy. A great deal of our immigration policy is driven by those same principals today, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the US provides inter alia(as one of the express powers granted to Congress) "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and to establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"

    Findlaw's Online Law Dictionary defines Naturlize (the root of Naturalization) as "To admit (a person) to citizenship". Note that this is distinctly different than admitting a person to the United States.

    Amendment X of the Constitution also states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The strict reading of this article, combined with the reading of Article I, Section 8, supra clearly defines that as a matter of strict definition, congress has absolutely no authority to regulate immigration.

    I'm also quite aware that the Supreme Court has held that Congress may, using other sections of the Constitution, regulate immigration. However, it came to those conclusions by interpreting the constitution, which to a strict constructionist, is anathema. Are you now, K-Rod, telling us that you believe the Constitution should be interpreted rather than read literally? Because you see, you can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Article IV, Section 4 states: "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."

    The founding fathers had absolutely no intention of having a direct democracy. Aside from the logistics problems that this would have caused in most of American history, quite frankly, the founding fathers were elitists. They had noble goals of freedom, but most of them meant that this freedom was to be enjoyed by white males, (with or without owning property, depending on who was writing) The concept that the common citizen would have a direct voice in government was the furthest thing from their mind.

    I'm not insisting on black and white, K-Rod. I personally believe that there are more than sufficient cases where the SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution to allow Congress to regulate immigration. I'm just pointing out, as have others, that you can't in one argument insist on a literal reading of the constitution and then in the next instance, decide you're going to read something into the constitution that quite frankly, isn't there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've refrained from posting prior because I felt that I was in the presence of individuals far more learned on the subjects discussed here, so most of what I'm going to say here is my opinion. As such I welcome comment on what I say as a way of clarifying, educating me on where the flaws in my logic are and possibly even presentation of facts the might even support or strengthen that which I put forth as opinion. That being said I commence with my opinions on the matter.

    First let me start with a little history of my family. My paternal grandmother came here from Italy in 1956 with her 5 children. She’d been widowed 6 years prior and moved her family here for better opportunities that could not be found in Europe. It however was a decision that she could not make lightly because, although the children did not know it at the time, she understood that regardless of success or failure there was no going back. The reason I say this is because it would be extremely hypocritical for me to say that we should close our borders and limit or control who we allow to immigrate to the US; especially because IMHO it is the immigrants that keep us in touch with the American Dream. The US has lost touch with the very thing that made it great ambition. We (Americans) were always the black sheep amongst our allies. We didn’t have vast centuries of national history we are in the grand scheme of things a fledgling nation with a very dynamic identity. That very concept is what made us into the Superpower that we became following WW2. That “never say die” attitude is a thing of the past we now live in a nation that encourages mediocrity. When our children fail to meet the standard instead of seeing where we failed them in preparing them and instilling in them the drive to be the best of the best and seek to exceed the standard we coddle them and tell them that it’s not there fault that it was too hard and lower the standards. We have no pride in our work we have no drive to do it bigger, better, faster than everyone else. I realize I’ve strayed from topic so I will get back on the issue of immigration reform. I do believe that there certainly needs to be control of who is allowed to reside in the US and become a citizen. I am for allowing anyone who wishes to enter this country and exploit any and all LEGAL opportunities to better the lives of themselves and their families, but certainly do not want those who simple want to exploit the vague requirements for services that we have in our Social Security and Welfare programs, and certainly do not want to import another nations criminal element. I however have to agree that largely the problem of illegal immigrants is not the immigrants themselves but the Americans willing to look the other way in order to get cheap labor. Stop making it profitable to employ illegal immigrants and in as much as it can happen in an imperfect world the job market for them will dry up. Yes there are plenty of jobs and tasks that I would rather not do myself and would welcome anyone who is willing to do them for me in return for reasonable compensation to do so, provided that they, like I, pay taxes, and fulfill all other civil responsibilities that are expected of a member of a modern society. Unfortunately our laws are not written based on what is morally right or wrong but on what is most cost effective and what protects the “haves” from the “have nots”

    ReplyDelete
  21. Carlo, thank you for your comments, the value of the perspective you have brought here. Welcome to Penigma, and I hope that you will continue to join us in posting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It isn't personal, K-Rod.

    I seem to recall, however, in the health care reform debate, you insisting that Congress isn't authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care, and therefore, can't be doing it. (I'm paraphrasing you, and if I misunderstood you, I apologize) I took that to mean that you were insisting on a literal or "strict constructionist" view of the constitution. If I am wrong, and you do not hold such an attitude, then please accept my apologies.

    As a side note, I fully intend to post an article on this blog, as soon as I can finish my research on it, discussing why I believe that a strict constructionist view of the constitution is not only silly, but it is counter-productive to nearly everyone who holds it, regardless of their political philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Did I misunderstand you, K-Rod? Are you saying that you don't believe we need a strong central government?

    Let's take a history lesson:

    American History 101 - The Articles of Confederation.

    One of the real weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation is that it left almost all power with the states. Congress had virtually no authority to raise an army, levy taxes, or otherwise regulate matters between the states and the government. The Articles of Confederation were established just after the Treaty of Ghent resulted in British recognition of the US as an independent nation, but truly, the US at that point was a collection of sovereign states, none of which had any intention of cooperating with one another.

    The Constitution changed all this. It established a federal system, by which we have a centralized government. The federal government, under the constitution was given a number of powers. Those powers included the ability to establish rules for naturalization. One of the powers NOT given to the federal government in the constitution, if one reads the document literally, is the power to regulate immigration. (Note: The US Supreme Court has consistently refused, by large majorities, to read the constitution literally)

    Strict Constructionist belief includes the belief that the Constitution is a static document, that it must be read with the strict intent of the founders, and that if something isn't specifically spelled out in the constitution, then the federal government can't do it. As I've said earlier, you had made several statements that implied that you harbored those beliefs during the health care reform debate. Then, when we were debating immigration reform, you have indicated that you believe the constitution can be interpreted to allow the federal government to regulate immigration (I agree, by the way, but perhaps not for the same reasons).

    My point was, you can't cherry pick the arguments. Either you believe in a strict constructionist view of the constitution, or you don't. It really is that black and white.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Because this topic is about immigration reform, and only tangentially touches on constitutional issues, I am not going to take the bait to start a discussion of abortion.

    The reason its black and white, K-Rod, is that the two positions are exact opposites of one another. You can't hold one position and the other at the same time.

    In the debate over health care, you demanded that we show you where in the constitution that Congress has the power to deal with health care at all. This implies, since you were also quite vocal in your criticism of the health care plans being advanced in Congress, that you believe (or believed) that Congress has no power to deal with health care, because health care is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the US. That is a classical definition of strict constructionist belief. I've already defined that in other posts, supra.

    Next, in this debate, you have advocated the position that regulation of immigration (NOT the granting of citizenship, but just control over the border) is constitutionally allowed to Congress through a reading of Article I, Section 8. In Chae Chan Ping vs. United States 130 US 581 (1889) the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power to abrogate the Burlingame Treaty with China of 1868. I won't go into the history of the act or the notorious racism that was prevalent in the US at that time, but it is sufficient to say that the Supreme Court interpreted congress's power under a duty to protect the US as enabling it to abrogate the treaty with the passage of the act. My point: The Supreme Court agrees with you, that Congress may constitutionally regulate immigration. However, they didn't do so by finding those words written into the constitution. They did so by interpreting the constitution, which is an approach anathema to strict constructionists.

    I hope this has adequately explained this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  25. KR, if ToE misunderstood you, again, my suspicion is that it's because your argument so frequently is shifting sand. You ASK questions like where in the Constitution the right of the government to provide health care exists, and then argue for a right/responsibility regarding forcibly (or otherwise) preventing immigration - which is NOT identified either - but rather was interpreted decision by SCOTUS.

    As well, in fact there was NO consideration of life beginning at conception or ANY OTHER TIME except birth in the time of the founding fathers, so NO KR there is no such Constitutional wording which supports you without SCOTUS making some determination.

    What's even funnier, is that Roe rests upon the 14th, which is a specific protector of the little guy, a specific amendment designed to keep government from intruding into your life without cause.

    But as TOE said, we're not turning this into an abortion discussion - your grasp of the Constitution seems to be innacurate - you argue with someone who teaches the subject, but not about points which would seem to be in question or arguable, but rather about things which aren't in question. If you feel SCOTUS has no place but to decide what the words AS WRITTEN provide for as powers (i.e. strict interpretation), rather than to interpret the meaning of the words, then nothing supports your position that this is "inarguably the responsibility of the federal government."

    ReplyDelete
  26. As has been patiently explained to you repeatedly, K-Rod, you did NOT, and I repeat NOT show us where it gives Congress the right to control immigration. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to determine the process of gaining citizenship (if one is not born on American soil that is), but it is completely silent on the issue of immigration. The Supreme Court has held, (correctly I might add), that Congress also has the right to determine who is admissible to the US as an immigrant. In Chae Chan Ping vs US, 130 US 581 (1889) the Supreme Court of the US upheld the constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In doing so, it did NOT rule under Article I, Section 8, (the naturalization clause). It ruled that Congress, as the legislative body of the US, has an inherent right as a sovereign power to determine who can lawfully enter into the US. Article I, Section 8 had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    On the issue of health care: I've told you repeatedly that the issue of the constitutionality of health care reform hasn't yet been addressed by the courts. It won't be addressed by the courts until a law is passed, signed into law, and an actual case or controversy comes before the judiciary. Our judiciary in the US doesn't give advisory opinions. However, since I do have some knowledge of constitutional law, its my opinion that the courts will hold that Congress has such a power under the general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" (spelling as in original)

    ReplyDelete
  27. KR - two points -

    First, we arent talking about abortion here - but we are apparently talking about your misunderstanding of the Constitution for...

    YES, there ABSOLUTELY is a Constitutional decision saying partial birth abortions are incorrect, it's called Roe v. Wade.

    Prior to Roe v. Wade, there were state laws which prohibited abortions, but there was NO, ZERO, ZIPPO, NADA Constitutionally which prevented abortions other than the 10th amendment saying states could do so.

    Viability was codified under Roe - that we have moved away from it is to our dishonor, but you aren't making a cogent case by insulting people about their beliefs in killing babies, sin, etc..

    You need to refrain from such comments.

    ReplyDelete
  28. KR said:

    "As has been patiently explained to you repeatedly, TOE, and I repeat REPEATEDLY, the constitution gives Congress the responsibility for borders/naturalization/immigration/citizenship."

    No, actually KR, you have not - you have CLAIMED it, but someone more educated in the law than you has said your claim is lacking in merit and substance. Me, I'm going with the Constitutional Law Professor - as well as the fact that your 'explanation' has never, not once, explained the leap from naturalization to immigration control, and further, hasn't addressed strict constructionist limits on such a stretch.

    In truth, the reverse has been true, ToE has patiently explained why your understanding of the law is in error. Obdurate repetition of the same commentary by you does not make it true. It is time to recognize that your comments aren't persuasive because they lack logical foundation, substance, and merit.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Also,

    KR, I don't believe ANYONE has yet said it's a Constitutional right, please stop putting words in people's mouths - or as you might say, "Got a quote"?

    What we've said is that Congress has the right to levy, and has the right, generally, under the Commerce clause to engage in various acts, pass various laws. You've NEVER once made the same point as ToE, namely that this has been tested in front of SCOTUS and therefore established as a right - so he's not agreeing with you, you are coopting his words instead.

    However, Medicare HAS been tested, and has been found to pass muster, so it is reasonably safe to assume this will as well - and I don't hear any significant conservative politician claiming otherwise - meaning that it would not pass Constitutional muster. Consequently, I again will rely upon both history, prior ruling, and the erudite opinion of a lawyer teaching Constitution Law, in deciding I think your question of constitutionality is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I believe abortion is morally abhorrent. I find the very act to be repugnant. Yet, I also realize that there are some things that *I* find to be repugnant, and that my faith teaches is a sin, to be constitutionally permissible. Abortion is one such thing.

    I think that the basic finding of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade 410 US 113 (1973)that held that a state cannot intrude on a doctor-patient relationship within certain limits is correct. The Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, supra affirmed a very long line of decisions going back as far as 1891 building on a right of privacy. While its admitted by Justice Blackmun that there is no explicit right to privacy found in the Constitution, its inherent in the 1st, the 4th, the 5th and certainly in the concept of liberty expressed in the 14th amendments to the Constitution. Its the concept of liberty that specifically protects certain rights that many conservatives hold quite dear: For instance: Meyer vs. Nebraska said that parents ultimately have control over what is taught to their children in public school. Other cases established that states could not ban religious based schools. Other cases established that the government can't forbid people to reproduce and can't determine what couples do in their bedrooms. It is also this right which the Supreme Court said constitutionally protects a woman's right to an abortion. However, the SCOTUS also gave some important caveats: they said a state could ban abortion entirely at roughly the third trimester as long as the woman's life isn't at risk. The Supreme Court has also upheld a congressional ban on partial birth abortion. In Gonzales vs. Carhart 000 US 05-380 (2007) the Court held that a ban on this particularly gruesome method of abortion could be banned, and it remains illegal today.

    Therefore, K-Rod, I ask that you do not attempt to tell me what I believe. I certainaly don't think you know me nearly well enough to understand my beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not at all.

    While I wish that abortion didn't happen, it undoubtedly does, and as a constitutional scholar, I understand the legal argument which says that its a case of balancing government intervention with the rights of the mother with the government's interest in protecting the fetus.

    Did you actually read what I said? I have not advocated for abortion in any way, shape or form. However, I said that as a matter of constitutional law, its legal in the first trimester (in general) Roe vs. Wade made that clear. Even the most extreme abortion providers, while they don't like the decision in Roe vs. Wade, have figured out that the only way that is going to change is either by constitutional amendment, or by the court reversing Roe vs. Wade. While that's possible, I think it highly unlikely.

    There is a big difference between myself as a constitutional scholar saying that I understand the decision and believe that its legally correct, and agreeing with the practice that it makes correct. There are a number of things which are perfectly legal, but yet I find personally very distasteful. As an officer of the court, however, I have to present the state of the law as it is in the United States and I have done so in this disussion.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If in fact TOE's defense of the "legal" correctness of a law despite its opposition to his personal moral beliefs is hypocritical then I wish this world was full of that type of hypocrite. I however do not consider him a hypocrite at all if someone wishes to impose upon themselves a stricter code of conduct then what the law mandates then that is their prerogative and they should not have to justify why they do so. I myself am Roman Catholic. I have often had differences of opinion with the establishment of the Church; however I still feel that the basic foundations of the church's teachings are the will of God. However in a secular government what is the will or the Lord is not necessarily the best basis for a legal code. For the most part the law should not be telling you what's right and wrong on the whole good vs. evil axis of things. That's the role of your parents and your faith. It is my opinion that the law has no right to compel someone's decision about what they can or can not do with their body. At the same time I find abortion, under most circumstances, morally reprehensible, a child is a gift, a blessing, a miracle and so many other things except one; a child is not a choice. The choice should come before you do the deed, the choice to abstain or take measure to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Those few instances where it is in my opinion acceptable are incest, rape, when the pregnancy is of grave risk to the mother. While my children test the boundaries of my patience I love them unconditionally, with every ounce of my soul, despite the fact that they were not my decision to have or not have, because biologically they’re not mine. Parenthood isn’t about biology, it’s about love it’s about guiding a young person along the journey of life and trying to steer them away from the pitfalls that we fell into and trying our best to set them up for success despite their best efforts to sabotage it.

    However KRod I think that the most important fact that you seem to be missing is this thread isn’t about abortion it’s about immigration reform.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Immigration/naturalization most certainly is the responsibility of the federal government as directed by our constitution,

    Not by strict interpretatio of it, it isn't.

    At no point has anyone, least of all me, said that a correctly interpreted constitution doesn't grant this power. If it makes you happy to lie about what I've said and say I've said that the constitution doesn't grant this authority, well, that's your choice, but it's a lie.

    What is being pointed out to you is that you strict interpretation line isn't consistent with your allowance for a SCOTUS ruling which infers furhter powers. As I said when I FIRST COMMENTED, I believe such an inference is correct, but is not within the strictures of strict interpretation.

    That you clearly want to change the discussion to something other than your hypocritical stance is rather obvious.

    Answer one question though, WEHRE in the Constitution does it allow for control of immigration - not naturalization, but IMMIGRATION, where is the word IMMIGRATION and the power to police borders with respect to IMMIGRATION, where is that enumerated? I don't see it.

    I DO see subsequent SCOTUS decisions which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH, but nothing in the constitution itself. Please, help me see it - the Constitutional Law Professor has said you are wrong about Article II Section 8 - but please enlighten us all and point out where it is or please correct the lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No KR, not no, but heck no.

    It has NOT been established in 50 comments, you've claimed it a dozen or more, but you've NEVER, not once proven that UNDER A STRICT INTERPRETATION it is Constitutionally supported. In fact, the Constitutonal Lawyer has told you you're claim is incorret - it is NOT supported unders strict interpretation.

    Under liberal interpretation it IS, and ALL of us have agreed, LONG before you ever started commenting on this (i.e. long before this thread) that it IS a federal responsibility, but ONLY because of subsequent interpretation - and because INTENT matters, not because of verbiage. Your claim of the verbiage of naturalization meaning immigration/border control, is ONLY that, a claim, it is not historically or syntacially supported.

    Also, your comments are again going to be subject to greater scrutiny. If you feel it necessary to simply repeat the same things over and over again, interlaced with insults...they're going to be deleted/rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  35. KR, accept that we agree with you about Congress having authority over immigration regulation, as appropriately a federal rather than state matter.

    The disputed content here is that the constitution, under a strict constructionist interprettaion, does not mention immigration, or border regulation either, in the constitution's language.

    It is implied, it is arguably suggested. It has clearly been established both by accumulated legislation and court decision.

    But NOT consistent with strict constructionist interpretation, which should reject those laws and legal decisions.

    Correct me if I am wrong, that you have in the past, demanded to know where in the constitution it says things, clearly and specifically (not by suggestion, not implied, not ambiguously).

    You are being challenged here on taking a NOT strict constructionist interpretation, which some of us find inconsistent with your other arguments on other threads. We agree you are right, but we are asserting that you are being inconsistent.

    Personally, I am stil waiting for a reply to my inquiry on the other thread, about the claims on the anti-strib site about Obama spending $1 million dollars to hide his record, and his half-sister's supposed Hawaiian birth certificate. And your claims that I am a coward, and dismissing me as a 'screaming lefty'.

    Remember, I offered, IF you can produce proof of those anti-strib claims about Obama, to comment on that site.

    I don't think I deserve either of those accusations, and I do think that if you are going to uphold that site, you should substantiate what they said - or retract the link and the comments in support of the anti-strib.

    This is not going to go away KR. You were immoderate in your statements. If I err, I apologize, and usually I even thank the person who corrects me, as well as try to correct any erroneous statement. I don't think it is too much to expect the same from you.

    ReplyDelete