Of COURSE there is a “reason.” If YOU can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What hubris.
Cool, then what is it? What’s the hold up Dave?
I’ve asked you three times now, and still no answer.
Every square foot of the United States is already OWNED by someone. There is no “free land” to be had here any longer (though a case could be made that the federal government SHOULD divest itself of all the land it “owns.”). I have no wish to give up what I own so some non-citizen alien can have a “piece of the pie.”
It basically boils down to is the United States of America a sovereign nation or not. AS thinks not.
Not true; there’s a standing homesteader law in Alaska. Live there five years, the land is yours. Pretty sure Wyoming has something similar.
But we’ve already covered this; if people are inviting them here, then there’s no limits for you to put on this.
I never denied this. But the Constitution protects the sovereignty of the individual first.
As an American, that’s the idea we come back to, first.
Collective concerns & powers are second-fiddle, by design. If you don’t like it, you were born in the wrong country, with the wrong Founding charter, and the wrong traditions in common law.
Heritage. Cornerstone to the American ideal.
In a common law court, if a foreigner and an American go against each other, they have equal rights. Your nationality does not matter in that space, the only thing that matters is who did what.
And the U.S. Constitution was built out of Common Law.
You can’t deny it, look it the **** up old dog.
Nonsense. It’s “We the People of the United States …”.
And yet Madison states aliens have rights under the Constitution.
And both him and Jefferson fought for the 1st amendment right for foreign Hindus and “Muhammadans” to worship here in the U.S. And won.
They seemed to think the protections applied to everyone (with the only functional exception being slaves), how come old dog?
You are obtuse. Aliens have rights does NOT mean aliens have all the rights of citizens, They are specifically excludes from holding a seat in Congress for example. A limitation of the right of Congress is spelled out in Article 1, Section 9 on their power to regulate migration. THIS ESTABLISHES THEIR RIGHT TO REGULATE MIGRATION IN ALL OTHER CASES; natural Law, Common Law be damned. Get it through your head, it’s black letter law authorizing statutory law. It is in their enumerated and limited power whether you like it or not.
Ahem, “Protections” I used that word intentionally. So did Madison.
An immigrant has the right to property, freedom of association, and due process. The Constitution protects those things, which are negative rights.
? We already went over this, and you already conceded. History doesn’t give you a choice.
The Supreme Court decision that codified Federal plenary power over immigration (Chae Chan Ping v. United States), stated that the Constitution makes no direct mention of this power, yet the reason the power exists, is as a penumbra of the U.S. Gov’t being a “sovereign power”.
It’s kind of… tactless to suggest they just “missed” what you’re talking about, while they were urgently looking for a way to justify this power existing.
Uh, history is what’s in my head old_dog:
The Founders were very open about where they got their ideas from. Whose text they consulted while writing both the Declaration and the Constitution.
Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes.
All of whom subscribed to Natural Law.
This discussion is not about Blackstone, Locke, Hobbs, Madison or any other philosopher or commentator it is about the Constitution of the United States of America. It was extensively argued about and ultimately adopted as the law of the land. The constitution is not a philosophical document, it is a governing document. There is a process to change it. Go for it if you will. Please stop with the red herrings. I will acknowledge that you are an expert about diverting discussions to irrelevant side issues. It is getting tiresome.
… Yes it is. It’s very language is philosophical. It maintains that it is non-interfering/recognizing rights.
That’s a natural law standpoint, right there.
You brought up Article 1, Section 9, even though you knew it was irrelevant.
And just to cement that point:
“It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence,”
"[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”
It can’t be denied, it’s history. Sorry old dog, but if you’re honest, you’ll admit you were wrong on this one.
Madison CLEARLY was talking about immigration from Europe to America…or did you overlook that?
No, Dave, on-the-spot rationalization won’t work.
Madison defended rights for Non-Europeans here, and maintained that aliens in general had rights.
This is the Founders; it’s what they thought.
You can uplift or decry their actions and words, but you can’t change what it meant.
No I will not.
Article 1. Section 9. The MIGRATION or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
This is not a clause dealing SOLELY with the slave trade.
SLAVES DO NOT MIGRATE .
It is a limited time freeze on the power of the Congress to regulate migration. It is well past 1808 and the power to regulate migration in any manner they see fit is vested in the Congress.
If this is not clearcut to you then you are hopeless.
You don’t have a choice; the people who wrote it said it was slaves.
The Justices who ruled to create the immigration power, left this out as a justification. Because they knew it meant precisely what John Jay (also our first Chief Justice) said it did.
So nothing to this interpretation of yours fits the history.
No Justices, no legal scholars, and none of the Founders read it this way. That’s a problem.
You’re just giving me a rationalizing old_dog, and that’s not enough. I need evidence that people in history read it this way.
If you do have evidence they did this, then put it forward. Otherwise, what I said holds.
History needs to agree for your interpretation to be real. It’s just that simple.
This was one of the most crucial clauses in having the Constitution ratified by some southern states. You can be sure every word was scrutinized. ALL of the debates and negotiations are NOT preserved in written form. It would have been obvious to the founders that SLAVES DO NOT ARRIVE BY MIGRATION. Yet the word was used. It is what it is. You may speculate that it was used by mistake but it doesn’t change the obvious implications. The Constitution was not thrown together higgledy-piggledy.
130 U.S. 581 (9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068)
CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one.
They didn’t cite Article 1. Section 9. because, presumably, they didn’t think they needed it.
I know you always like to have the last word. So go ahead, re-hash some of your BS. I’m outta here.
It was a euphemism for them arriving on ships. John Jay makes that clear.
Correction; from the case text:
“The Supreme Court established that the power to control all aspects of immigration is inherent in the sovereignty of the United States, even though not enumerated in the Constitution.”
So they did not see it as relevant.
I offered you chance to offer evidence, instead, you jut doubled down on more rhetoric.
The Founders did make mention of this passage, and they said it wasn’t relevant.
You didn’t respond to them saying this. Which tells me even you knew you were wrong. You made a mistake, and you weren’t willing to be honest about it.