Darrell Castle Talks About Rand Paul’s Position On Amnesty

Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party’s 2008 vice-presidential candidate, released a recording yesterday in which he gave his insight on Senator Rand Paul’s immigration reform ideas. The recording is available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJnT4Pr-sE&feature=youtu.be

14 thoughts on “Darrell Castle Talks About Rand Paul’s Position On Amnesty

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    Must be embarrassing to the Constitution Party to have its former VP nominee publicly denounce the Constitution (which clearly and unambiguously forbids the federal government to regulate immigration in any way whatsoever, although it does allow a small tax on it).

  2. Sam Kress

    Constitution Party platform on immigration:

    We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.

    Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many illegal aliens enter the United States. These immigrants – including illegal aliens – have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax burden, and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the American worker and the labor balance in our country.

    We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.

    We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.

    We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

    The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States.

    We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.

    We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

  3. just American

    @1 —

    It must be embarrassing for Thomas L. Knapp to be called out on his clear & unambiguous lie about the U.S. Constitution, but here we go:

    Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the laws of Nations; which of course includes the migration of foreign nationals.

    Hope this helps.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    jA @ 3,

    Apparently the framers and the first 45 US Congresses disagreed with you, and instead looked to 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.”

    And Article 5:

    “no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article”

    (no Amendment thereto has been made since 1808, and the first federal immigration law wasn’t passed until 1882, because prior to 1875, when SCOTUS miracled up a federal power to regulate immigration, Congress understood damn well that no such power existed).

  5. Gene Berkman

    The Constitution does not “clearly and unabiguously” forbid the federal government to regulate immigration in any way. It just does not clearly grant such a power.

    I have found two references in The Constitution that relate to immigration:
    Article 1, Section 8, paragraph #4 gives Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

    Artile 1, Section 9 says:
    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 to exceed ten dollars for each Person.”

    Section 9 was passed to protect the ability to import slaves, and does not refer to normal immigration. In any case, the prohbition on Congress regulating such importation was term limited, ending in 1808.

    Granting Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization implies power to regulate immigration; the wording Section 9 implies that Congress and the states both have powers to regulate immigration.

  6. Sam Kress

    The federal government only has such powers as it is clearly given, not any that it is “not prohibited.”

    Section 9 does not refer to normal immigration, as you pointed out correctly. The power to regulate naturalization in no way implies the power to regulate immigration. And migration is not an offense against the law of nations.

  7. Gene Berkman

    As mentioned, the prohibition on Congress regulating the Slave Trade in Article 1, Section 9, first clause, had a time limit. In anticipation of the time limit approaching, Congress passed “The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807″(2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807)

    This clearly indicates that as of 1808 the first clause of Article 1, Section 9 that Mr Knapp refers to was no longer valid.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    GB:

    1) Naturalization is not immigration. If the Constitution didn’t elsewhere specifically DENY Congress the power to regulate immigration, I suppose that a weak implied tie might exist. But the Constitution DOES elsewhere specifically deny said power.

    2) “This clearly indicates that as of 1808 the first clause of Article 1, Section 9 that Mr Knapp refers to was no longer valid, if you’re on crack.” There, fixed that for ya.

    What it clearly indicates is that as of 1808, Congress could propose an amendment to the Constitution to give itself the power to regulate immigration.

    But it never did so, and in fact until 1875 Congress clearly understood that it didn’t have any such power, as the only immigration-related bills it passed were bills allowing federal port officials to enforce state immigration laws, and collect fees and fines to finance doing so.

    Even after the 1875 SCOTUS ruling, they were apparently suspicious, as the first immigration regulation they passed, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, was predicated not on that ruling but on provisions of a treaty with China, treaties being co-equal with the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”

    These are historical facts. Unless you have a time machine to go back and change them, they’ll remain historical facts whether you find them convenient or not. If you support federal immigration regulation without a constitutional amendment, you are against, not for, the constitution.

  9. Andy

    This is from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

    “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;”

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    GB @ 7,

    “the prohibition on Congress regulating the Slave Trade”

    While the prohibition on federal regulation of immigration did cover the slave trade, it was not limited to the slave trade.

    This isn’t a matter of guessing — the debates on the Constitution are there to read any time you care to read them.

    The anti-Federalists, oddly enough, wanted a federal power to regulate immigration to “preserve the national character,” because they were upset that Pennsylvania’s burgeoning industrial sector was recruiting Irish, German and other non-English immigrants to come work.

    What they DIDN’T want was the feds regulating the slave trade.

    So the Federalists compromised. They wanted the Constitution ratified by Pennsylvania and by the slave states, so they went with forbidding the US government from regulating immigration AND importation, said prohibition not allowed to be revisited for 20 years. After which it never was revisited by constitutional amendment.

  11. Dave Terry

    Slaves were property. Property does not migrate, immigrate or emigrate. Property is imported or exported.

    Laws on slavery have NADA to do with immigration. and vice-versa. THAT is why the framers used BOTH words, so there wouldn’t be any confusion.

    Clearly they were wrong!

    Further immigration has nothing directly to do with naturalization. Of course a person must first immigrate before being naturalized, but one
    CAN immigrate without even intending to become a citizen.

  12. Andy

    “This is from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

    ‘To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;'”

    “11 Sam Kress // Mar 28, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Yep, yet another section unrelated to immigration.”

    This depends on whether or not the aliens in question are peaceful people or not. If they are not peaceful people, then they could be classified as invaders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *