Yesterday, the Reform Party’s 2000 presidential nominee Pat Buchanan, whose long history with current Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump was documented here last July, wrote a column for World Net Daily on Trump’s recent proposal to halt Muslim immigration into the United States:
Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.
As all the old hate words – xenophobe, racist, bigot – have lost their electric charge from overuse, Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini.
The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.
Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.
But is this really true?
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/an-establishment-unhinged/
Yes, lots of regime edicts are unconstitutional. What else is new?
tk: Leap ahead a few years to Madison v. Marbury — “a law repugnant to the Constitution … is void” — and that puts a padlock on the already airtight case.
me: And yet federal immigration controls remain in place. It appears the padlock has not been secured and the vacuum is leaky quite a bit.
For those that want to read a case for why there is no legal or constitutional justification for immigration regulation by the federal government. The following are snips from two posts by Thomas L. Knapp.
“Let’s start from the back end, with the history: From the ratification of the US Constitution, until the late 19th century, Congress made no laws regulating immigration.
The reason they didn’t make any such laws is that they understood the Constitution as forbidding them to do so”
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2012/06/its-just-sic-ening.html
“A brief review of the history of US immigration law”
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2010/06/brief-review-of-history-of-us.html#GZRMo03JEvK6EXiw.99
It doesn’t fall under “law of nations” because it’s a matter of domestic law. Piracy, or attacking another nation, etc.– those are “offenses against the law of nations” because it is an action that embroils the United States in hostilities with another nation. Prohibiting immigration has nothing to do with that, whether we do it or not it isn’t a question of “law of nations,” outside of whatever ratified treaty obligations may apply.
Paul(ie)’s my first name (if you want to call me Mr., that would be Mr. Frankel), the vague “law of nations” is yet another canard in trying to imagine a power for Congress that it never had, and migration in this context refers to the same people as “importation,” i.e. those referred to by the interstate commerce clause at the time. It’s a reference to bringing slaves across state lines, as some states were already outlawing slavery. Someone is spreading lies and bullshit here alright, but it isn’t me.
Congress has the explicit power under the Constitution to define and punish crimes against the law of nations. That includes restricting the migrations of foreign nationals to this nation. That power is the one that was restricted until the year 1808.
“Moigration” and “importation” are two different words, expressing two different concepts, as should be obvious to anyone who is not a moron or a liar. Migrants migrate, slaves are imported. There are no extraneous words in the Constitution.
Mr. Paulie is spreading lies and bullshit.
Not much longer. Buchanan first argued Nazi Germany posed no serious threat to the U.S. in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire. This was released in September. By October of that year Trump started making the “Hitler-lover” comments.
Meh. Maybe, but the accusation/association had been hanging around Pat long before 2000.
According to Pat Choate, Roger Stone had Trump use the “Hitler-lover” line about Buchanan over and over in order to weaken the Reform Party by linking Buchanan to Nazism and thus eliminating any chance of a spoiler effect on the Republican ticket. Apparently, the plan was a success. The Republican ticket won, Buchanan did far worse than anyone expected, and the Reform Party became irrelevant.
Kind of sad to see Buchanan, whom Trump called a “Hitler-lover” and “Attila the Hun” in 2000, defending Trump against similar charges, that are arguably a lot more justified.
I suspect someone thought it was one of the trolls but it actually was the person who usually uses the name “just trying” or “trying again” or something similar.
As already mentioned there is no right of Congress. It would have had to have been authorized somewhere else, not just prohibited until a certain date. Therefore, migration must refer to the same people as importation, i.e. taking slaves between states. That would be assigned to Congress as something they could pass laws about, as interstate commerce. Again, see Somin, linked above.
There does not appear to be a comment like that anywhere in the spam filter. I did not delete anything. I also did not spread any lies, either.
I received an e-mail about it because it was originally unapproved since the user name and e-mail address had not been used previously. It was either approved and then deleted or rejected and deleted.
I didn’t delete it, either. Was it in “spam” or “trash”?
I think the spam meter was adjusted a while ago. Perhaps no one deleted it..
A comment on this page by “American truth” was deleted. I did not delete it. I received notice of the comment via e-mail this morning since it was placed in the queue. There was no obvious trolling in the comment and the IP used did not trace back to any of the usual trolls. It appears a reader was simply expressing an opinion. It is unfortunate that this was deleted. I apologize to the reader and repeat his comment below:
“Paulie is spreading lies. The US Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to limit migration starting in the year 1808. The individual states, like every state in the world, have had the power to limit migration since 1776 (and in fact had and exercised same power as colonies before then).
Hope this helps.”
From article,
===Did this represent 40 years of fascism?===
Yes.
See http://openborders.info/blog/immigration-and-the-us-constitution/
You were taught wrong. For one thing, Congress has no Constitutional power to regulate immigration of anyone whatsoever. Immigration is not naturalization, nor is it invasion, nor importation of persons, despite BS from the restrictionists. The power to regulate immigration was a later invention, not concocted til the late 19th century.
This is also false. Congress shall pass no law means Congress shall pass no law. By implication it also means the executive shall pass no degree, since enforcement of any such decree involves money appropriate by Congress.
Your professor, as is often the case, was teaching latter misinterpretations of the Constitution.
Rand Paul: “Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.”
Paulie: Aside from being a power that’s not constitutional to begin with and an implied violation of non-establishment of religion, it’s both overly broad and ineffective.
While I don’t agree with Rand Paul, his suggestion might very well be Constitutional. Back in college, in the 1980s, I was taught that under the U.S. Constitution, foreigners have no right to immigrate here. Nations, the U.S. included, are legally empowered to ban or deport any foreigner, for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Nor do any of the Bill of Rights (e.g., non-establishment/free exercise of religion) affect immigration policy, one way or another. The Bill of Rights only pertain to what laws Congress and the States may or may not pass regulating people who reside here. It has nothing to do with the standards by which people may be permitted to enter, or be banned from entering, the U.S.
The professor didn’t necessarily agree that this was a decent thing. He only taught that that was indeed Constitutional law.
The accompanying text on that second one was interesting also:
Some people find all sorts of nonsense persuasive, as I am sure you know.
Paulie,
I don’t agree with or support the Trump Muslim immigration prohibition plan. I point out how some people could find it to be a persuasive proposal. As for how to accomplish it Julie Borowski does a fine job laying out possible implementation methods in .
Trump’s Muslim Ban in Action by Julie Borowski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NMzsX74qUk
LOL. Among many other things, I am not constitutionally qualified, as I am sure you know.
Paullie for President!
That’s idiotic. Aside from being a power that’s not constitutional to begin with and an implied violation of non-establishment of religion, it’s both overly broad and ineffective. Lots of Muslims would be coming from non-majority Muslim nations, and there would be lots of non-Muslims coming from majority Muslim nations… in many cases precisely because they aren’t Muslims. Millions of Muslims already live here, and most of them were born in the US. In addition to immigration you would have to halt both tourism and business travel. For all these reasons and more this would be an immoral, unconstitutional and ineffective policy. If it gets implemented, look for numerous nations (and not just Muslim ones) to impose restrictions on Americans moving or traveling abroad, doing business in their countries or their citizens doing business in the US. That’s exactly what numbskulls like Trump and Buchanan and especially their less intelligent fans want, but it would be an unmitigated disaster for both the US and global economies, and as the long standing maxim accurately says, when goods don’t cross borders armies will.
“how would you identify who is and is not a Muslim?”
Rand Paul has proposed a moratorium on immigration from 33 nations which have high Muslim populations. Pat Buchanan proposes something similar in his article:
“Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.”
In other news, World Net Daily is apparently still a thing.
Yes, and if you deported all the anti-abortionists, the terrorist who shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs wouldn’t have killed anyone either. What kind of twisted argument is that?
And incidentally, how would you identify who is and is not a Muslim? There are Muslims of all so-called races, ethnicities and nationalities. There are non-Muslims in all majority-Muslim nations. Since when is the US regime allowed to pass laws on the basis of religion and discriminate against people on a religious basis? Among many other things.
Pat Buchanan writes very well. Too bad his ideas are total garbage, just like Trump’s, only expressed better.
Jill Pyeatt,
I would presume that Trump supporters wold find that your comment would be an example of why Trump’s Muslim immigration ban would be a good idea. One of the two killers would presumably have been prevented from immigrating to the United States if it were in place.
There’s so much wrong with this article that I wouldn’t know where to begin. I will point out, though, that the man who the mainstream media tells us committed the acts in San Bernardino was born here. His wife came here on a special fiance visa.
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2015/12/best-thing-ive-read-online-this-week.html
Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.
But is this really true?
Yes.
Well, well, well… how totally expected!