By Peter Gemma, member of the Constitution Party national executive committee, via the national party’s website:
At first glance, the statistics are jolting. According to the United Nations, 97 percent of the illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. clandestinely do so across the almost 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, but only 20 percent of those who cross the border illegally are caught.[1]
The New York Times reports that about 4.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. drive on a regular basis, many without licenses or insurance, or even the ability to read road signs written in English.[2] (Meanwhile, the California legislature has just voted to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.) Yahoo.com writer J.C. Grant notes, “There is a statistically significant correlation between state per capita illegal immigration rates and car thefts. This correlation is particularly strong: the odds are less than two in one million that the correlation is a chance occurrence.”[3]
If just car thievery were the main concern, it would be an important problem to address. However, the Office of Immigration Statistics reported that of the 188,382 deportations of illegal aliens in 2011, 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses (primarily driving under the influence). Congressman Steve King (R-IA) estimates that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day — that’s a death toll of 4,745 per year.[4]
“We currently have immigration quotas? Please elaborate.”
That should not be too hard for you to figure out without asking me. Surprised you would not already know. There are nation of origin quotas, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_Amendments_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation
More later,
According to your interpretation.
“I believe that BOTH the state and federal governments can regulate immigration”
Well, yes, they can — if they ignore or amend the Constitution. Otherwise, only the states get to regulate immigration.
“The “importation” part of that clause addressed the slave trade. The “migration” part of that clause addressed migration.”
According to your interpretation.
“Once again, the matter was argued. There is no doubt whatsoever that the clear intent of the framers was to leave the regulation of immigration to the states. When a federal power to regulate immigration was proposed, both the slave states (because they feared any such power would be extended to cover the slave trade) and Pennsylvania (which was bringing in more and more Irish and German workers as the early stirrings of industrialization began) said “nope — won’t ratify anything with that in it.” If the federal government controlled immigration, the Constitution would fail of adoption, period, end of story, here’s a nice copy of the home game to take with you.”
I believe that BOTH the state and federal governments can regulate immigration, and granted, the situation was a lot different then then it is now- yet your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is what it is: your interpretation.
My apologies on bruising your ego here. Though you are starting to sound like a liberal here (by which I mean the current definition of ‘liberal’).
“In any case, you say you aren’t Constitution Party, and my question is for the Constitution Party. To repeat/rephrase that question:”
I am a active member of the National IAP, and if you want to get an answer from the CP, then you’ll have to email them- since they obviously won’t show up for debate here, judging by their absence.
“Sorry, but if you are referring to that first clause of Section 9- that was made obsolete on January 1st, 1808 when congress unconstitutionally prohibited further importation of slaves”
There, fixed that for ya.
“in fact that clause was addressing the slave trade and not immigration of foreign residents”
The “importation” part of that clause addressed the slave trade. The “migration” part of that clause addressed migration.
Once again, the matter was argued. There is no doubt whatsoever that the clear intent of the framers was to leave the regulation of immigration to the states. When a federal power to regulate immigration was proposed, both the slave states (because they feared any such power would be extended to cover the slave trade) and Pennsylvania (which was bringing in more and more Irish and German workers as the early stirrings of industrialization began) said “nope — won’t ratify anything with that in it.” If the federal government controlled immigration, the Constitution would fail of adoption, period, end of story, here’s a nice copy of the home game to take with you.
You can try to wriggle your way out of the plain and indisputable historical facts all you want. It won’t work. And I’ve seen you around enough to realize that you aren’t stupid enough to really believe that the plain and indisputable historical facts aren’t the plain and indisputable historical facts. You’re just being intellectually dishonest here.
In any case, you say you aren’t Constitution Party, and my question is for the Constitution Party. To repeat/rephrase that question:
The Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration. Does the Constitution Party
a) support this provision of the US Constitution,
b) propose to amend this provision of the US Constitution, or
c) think it can get away with calling itself the “Constitution Party” with a straight face while pretending that the Constitution says and means exactly the opposite of what it actually does say and mean on this subject?
The use of the oxymoron “illegal aliens” indicates that the answer is (c), but I’d like to see someone affiliated with the Constitution Party confirm that.
“I’m not sure how it would be possible for an immigrant to “not follow naturalization laws,” since whether or not those laws are followed are completely a function of what government does rather than what anyone else does. Either the government naturalizes you or it doesn’t naturalize you. So sure, I’d be fine with deporting Congress and naturalization bureaucrats if they didn’t follow their own laws.”
There have been many examples of resident aliens violating both general laws and failing to follow the requirements to gain citizenship and get deported because of it.
I can provide examples if needed.
“Article I, Section 9. Believe it or not, that provision of the US Constitution hasn’t changed since the last time I mentioned it. For that matter, it hasn’t changed since 1787.”
Sorry, but if you are referring to that first clause of Section 9- that was made obsolete on January 1st, 1808 when congress prohibited further importation of slaves; in fact that clause was addressing the slave trade and not immigration of foreign residents (also remember that slaves were only seen as three-fifths of a person back then).
BTW, the reason why congress ‘didn’t address’ the immigration issue way back then was because illegal immigration wasn’t at all a problem at the time, and the various naturalization laws they passed (Nat. Acts of 1790, 1795, & 1798) were sufficient enough to regulate immigration- that is until the days of westward expansion and the usage of foreign cheap labor and the violent, even racist, opposition to it forced congress to act on immigration itself with the Chinese Exclusion Act.
… Yet your arguments sound of the ‘living document’ persuasion here.
“So passing a law saying that people who don’t follow naturalization laws should be deported would be listed under the immigration category instead of the naturalization one?”
I’m not sure how it would be possible for an immigrant to “not follow naturalization laws,” since whether or not those laws are followed are completely a function of what government does rather than what anyone else does. Either the government naturalizes you or it doesn’t naturalize you. So sure, I’d be fine with deporting Congress and naturalization bureaucrats if they didn’t follow their own laws.
“Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that congress CANNOT regulate, or is prohibited from regulating immigration?”
Article I, Section 9. Believe it or not, that provision of the US Constitution hasn’t changed since the last time I mentioned it. For that matter, it hasn’t changed since 1787.
“Immigration is not naturalization, nor is naturalization immigration. Pointing to naturalization when we’re talking about immigration is like pointing to the power to declare war when we’re discussing the interstate commerce clause.”
So passing a law saying that people who don’t follow naturalization laws should be deported would be listed under the immigration category instead of the naturalization one?
“The Constitution absolutely, unambiguously and, per the debates on ratification, intentionally forbids the US government to regulate immigration, and Congress abided by that prohibition for 90 years. Those are the facts. They’ll remain the facts no matter how much you dislike the fact that they are the facts.”
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that congress CANNOT regulate, or is prohibited from regulating immigration?
“Yes. Therein lies the whole problem.”
We currently have immigration quotas? Please elaborate.
“If it were not for immigration quotas there would be no illegal immigration.”
If we simply took control of our borders, or even militarized them- illegal immigration wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.
“It takes about 130 years wait to immigrate from Mexico to the US legally unless you have special skills, IE, it can not be done.”
I’ll admit that the current naturalization laws are a pathetic joke and that there are plenty of illegals out there that are good law-abiding people that are willing to assimilate into American culture, that however cannot help their current legal status- but indeed we need to address the issue with the borders and also with reforming the current welfare laws first, before we redo our naturalization laws.
There are, and no need to put right in scare quotes – there are indeed many nations denying many fundamental rights to many people.
And Knapp is correct about immigration/naturalization and Section 8 and 9.
Yes. Therein lies the whole problem.
If it were not for immigration quotas there would be no illegal immigration.
It takes about 130 years wait to immigrate from Mexico to the US legally unless you have special skills, IE, it can not be done.
The Constititution didn’t “address one and ignore the other at the same time.” It assigned one (naturalization) to the federal government, and it prohibited the other (immigration) to the federal government.
Once again, this is not unclear or ambiguous. It’s in there, and it’s in there for reasons that were debated. If there had been a federal power of immigration in the Constitution, the Constitution would not have been ratified.
Immigration & naturalization are part of the same category, you can’t address one and ignore the other at the same time.
And I’m not CP, so I don’t know.
Immigration is not naturalization, nor is naturalization immigration. Pointing to naturalization when we’re talking about immigration is like pointing to the power to declare war when we’re discussing the interstate commerce clause.
The Constitution absolutely, unambiguously and, per the debates on ratification, intentionally forbids the US government to regulate immigration, and Congress abided by that prohibition for 90 years. Those are the facts. They’ll remain the facts no matter how much you dislike the fact that they are the facts.
So, the real question is, is the Constitution Party in favor of following the Constitution — or at least amending, instead of ignoring, the parts they don’t like — or not?
BTW, various political parties before 1892 advocated for reforming the naturalization laws (Know Nothing).
OMG! ARE YOU NOT AWARE OF SECTION 8!
“…to establish an uniform rule on naturalization…”
“Fyi, the U.S. Constitution does allow congress to regulate immigration laws.”
Not according to Article I Section 9, which explicitly leaves immigration up to the state and forbids Congress to regulate it in any way other than a very small head tax, and Article, V, which makes it clear that that prohibition could not be amended in any way prior to 1808 and laying out the procedure for amending it, which has never since been carried out.
The prohibition was not at all unclear, and for the first 90 years of the Republic Congress followed it very carefully. The closest they came to passing any immigration regulation was allowing federal officials at ports to enforce STATE immigration laws and collect fees for doing so. It wasn’t until 1875 that an activist Supreme Court fantasized a federal power to regulate immigration into the Constitution in direct contradiction to the plain and unambiguous text of the Constitution itself (and the indisputable intent of the framers — the matter WAS debated), and even after that Congress wisely chose instead to invoke treaty provisions rather than that obviously FUBAR SCOTUS ruling in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
It wasn’t until 1892 that Congress began unconstitutionally regulating immigration in general, at which time a new federal facility was opened at Ellis Island and New York’s state immigration facilities shut down.
Fyi, the U.S. Constitution does allow congress to regulate immigration laws. And indeed any specifics not addressed in the rest of the constitution usually falls under the 10th Amendment.
Cody,
You’re right — the US is VERY liberal in its immigration laws. The “supreme law of the land” says that the federal government can’t regulate immigration, period, end of story (which is why it didn’t for the first 90 years or so).
“No human being is illegal, and many of the issues he talks about are caused directly or indirectly by immigration quotas, drug laws and economic red tape.”
I can agree on the drug laws & red tape part, but does the U.S. currently have immigration quotas in place?
“Human beings have a natural right to trade, travel, and immigrate freely. To deny people this right, whatever the reason, is statism & such people have no right to label themselves as being in favor of small government.”
In that case, there are over a 100 nations denying people that ‘right’.
Compared to most immigration laws in other countries, the US is quite lenient and tolerant of immigrants in it’s current laws.
Your comments about Peter Gemma are pretty far down in that thread. You should probably link the actual comments.
I wonder if he’s still into that denialist stuff….
I think you would win that bet.
Take a group of US Citizens with similar incomes, force them to live under laws that make it incredibly difficult for them to see their families, moderately difficult to get steady jobs, limit their choices in housing, and throw in a few more road blocks for good measure…. I bet the stats are similar.
TLK, I don’t think anyone who had noticed that would have made it unto CP national exec comm…or any state comm for that matter.
How did this Gemma guy work his way onto the Constitution Party’s national committee without ever noticing that according to the US Constitution there’s no such thing as an “illegal alien?”
Agreed!
Human beings have a natural right to trade, travel, and immigrate freely. To deny people this right, whatever the reason, is statism & such people have no right to label themselves as being in favor of small government.
No human being is illegal, and many of the issues he talks about are caused directly or indirectly by immigration quotas, drug laws and economic red tape.
I’m so offended by hearing human beings called “aliens” that I don’t even want to read the article.