“There really is law on the books.”

I thought we’d BEEN over this, Smitty.

No, there is not a law “on the books” — a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and the Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate immigration.

Oh, I know what I forgot:

PERIOD

There, is that better?

“I’m not racist…I just joined the KKK for 5 years and got elected leader of it. ”
~The Late Robert Byrd a.k.a. flip flopper

Thomas L. Knapp @ #3: What about Article I, Section 8 – “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .”? That seems to cover it.

If not, 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 . . .” seems to grant the regulatory authority after 1808.

Estragon,

Naturalization is to immigration as marriage is to casual dating. They’re somewhat related, but they simply aren’t the same thing.

Congress passed several naturalization bills between 1789 and 1882. The only immigration bills it passed were those allowing for federal ports to enforce state immigration laws (and levy fines and fees to cover the cost of that enforcement).

The reason for that is that Congress didn’t believe it had any power to regulate immigration.

The reason that Congress didn’t believe it had any power to regulate immigration is that the Constitution delegated no such power, nor did the framers advocate any such power.

Precisely the opposite, in fact. The northern Federalists wanted their states to be able to court large-scale European immigration to build industry. The southern Federalists wanted to import slaves (euphemistically calling it “immigration”) to build their agricultural empire.

The advocates of a federal power to regulate immigration were the anti-Federalists like Agrippa, a/k/a John Winthrop, who repeatedly pointed out the fact, and decried the fact, that the proposed Constitution delegated no such power to the federal government.

It wasn’t until 1875 that the Supreme Court “discovered” that power.

If you would just take serious my suggestion of creating a private right of civil action for citizens to sue companies who hire illegals and keep half the fines, illegal immigration would go down 90%.

To avoid abuse make those who do it get bonded and insured and pay the other side’s attorney fees if they lose (so not false shakedowns). Make the fines a sliding scale so first offenders pay a nominal fine, which ratchets up the more one gets caught.

It would be a perfect wedge issue between the Dems and the trial lawyers. Talk about an ethics dilema!

Thomas Knapp, you are correct. 1875 was ten years after the civil war (when federal power was expanded beyond Hamilton’s wildest dreams), but I do not recall the post war amendments including anything on immigration. So what is your proposal for now?

Joe,

My proposal is always “Civitas delenda est” — the state must be destroyed.

Those who insist on keeping the damn thing around and worshiping it like some moldy old idol will find that their evil deity prospers them more to the extent that they recognize that at the federal level, there is no federal power to regulate immigration, and take all federal laws purporting to do so off the books; and less to the extent that they keep trying to turn the US into East Fucking Germany.