The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Smitty’s Three Word Immigration Bill

Posted on | June 28, 2010 | 14 Comments

by Smitty

“Enforce existing law”

I’m not making it up. I’m married to an immigrant. There really is law on the books. People follow it.
Bluegrass Pundit notes an AP article, which says:

Latino leaders say they will work in coming months to pressure Republicans to give way and support an immigration bill – and make them pay at the ballot box if they don’t.

Meh. We have sufficient regulation. We’re just not paying sufficient attention to it.
Now, what would be smart would be for the GOP to reach out to those Latinos and point out that they may be working hard for a Stupakian bargain here; offering support that magically turns into a trip under the bus once the Latinos have outlived their usefulness. But who knows? The used bus salesman may yet organize another community and line it up for the magic trip:

Category: Barack Obama, Immigration

Comments

14 Responses to “Smitty’s Three Word Immigration Bill”

  1. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 28th, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

    “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?

  2. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 29th, 2010 @ 2:42 am

    “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?

  3. Rob
    June 29th, 2010 @ 2:45 am

    “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

  4. Rob
    June 28th, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

    “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

  5. Estragon
    June 29th, 2010 @ 6:31 am

    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.

  6. Estragon
    June 29th, 2010 @ 2:31 am

    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.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 29th, 2010 @ 10:26 am

    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.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 29th, 2010 @ 6:26 am

    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.

  9. Joe
    June 29th, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

    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!

  10. Joe
    June 29th, 2010 @ 10:10 am

    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!

  11. Joe
    June 29th, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

    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?

  12. Joe
    June 29th, 2010 @ 10:15 am

    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?

  13. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 29th, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

    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.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 29th, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

    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.