Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional
|
Too
many patriotic Americans reveal hypocrisy
on the immigration issue. The real threat to
America comes from the federal government, not
immigrants.
The
vast majority of immigrants are hard-working,
law-abiding, family-loving human beings endowed by
their Creator with unalienable rights. They are
making productive contributions to our economy.
Some call their presence an "invasion,"
while calling for EastGerman-type fences and
"swarms
of officers" to keep immigrants out.
Increasing
the power of the federal government to deny
Americans the benefits of low-wage,
high-productivity migrant workers in construction,
agriculture, service, and every other industry is
un-American.
|
What About Article IV, Section 4?
|
An
argument has been made that Article
IV, section 4 of the Constitution gives the
federal government power to prevent Mexican
gardeners, maids, construction workers, and
produce pickers from entering the United States.
Here is that provision of the Constitution:
The United States
shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect
each of them against Invasion;
and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence.
The
Framers spoke of such invasions
as "dangerous
commotions, insurrections and rebellions."
The
definition of "invasion" in this context
is an attempt to destroy a republican form of
government, in which "the powers thereof
shall be attempted to be taken out of the
hands of the people at large" and given
into, e.g., a hereditary monarchy.
Tench
Coxe spoke of an "invasion" in which:
"a
foreign power [might] seduce or over-awe the
people of any state, so as to cause them to vest
in the families of any ambitious citizens or
foreigners the powers of hereditary governors,
whether as Kings or Nobles."
Millions
of immigrants are here to work hard in fields,
construction sites, restaurants and hotels, and
support their families, as well as escape a very
non-republican government in Mexico. They are here
to work, not to set up a hereditary monarchy.
On the
other hand, both the Republicans and Democrats ARE
TRULY THREATENING
our republican form of government. They have destroyed
the Constitution, and are setting up fascism,
socialism, communism, Bushism
or Obabunism in its place.
The
anti-immigration forces want to create more
"swarms of officers" and give these
unconstitutional wolves even more power. |
|
|
Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court in United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), began the Court's opinion with
these words:
"We start with
first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government
of enumerated powers. See U. S. Const., Art. I,
§8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are
to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The
Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961
)."
The Federal Government has the power to "seal the borders"
against Mexicans looking for work as motel workers and produce pickers only
if the Constitution gives the Feds that power.
At first thought, it seems unlikely that the Framers would have given the
federal government that power. The Declaration of Independence says that
The history of the present King of Great
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having
in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these
States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
. . .
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, |
Why would the Constitution give to the federal government a power which
was considered "tyrannical" by the Declaration of Independence?
In fact, the Constitution vested no such power in the federal government.
The Constitution (Art
I, sec. 8, cl. 4) gives power to Congress to determine citizenship
requirements, not to restrict travel
or tell American employers who they can hire. The Constitution gives power
to the federal government to determine qualifications for naturalization,
the process of becoming a citizen of the United States of America.
Prior to the creation of the new federal government, each state enforced
its own citizenship standards. A citizen of the
commonwealth of Virginia might not qualify to be a citizen of the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania but would qualify to be a citizen of the
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Just because you
weren't a citizen didn't mean you couldn't enter the state to get a
job or do business.
The states thought of themselves as separate nations, especially after
they declared their independence from Britain, assuming "among the
Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." Virginia didn't erect a fence
around the commonwealth to keep out citizens of North Carolina. And when
Delaware and Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution along with seven
other states, they did not rush to build a fence around the new United
States of America to keep citizens of Canada from entering and doing
business in the new nation.
The Constitution makes sure than an immigrant has the same chance of
becoming a naturalized citizen if he entered the U.S. in Texas as he would
if he entered the U.S. in Arizona.
The Constitution creates a government of enumerated
powers; the federal government has only those powers which are expressly
delegated to it in the text of the Constitution. The federal government does
not have the authority to tell Mr. Jones that he cannot allow Señor Garcia
to cross the "border" to work on the Jones property.
The Jones Ranch 
|
| "The
U.S. Border" |
The Garcia Ranchero
|
For generations after the Constitution was ratified, there wasn't even
any such thing as passports; people were allowed
to travel freely. Most Americans today think like East Germans before the
fall of the Berlin Wall. They think nothing about the government demanding
"Your papers, please."
We are no longer Americans, we are Nazis and Communists.
And, we are less
than Christian in our attitude toward immigrants.
Recent Blog Posts
The
demonizing of illegal immigrants - The Boston Globe
Something is not wrong -- intrinsically wrong, bad
in and of itself -- merely because it is illegal. It is against the law to
put anything without postage into someone's mailbox.
If your neighbor prints flyers advertising a yard sale and drops one into
each letterbox on the street, he has broken the law, but would anyone say he
has done something evil?
Someone who crosses the border without a visa in
order to find work doesn't deserve to be branded a "criminal."
Doing so only inflames and confuses an issue that is contentious enough as
it is. And it cheapens a word that should be reserved for those who
purposely harm others through genuinely wrongful behavior: embezzlers,
rapists, arsonists, murderers.
The demonizing of illegal aliens keeps us from
having a rational discussion about US immigration policy.
