Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

A note on immigration debate

Powerline has some comments on the immigration debate in the Senate, and brings to our attention this article on the similar debate in France. And this is
Krauthammer’s take on the whole matter.

Discussions - 8 Comments

I didn’t see myself typing this when I clicked on the link to Krauthammer’s column, but he’s absolutely right.

The best source for immigration wingnut talking points is http://www.vdare.com/.
Hinderaker, Malkin(a frequent vdare contributor), Beck, Limbaugh, etc all owe a debt to vdare.

Didn’t Sam Francis speak once at Ashbrook?

Most Americans want a wall or something built but the pols don’t have the backbone to do it. Bush has admitted that he’s a globalist and that’s not a good thing.

Charles K. is right. The only moral and constitutional policy is legalization, which requires accepting as citizens (eventually) most everyone in our country now and employing all means necessary to come as close to closing the border as possible. Why don’t we do this? Who are the interests in favor of perpetuating the present "illegal" regime? I give Bush credit for wanting to do the right thing. I blame him for not being able to figure out how to do it. (I don’t have time to go over all the issues on which this is my opinion of the president.)

Peter:

I would like to know why legalization is the only constitutional policy? I am pretty sure the Constitution gives Congress the power to create whatever immigration regime it wants. Congress could decide to allow no more citizenship I suppose. Congress enacted quotas during the early 1900s and no one thought that was unconstitutional. Furthermore, Congress has enacted some immigration laws (such as automatic citizenship for children born of US mothers, but not automatic citizenship if born of US fathers) that would violate the 14th amendment in other circumstances, but the Supreme Court won’t get close to ruling anything Congress does concerning immigration unconstitutional.

Steve, I didn’t mean constitutional in the technical sense. Congress can make immigration laws of all kinds, and the Court has no basis to declare them unconnst. (although who knows whether that will stop it.) I meant const. in the sense of in accord with the general spirit of a Const. that in principle provides a home for the homeless everywhere. How much that principle can be applied remains a matter of prudence, of course. But it’s pretty clear that the "deportation regime" on a large scale doesn’t work for a people like us. Peter

Yet how funny it is to be talking about putting up a wall. The only such wall I can picture is like the Berlin Wall and that served the entirely opposite function. Being American, will it be decorative like the ones that currently line our freeways? Well, perhaps with the occasional - what- gun tower to keep people away? How will we do that? How will we keep people on the other side of the wall without the kind of violence that makes Americans squeamish?

Will it be as long as China’s Great Wall, though surely narrower? What an enormous undertaking, a wall on our southern border. Glad we do not need one to the north! Now there would be an expense.

The Berlin wall, built by the communists, to keep people from escaping.

Not exactly, what we are talking about, unless of course, Mexico is like communist, east Germany!

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8371