- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It is my contention that the federal government has no authority over immigration except to create uniform laws of naturalization.
Naturalization is, by definition, granting citizenship to a foreign-born person. It does not relate to uniform laws regarding residency.
Immigration, on the other hand, relates to attaining residency, not attaining citizenship.
While one must be an immigrant in order to become naturalized, one must not become naturalized in order to become an immigrant.
This is undeniably true.
I happen to be in favor of extremely strict interpretations of the constitution, such as those promoted by Jefferson and Madison, as opposed to the more liberal, Hamiltonian interpretations.
I use the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Authored by Jefferson, as my guide on this issue:
It is clear that Jefferson would definitely oppose Federal authority over immigration. He felt that the alien's State of residency was teh highest authority regarding the legality of that alien's residency.
Because of this stance, I absolutely support Arizona's right to pass legislation regarding illegal aliens and reject any federal amnesty programs, even though I am myself in favor of lenient immigration laws in my own state to the point where I would be considered "pro-illegal" by many.
There is absolutely no conflict with these views and my ideological foundation of promoting a small federal government and state sovereignty. In fact, to me it seems as though this is the only position that can be taken while having this type of ideology.
So I'm curious as to how one can argue that they are in favor of a strict constructionist view of the constitution while also supporting the federal usurpation of immigration laws and a liberal interpretation of the word "naturalization" to include the attainment of residency instead of just the attainment of citizenship.
Naturalization is, by definition, granting citizenship to a foreign-born person. It does not relate to uniform laws regarding residency.
Immigration, on the other hand, relates to attaining residency, not attaining citizenship.
While one must be an immigrant in order to become naturalized, one must not become naturalized in order to become an immigrant.
This is undeniably true.
I happen to be in favor of extremely strict interpretations of the constitution, such as those promoted by Jefferson and Madison, as opposed to the more liberal, Hamiltonian interpretations.
I use the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Authored by Jefferson, as my guide on this issue:
It is clear that Jefferson would definitely oppose Federal authority over immigration. He felt that the alien's State of residency was teh highest authority regarding the legality of that alien's residency.
Because of this stance, I absolutely support Arizona's right to pass legislation regarding illegal aliens and reject any federal amnesty programs, even though I am myself in favor of lenient immigration laws in my own state to the point where I would be considered "pro-illegal" by many.
There is absolutely no conflict with these views and my ideological foundation of promoting a small federal government and state sovereignty. In fact, to me it seems as though this is the only position that can be taken while having this type of ideology.
So I'm curious as to how one can argue that they are in favor of a strict constructionist view of the constitution while also supporting the federal usurpation of immigration laws and a liberal interpretation of the word "naturalization" to include the attainment of residency instead of just the attainment of citizenship.
