• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Immigration vs. Naturalization

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,537
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:

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens.

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.
 

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,472
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Interesting position. One that I haven't heard before and that at least my initial response says would be a proper strict constructionist view. I'll ponder this and do a little research before I comment further.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,537
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Interesting position. One that I haven't heard before and that at least my initial response says would be a proper strict constructionist view. I'll ponder this and do a little research before I comment further.

Cool. Thanks for showing interest. I was starting to wonder if I had written it in French. :lol:
 
Top Bottom