• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

The necessary and proper clause: is it a bad thing or good thing?

Dittohead not! said:
Your accurate and honest definition makes no differentiation between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. I'd think that would insult the legal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Either way, the claim that immigrants of any type are invaders has been proven to be nothing but BS
 
sangha said:
Either way, the claim that immigrants of any type are invaders has been proven to be nothing but BS
Click to expand...

Nothing of the sort has been proven, or even suggested by any available evidence. To argue that someone who is in this country illegally is not an invader requires throwing out the accepted definitions of the word “invader”.

Someone who enters your home, without your consent, and against your wishes, is an invader. Someone who enters our country, without our consent, against our wishes, and in violation of our laws, is an invader. That's what an invader is—someone who enters a place where he has no right to be, in violation of the authority of those who own or legitimately control that place.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The constitution is the domain of lawyers and judges to understand because their job is to interprate and cast judgement based on the constitution.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why was is presented to conventions made up of the people of the states for ratification?
 
sangha said:
So you're one of those who think the govt can only do what the constitution explicitely says it can do?

Do you mind telling me where the constitution says the govt can regulate immigration?
Click to expand...

Does it say that the government can regulate immigration?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Um aren't the supreme court the caretakers of the constitution, and doesn't the decision of Marbury v Madison give the court the power of judicial review?
Click to expand...

They are caretakers, but so are ALL public officials. From article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
Click to expand...

As you can see, all legislative, judicial, and executive office holders, both federal and state, are required to support the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the supreme court exclusive caretaker status.
 
Federalist said:
Does it say that the government can regulate immigration?
Click to expand...
The only explicit reference is to "naturalization."

There is no explicit text which grants the federal government the power to regulate to residency without naturalization. And yet, they do it anyway, and no one bats an eyelash.
 
Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Seems a few posts in this thread either misinterpret or ignore the above Article, particularly "Pursuance thereof".
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Nothing of the sort has been proven, or even suggested by any available evidence. To argue that someone who is in this country illegally is not an invader requires throwing out the accepted definitions of the word “invader”.

Someone who enters your home, without your consent, and against your wishes, is an invader. Someone who enters our country, without our consent, against our wishes, and in violation of our laws, is an invader. That's what an invader is—someone who enters a place where he has no right to be, in violation of the authority of those who own or legitimately control that place.
Click to expand...

Immigrants aren't entering your home against your wishes

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invader?s=t
 
Visbek said:
The only explicit reference is to "naturalization."

There is no explicit text which grants the federal government the power to regulate to residency without naturalization. And yet, they do it anyway, and no one bats an eyelash.
Click to expand...

Correct, and well done. The federal government has no explicit power to regulate immigration.
 
sangha said:
No, under the constitution, one doesn't have to immigrate in order to naturalize. If you believe so, then please quote from the constitution where it says this.

Your position is untenable. You claim that govt only has the powers that are explicitely granted to it by the constitution, and then you turn around and claim that the govt has the power to regulate immigration, even though it is *not* mentioned in the constitution. And then to rationalize that, you claim that one must immigrate in order to be naturalized even though, once again, that is nowhere to be found in the constitution!!
Click to expand...

first: i will ask a question....if the federal government does not ............then who does?

in order for the u.s government, to preform it 18 duties under the constitution, it can make laws under the authority of the constitution to see that those jobs are carried into fruition.

1) is to protect and defend the people from enemies foreign and domestic, this gives them authority of who shall even the u.s.from foreign sources, this gives them the authority of control who enters the u.s.and it has been that way since day one.

2) what the founders say of immigration, and when they speak they are speaking in the realm of our federal government:


George Washington letter to Vice-President John Adams
Categories: Immigration
Date: November 15, 1794
The policy or advantage of [IMMIGRATION] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.


George Washington letter to Francis Van der Kamp
Categories: Immigration
Date: May 28, 1788
I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.

Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia
Categories: Immigration
Date: 1781
[Emigrants] will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.

Alexander Hamilton From the New York Evening Post: an Examination of the President's Message, Continued, No. VIII"
Categories: Citizenship, Immigration
Date: January 12, 1802
Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs.
 
ernst barkmann said:
first: i will ask a question....if the federal government does not ............then who does?
Click to expand...

How very statist of you to assume that it's the govts job to do everything you want it to do, even though the constitution does not explicitly say that the govt has the power to do anything that individuals can't do

And since the rest of your post consists of text not found in the consitution, I gave it the attention it deserved (ie none)
 
sangha said:
How very statist of you to assume that it's the govts job to do everything you want it to do, even though the constitution does not explicitly say that the govt has the power to do anything that individuals can't do

And since the rest of your post consists of text not found in the consitution, I gave it the attention it deserved (ie none)
Click to expand...

sorry but you quoted my question...BUT you didn't not answer it AT ALL.........YOU avoided it entirely, and chose to go on a jag.

George Washington himself recognizes immigration as a duty of congress..........ARE YOU SAYING WASHINGTON IS WRONG?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but you quoted my question...BUT you didn't not answer it AT ALL.........YOU avoided it entirely, and chose to go on a jag.

George Washington himself recognizes immigration as a duty of congress..........ARE YOU SAYING WASHINGTON IS WRONG?
Click to expand...

because you have yet to answer any question asked of you

Where is the power to regulate immigration explicitly granted to the govt in the constitution?
 
sangha said:
because you have yet to answer any question asked of you

Where is the power to regulate immigration explicitly granted to the govt in the constitution?
Click to expand...


ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8

To make all Laws<-------------------------------- "which shall be" ---------------->NECESSARY and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers<---------------------, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

George Washington letter to Vice-President John Adams
Categories: Immigration
Date: November 15, 1794
The (policy )or advantage of [IMMIGRATION] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

POLICY:
Definition of policy: Politics: (1) The basic principles by which a government is guided. (2) The declared objectives that a government or party seeks to achieve ...


The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but places no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship is limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 lengthened required residency to become citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 further lengthened required residency to become citizen, registers white immigrants to establish date of initial residency.

1800s

The Naturalization Act of 1870
The Page Act of 1875 is the first act restricting immigration.
The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years
The Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.[1]
The Geary Act of 1892 extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act

1900s, Pre-World War II

The Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act
The Naturalization Act of 1906 standardized naturalization procedures, made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship, and established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
The Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) restricted immigration from Asia by creating an "Asiatic Barred Zone" and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over 14 years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives and elderly family members.
The Immigration Act of 1918, expanding on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act
The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 restricted annual immigration from a given country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the U.S. in 1910
The Immigration Act of 1924 (also known as the Johnson Act) aimed at freezing the current ethnic distribution in response to rising immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Asia. Introduced nationality quotas.
The National Origins Formula was established with the Immigration act of 1924. Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations. Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received. Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant's residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the U.S. Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy and students to obtain visas.

1900s, Post-World War II

The Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens.
The Nationality Act of 1940 pertains chiefly to "Nationality at Birth," Nationality through Naturalization," and "Loss of Nationality". Certain miscellaneous matters are also dealt with.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (or McCarran-Walter Act) somewhat liberalized immigration from Asia, but increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected of Communist sympathies.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (or Hart-Cellar Act) discontinued quotas based on national origin, while preference was given to those who have U.S. relatives. For the first time Mexican immigration was restricted.
The Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 gave Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present, in the United States legal status.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants who had been in the United States before 1982 but made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant.
The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the total immigration limit to 700,000 and increased visas by 40 percent. Family reunification was retained as the main immigration criterion, with significant increases in employment-related immigration.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA) made drastic changes to asylum law, immigration detention, criminal-based immigration, and many forms of immigration relief.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8

To make all Laws<-------------------------------- "which shall be" ---------------->NECESSARY and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers<---------------------, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...

Your quote does not explicitly mention immigration. Please answer the question I actually asked:

Where is the power to regulate immigration explicitly granted to the govt in the constitution?
 
sangha said:
Where is the power to regulate immigration explicitly granted to the govt in the constitution?
Click to expand...
It isn't explicitly granted anywhere. It isn't granted at all.
 
sangha said:
your quote does not explicitly mention immigration. Please answer the question i actually asked:

Where is the power to regulate immigration explicitly granted to the govt in the constitution?
Click to expand...

article 1 section 8

again............."to make all laws! necessary"

this section of the constitution gives congress the power to-----> make laws governing immigration of the u.s.

Congress has 18 duties, and they have the power to make any laws concerning or relating to those 18 duties.

YOU CAN STOP THE WORD GAME!
 
ernst barkmann said:
article 1 section 8

again............."to make all laws! necessary"

this section of the constitution gives congress the power to-----> make laws governing immigration of the u.s.

Congress has 18 duties, and they have the power to make any laws concerning or relating to those 18 duties.
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution explicitely state that regulating immigration is necessary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom