- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should immigration enforcement be given to the states?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:43 pm
I know some of you are going to immediately bring up Arizona but please try to hear me out here. The country as a whole seems hopeless on the immigration issue, at least in terms of any type of consensus. Should President Trump maybe change his tactics, and either by a Constitutional Amendment, New Law or Executive Order essentially announce that the federal government would no longer be involved with enforcing immigration and that immigration enforcement will now be up to the states.
This would essentially allow the liberal blue states to have their whole "open border" policy while red states would be able to actually have a strict immigration policy. Now I know the first question would be how this would work, since immigration to a state like Arizona would be compromised because California would let the immigrants flood in. There is a solution to this but many of you won't like it.
It would involve open interstate commerce and transportation between the states coming to an end. In a way it would go back to the way the constitution originally intended the states to be, as almost different countries. Every state, if they wanted to, would be able to build a wall around their state and institute checkpoints at all entrances to their states, including road, marine and air traffic. The days of being able to freely travel between the states would be over.
An example would be air travel, air travel between the states would essentially be similar to traveling out of the country. A state ID would no longer be enough, you would need a passport to travel (either by air or car) to another state. When arriving at that state like arriving in another country you would have to go through customs. If someone is actually coming from outside the U.S. they would have to go through both U.S. and state customs. Yes sadly the days of being able to get off a plane, go down to baggage claim and immediately leave would be over. In terms of car travel it would be similar to if you were to travel to Canada today.
There could be regional agreements, for example all of the south could agree to the same strict immigration policy and therefore have "express lanes" and not have to show a passport to go between those states. California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada could all agree to have open borders and of course would not require a passport. But overall each state would set its own immigration policy, have its own border security and possibly a border wall.
This would essentially allow the liberal blue states to have their whole "open border" policy while red states would be able to actually have a strict immigration policy. Now I know the first question would be how this would work, since immigration to a state like Arizona would be compromised because California would let the immigrants flood in. There is a solution to this but many of you won't like it.
It would involve open interstate commerce and transportation between the states coming to an end. In a way it would go back to the way the constitution originally intended the states to be, as almost different countries. Every state, if they wanted to, would be able to build a wall around their state and institute checkpoints at all entrances to their states, including road, marine and air traffic. The days of being able to freely travel between the states would be over.
An example would be air travel, air travel between the states would essentially be similar to traveling out of the country. A state ID would no longer be enough, you would need a passport to travel (either by air or car) to another state. When arriving at that state like arriving in another country you would have to go through customs. If someone is actually coming from outside the U.S. they would have to go through both U.S. and state customs. Yes sadly the days of being able to get off a plane, go down to baggage claim and immediately leave would be over. In terms of car travel it would be similar to if you were to travel to Canada today.
There could be regional agreements, for example all of the south could agree to the same strict immigration policy and therefore have "express lanes" and not have to show a passport to go between those states. California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada could all agree to have open borders and of course would not require a passport. But overall each state would set its own immigration policy, have its own border security and possibly a border wall.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 9:45 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:44 pm to AnarchySupporter
No, and I say that as someone who is pro-state / anti-Fed.
Immigration is one of the only things the Feds should be doing IMO.
Immigration is one of the only things the Feds should be doing IMO.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:44 pm to AnarchySupporter
Didn't the 9th Circuit shift immigration from the Feds to the State's last weekend?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:45 pm to AnarchySupporter
Tldr. Absolutely not because California and the other cuck states will flood us all with unskilled, worthless criminals.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:45 pm to Malik Agar
Malik if you had actually bothered to read my post I addressed that exact concern. Please go back and actually read and you will see that there is a very simple solution to that problem.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:46 pm to AnarchySupporter
No, it's an enumerated power of congress, to create a uniform rule of naturalization
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:48 pm to kingbob
No cause once in the country they can move around from state to state.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:48 pm to kingbob
Kingbob last time I checked our government is supposed to be a government that can change. We also used to have slavery and changed that. Why is it that immigration can not be one of those changes?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:50 pm to AnarchySupporter
It can. Amend the Constitution.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:51 pm to AnarchySupporter
quote:
Constitutional Amendment, New Law or Executive Order essentially announce that the federal government would no longer be involved with enforcing immigration and that immigration enforcement will now be up to the states.
Holy shite. You realize this would, long term, ensure Balkanization of this country?
There doesn't need to be a consensus on immigration.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:51 pm to AnarchySupporter
Some of you all really need to learn about this thing called READING! READ the post, I addressed all of these concerns in the original post. Each state would set up their own border security. So sure California could allow anyone in, but once they would try to go to Arizona or to another state by air they would be met by border security and customs. Each state would have its own border security if they elected to as well as their own customs.
So if Arizona wanted to people from California would have to go through the same process as someone going from the U.S. and Canada. If someone was a California resident and overstayed their visa in Arizona they would get sent back to California and not be allowed back in to Arizona. Very simple solutions people.
So if Arizona wanted to people from California would have to go through the same process as someone going from the U.S. and Canada. If someone was a California resident and overstayed their visa in Arizona they would get sent back to California and not be allowed back in to Arizona. Very simple solutions people.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:51 pm to weagle99
quote:
No, and I say that as someone who is pro-state / anti-Fed.
Immigration is one of the only things the Feds should be doing IMO.
This
It's a matter of National security.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:54 pm to Malik Agar
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:55 pm to crazy4lsu
Holy shite. You realize this would, long term, ensure Balkanization of this country?
There doesn't need to be a consensus on immigration.
Balkanization is already happening to this country. This would just ensure that the states that want open borders are the ones who get to deal with the consequences. If there is a terrorist attrack, it'll happen in one of the open border states and they can only blame themselves for their lax immigration policy.
There doesn't need to be a consensus on immigration.
Balkanization is already happening to this country. This would just ensure that the states that want open borders are the ones who get to deal with the consequences. If there is a terrorist attrack, it'll happen in one of the open border states and they can only blame themselves for their lax immigration policy.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:59 pm to AnarchySupporter
quote:
Balkanization is already happening to this country.
And you want to speed it up?
The United States would cease as an economic entity if each state was responsible for its own border security.
Like I said, there doesn't need to be a consensus on immigration. The law is fairly clear.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 10:00 pm to AnarchySupporter
quote:
Why is it that immigration can not be one of those changes?
It can be. There is an amendment process. If you want to change the Constitution and the intended scope of the federal government, amend the document.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 10:02 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
And you want to speed it up?
The United States would cease as an economic entity if each state was responsible for its own border security.
Like I said, there doesn't need to be a consensus on immigration. The law is fairly clear.
It would still be the U.S. and companies would still be afforded the ability to go across state borders with no tariffs or additional taxes. This would just apply for immigration.
What do you think about the fact that many states have agricultural inspection stations at the state lines? I know Florida has one for every major instate entrance that trucks are required to enter. You're okay with that but not okay with the same type of system for immigration?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 10:04 pm to AnarchySupporter
quote:The "Constitutional right to freedom of movement" you anarchists often refer to actually goes back to a decision involving the U.S. Secretary of State and freedom to travel between the states.
Each state would set up their own border security.
The result was that immigration checkpoints between the states are illegal under Constitutional law.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 10:05 pm to texashorn
So change the constitution Texashorn, change it and give the power back to the states.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 10:05 pm to AnarchySupporter
quote:
It would still be the U.S. and companies would still be afforded the ability to go across state borders with no tariffs or additional taxes. This would just apply for immigration.
It sounds like pre-Maastricht Treaty Europe actually.
quote:
You're okay with that but not okay with the same type of system for immigration?
People are different than crops, unless you are suggesting something like Soylent Green to go along with this immigration plan.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 10:10 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News