I need some Constitutional help, PT lawyers please help

No one other than citizens and permanent residents have RIGHT to enter this country.

PERIOD.

quote:

---

Liberals and progs have policy that it's wrong for us to deny entry.... I've been scouring the US Constitution for the clause

---

Just because something is ALLOWABLE under the Constitution does not automatically mean that it is good policy OR bad policy. The two concepts (subjective quality of the policy vs constitutionality) are entirely distinct from one another.

Immigration policy could call for EITHER extensive immigration or essentially zero immigration. Either policy would be constitutional, and there are arguments that either could be either a good idea or a bad one.

Your insistence upon continuously voicing non sequiturs and pretending that you made some sort of profound point makes you look like a poorly-educated child.

quote:

---

Article 1 Section 8 describes the enumerated powers of Congress, and included in those powers is that to create a uniform rule of naturalization. Thus, Congress, not the states, has the power to decide who is and is not a citizen of the United States and what the process to become a citizen entails.

The right to travel is a penumbra right assumed to belong to the people under the 10th Amendment as announced by the court in Crandal v. Nevada. However, that right to travel was presumed to be absolute between states only.

Congress gets to decide who can come in and out of the country, and how one becomes a citizen.

---

Did you pull that from your con law outline?

quote:

---

I mean, there's a whole bunch of rights and privileges listed for citizens, but I can't find anything for illegal immigrants.

---

The primary argument for those advocating on behalf of illegal immigrants is that the United States had, effectively, for the first half of its existence essentially open borders. There were no distinctions between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants because we supposedly let anyone in and they became a citizen once they were here for a certain amount of time. Thus, denying rights to "illegal" immigrants that a "legal" immigrant would be entitled to is an arbitrary distinction.

The reality is that immigration wasn't exactly controlled nor uncontrolled prior to World War I. The major ports of entry like Boston, New York, Charleston, New Orleans, and later San Francisco did screen immigrants, and frequently quarantined or outright rejected them due to disease. However, immigrants who simply walked into the United States along its open border pretty much were allowed to do whatever they wanted. Granted, that was because United States citizenship didn't really come with any special privileges back then other than the ability to vote. You didn't even need to be a citizen to claim a homestead. You just showed up, claimed it, and lived there, and by the time you were done, you likely owned it and were considered a citizen.

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants is largely a modern distinction that was the product of anti-immigrant laws which first started in the late 1800's in California where laws against further Chinese immigration were passed. Thus, those who did make it here in violation of that ordinance were "illegal", but rarely faced penalties. The next wave of immigration laws were a product of the economic ruin of post-WWI Europe, leading to laws in the 1920's that slowed immigration to a trickle in the hopes that a decade or two gap would allow the U.S. to better assimilate the massive numbers of immigrants it was dealing with.

The modern understanding of an "illegal immigrant" however, really didn't even become a thing until the immigration system reform of 1965 which created this whole immigrant seasonal farm-worker B.S. that has been abused to spark the illegal immigrant migration crisis we are dealing with today.

Basically, by attaching so many entitlements to United States citizenship, we have made being a United States citizen an attractive proposition for reasons other than starting a business or selling goods, but instead by paying people to simply exist and create more children. This attracts people not interested in contributing, and only interested in taking full advantage of those entitlement programs. Until we fix our entitlement system, anything we do to the immigration system is really just putting a finger in the dam. It's masking the symptoms, but it's not solving the fundamental problem that our government bribed people with a ponzy scheme and is now overwhelmed with people wanting their payments.

I think what he was trying to say is not that the government has some kind of official open borders policy, but rather that there is a narrative that has become a popular campaign platform plank within the democratic party demanding open borders and unfettered immigration either by laws eliminating restrictions on immigration or by fact (removing the mechanisms by which the government enforces immigration law and controls its terrestrial borders).

quote:

---

Did you pull that from your con law outline?

---

I'd say wiki.

Nobody would have that shite in their outline; it's not dcc, free exercise, or ep related.

quote:

---

It's in my outline, but I didn't need to pull it from mine. That's all top of my head con-law. Crandell v. Nevada is important because the "Right to Travel" was one of the justifications used in upholding the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act's restrictions on segregation of hotels, train cars, and restaurants. It was argued that if one cannot get a ticket for a train, stay in a hotel, or eat at restaurants, one effectively is deprived, in the aggregate, of their right to travel. Thus, Crandell v. Nevada is a landmark case for reasons very different from both the facts that led to the case and the actual holding of said case.

---

Well, you can be my go to board guy for con law questions, bc I don't remember shite.

quote:

---

Most important con law case: Lochner v. New York.

---

I could not disagree more. While the Liberty to Contract was an important principle of the court prior to Roosevelt's court-packing, Lochner was over-ruled repeatedly, and the Liberty to Contract died with it. While it is certainly a landmark, it has not stood the test of time like Griswald v. Connecticut, Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Education, or the mack-daddy of them all: Wickard v. Filburn.

Basically, Constitutional Law changed irreparably due to progressivism in the early 1900's, resulting in a fundamental shift in our collective understanding of what rights are and what the powers of the federal government are and should be. Before the progressive era, licenses were unconstitutional. It was seen as unconstitutional to deprive someone of a right and then sell it back to them, but in the interests of wildlife conservation and maintaining sustainable fisheries, progressive-era courts created hunting/fishing licenses. The same process was mirrored in the creations of zoning laws, which were unconstitutional for the first half of this nation's history. Even the most basic things which today we assume were always part of government's power were once considered unheard of userpations of civil rights prior to the progressive era. On the flip side, life expectancy was shite, our water was brown, our streets were dirt, we used opium and cocaine as pain medicine, and there was zero food or work-place safety what-so-ever.

quote:

---

Well, you can be my go to board guy for con law questions, bc I don't remember shite.

---

It really has been a strange few years on this site. I started off as a troll, then a sardonic know-it-all, and now people seem to trust my opinions on some subjects (coastal erosion, constitutional law), but I'm considered a troll on others (weed, aliens, conspiracy theories, ghosts, music), and a lunatic on some (traffic tickets, game of thrones, dating advice, jambalaya threads, what is/isn't considered a sandwich, firing LSU football coaches, etc). I don't even know which of my own posts I take seriously anymore