The rest of the comment, I have to take as a whole, and this is where I will face opposition from radical LP’s and anarchists. I see a difference between visiting the US for work, education, or vacation/travel…coming to the US with the intent of living here… and coming to the US for living and becoming a citizen. All of which are done quite legally. And then you have those who come to the US without going through the “proper channels”.

I agree that free-movement is necessary with a free-market. But there is a difference between “visiting” a country for commerce and “moving” to a country to take advantage of what may be available.

The system that we live under NOW, demands that hospitals care for “illegals” and to the best of my knowledge are not required/requested to report them. This drives up my medical costs and when supported by the government spends my tax dollars.

“Illegals” attend schools that my tax dollars pay for. There is a bill that will allow “illegals” to obtain grants for college. Is this “fair” for ordinary citizens who happened to be born in the US?

This is just two issues. If “totally open borders” were to be allowed, who is going to take care of the masses from Mexico AND Canada, who see a better way of sponging off the government by moving here???

Until economic issues are dealt with, I don’t see how they can be cut away from the social/freedom of movement issue.

What am I going to do about it?

I am working with the LP at the local, state and national level to bring sanity to our system. I too am a proponent of smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom…but it has to be done in a logical order. One step at a time. And no matter what the topic is, the “sub-topics” must be addressed as well.

We didn’t get into our current mess in one or two decades, and it will take that much or longer to get out of it…but if I get a mind set that it can’t be done, or attempt to “jump” to my ends without facing the obstacles that must be cleared first, then I am doomed to failure….and so are you..

Indeed, if you disgusting Americans build your iron curtain, it will be used to seal your fates. It is just as idiotic now as it was when the Soviets built the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.

You think a government, your government now, today, which is willing to torture at least four dozen men to death is going to let you travel around on a whim? Your government slaughters people all over the world, captures people, and, without decency, due process, or trial, tortures them to death.

And what are you doing about it?

An odd way of stating the question; and I am unsure exactly what you mean by “rules set by the Union”. As long as a Congressional Act falls within the purview of The Legislative Powers delineated in Article. I; The Act predominates over Actions of Individual States. Generally, the delineated Legislative Powers are found in US Constitution; Article I; Section 8. Article I; Section. 9; directly prohibits some actions by the Federal Legislative Branch, and Section 10 expresses a few default prohibitions to individual state acts. US Constitution; Article IV; delineates a few rights that default to individual states; and in Article VI; are found a couple of duties directed at individual state actors.

Some of the Constitutional Amendments need also be considered; the most significant of them: The Fourteenth Amendment; Section 1. Since the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment; Federal Courts have decided that individual rights, which once only applied to Acts of The Federal Government have been substantiated, and apply to Acts of Individual States also. Just last April 29, 2009, for the first time, a Federal Appellate court incorporated the 2nd Amendment as a bar against individual state acts using the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Ironically, the case was decided in the oft-derided as too liberal Ninth Circuit in Nordyke v. King:
——————{
We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
}——————

I await with great amused expectations for the right-wing’s lamentations arising about the activist court’s legislating from the bench in this case, but I won’t be holding my breath, and instead truly expect silence from the moral relativists.

Peter Wilkie – don’t I still have to be first a citizen of one of the several states before I can be considered a citizen of the union of states?

US Constitution; Fourteenth Amendment; Section 1; reverses that ordering. You are a US citizen first; and that is what makes you a citizen of the State wherein you reside:
——————{
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
}——————

If a law or other “order” is unconstitutional then states can disregard, pending a SCoUS ruling. (And you know the US would challenge)

Don’t the states still have the duty and the power to APPLY the rules set by the Union? Or iff the Union has that power, or duty, when and how did it come by it?

And don’t I still have to be first a citizen of one of the several states before I can be considered a citizen of the union of states?

What you seem to be suggesting is that immigration should be a states right, as I don’t see it being a right I or any other American citizen can lose. (If you already live here, and are a citizen, immigration into America wouldn’t apply.)

The reason behind naturalization being included in the Constitution was to make uniform laws, as each state at that time had their own law.

With naturalization being a federal issue, it seems illogical to separate immigration, and allow individual states to make (or not make) their own laws regarding it. Do you really believe that allowing states to dictate immigration policy would result in a step forward to the view you hold? Or in today’s political/cultural climate, would it result in 3 steps back from your position?

——————-{

CHAPTER XVI. POWER OVER NATURALIZATION AND BANKRUPTCY.

§ 1097. The next clause is, that congress “shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

§ 1098. The propriety of confiding the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization to the national government seems not to have occasioned any doubt or controversy in the convention. For aught that appears on the journals, it was conceded without objection. Under the confederation, the states possessed the sole authority to exercise the power; and the dissimilarity of the system in different states was generally admitted, as a prominent defect, and laid the foundation of many delicate and intricate questions. As the free inhabitants of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the other states, it followed, that a single state possessed the power of forcing into every other state, with the enjoyment of every immunity and privilege, any alien, whom it might choose to incorporate into its own society, however repugnant such admission might be to their polity, conveniences, and even prejudices. In effect every state possessed the power of naturalizing aliens in every other state; a power as mischievous in its nature, as it was indiscreet in its actual exercise. In one state, residence for a short time might, and did confer the rights of citizenship. In others, qualifications of greater importance were required. An alien, therefore, incapacitated for the possession of certain rights by the laws of the latter, might, by a previous residence and naturalization in the former, elude at pleasure all their salutary regulations for self-protection. Thus the laws of a single state were preposterously rendered paramount to the laws of all the others, even within their own jurisdiction. And it has been remarked with equal truth and justice, that it was owing to mere casualty, that the exercise of this power under the confederation did not involve the Union in the most serious embarrassments. There is great wisdom, therefore, in confiding to the national government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the whole Union to know, who are entitled to enjoy the rights of citizens in each state, since they thereby, in effect, become entitled to the rights of citizens in all the states. If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges.

§ 1099. It follows, from the very nature of the power, that to be useful, it must be exclusive; for a concurrent power in the states would bring back all the evils and embarrassments, which the uniform rule of the constitution was designed to remedy. And, accordingly, though there was a momentary hesitation, when the constitution first went into operation, whether the power might not still be exercised by the states, subject only to the control of congress, so far as the legislation of the latter extended, as the supreme law; yet the power is now firmly established to be exclusive. The Federalist, indeed, introduced this very case, as entirely clear, to illustrate the doctrine of an exclusive power by implication, arising from the repugnancy of a similar power in the states. “This power must necessarily be exclusive,” say the authors; “because, if each state had power to prescribe a distinct rule, there could be no uniform rule.”

}——————-{

CHAPTER XXXII. PROHIBITIONS ON THE UNITED STATES.

§ 1325. HAVING finished this review of the powers of congress, the order of the subject next conducts us to the prohibitions and [l]imitations upon these powers, which are contained in the ninth section of the first article. Some of these have already been under discussion, and therefore will be pretermitted.

§ 1326. The first clause is as follows: “The migration, or importation of such persons, as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax, or duty, may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”

§ 1327. The corresponding clause of the first draft of the constitution was in these words: “No tax, or duty, shall be laid, &c. on the migration, or importation of such persons, as the several states shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration, or importation be prohibited.” In this form it is obvious, that the migration and importation of slaves, which was the sole object of the clause, was in effect perpetuated, so long, as any state should choose to allow the traffic. The subject was afterwards referred to a committee, who reported the clause substantially in its present shape; except that the limitation was the year one thousand eight hundred, instead of one thousand eight hundred and eight. The latter amendment was substituted by the vote of seven states against four; and as thus amended, the clause was adopted by the like vote of the same states.

§ 1328. It is to the honour of America, that she should have set the first example of interdicting and abolishing the slave-trade, in modern times. It is well known, that it constituted a grievance, of which some of the colonies complained before the revolution, that the introduction of slaves was encouraged by the crown, and that prohibitory laws were negatived. It was doubtless to have been wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had been allowed to be put into immediate operation, and had not been postponed for twenty years. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction, or for the manner, in which it is expressed. It ought to be considered, as a great point gained in favour of humanity, that a period of twenty years might for ever terminate, within the United States, a traffic, which has so long, and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy. Even within this period, it might receive a very considerable discouragement, by curtailing the traffic between foreign countries; and it might even be totally abolished by the concurrence of a few states. “Happy,” it was then added by the Federalist, “would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren.” Let it be remembered, that at this period this horrible traffic was carried on with the encouragement and support of every civilized nation of Europe; and by none with more eagerness and enterprize, than by the parent country. America stood forth alone, uncheered and unaided, in stamping ignominy upon this traffic on the very face of her constitution of government, although there were strong temptations of interest to draw her aside from the performance of this great moral duty.

§ 1329. Yet attempts were made to pervert this clause into an objection against the constitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations to America. Nothing, perhaps, can better exemplify the spirit and manner, in which the opposition to the constitution was conducted, than this fact. It was notorious, that the postponement of an immediate abolition was indispensable to secure the adoption of the constitution. It was a necessary sacrifice to the prejudices and interests of a portion of the Southern states. The glory of the achievement is scarcely lessened by its having been gradual, and by steps silent, but irresistible.

§ 1330. Congress lost no time in interdicting the traffic, as far as their power extended, by a prohibition of American citizens carrying it on between foreign countries. And as soon, as the stipulated period of twenty years had expired, congress, by a prospective legislation to meet the exigency, abolished the whole traffic in every direction to citizens and residents. Mild and moderate laws were, however, found insufficient for the purpose of putting an end to the practice; and at length congress found it necessary to declare the slave-trade to be a piracy, and to punish it with death. Thus it has been elevated in the catalogue of crimes to this ‘bad eminence’ of guilt; and has now annexed to it the infamy, as well as the retributive justice, which belongs to an offence equally against the laws of God and man, the dictates of humanity, and the solemn precepts of religion. Other civilized nations are now alive to this great duty; and by the noble exertions of the British government, there is now every reason to believe, that the African slave-trade will soon become extinct; and thus another triumph of virtue would be obtained over brutal violence and unfeeling cruelty.

§ 1331. This clause of the constitution, respecting the importation of slaves, is manifestly an exception from the power of regulating commerce. Migration seems appropriately to apply to voluntary arrivals, as importation does to involuntary arrivals; and so far, as an exception from a power proves its existence, this proves, that the power to regulate commerce applies equally to the regulation of vessels employed in transporting men, who pass from place to place voluntarily, as to those, who pass involuntarily.

}——————-

Section 9 list the limits of the powers enumerated in Section 8. E.g., Congress may set laws to punish counterfeiting, but counterfeiters can’t be held without a habeas hearing, etc.

They wouldn’t have needed to limit the power of the Congress vis-a-vis Migration in Section 9 if it wasn’t first granted to the Congress in Section 8.

The primary section 8 enumeration at issue here is the reference to the Laws of Nations (and tertiarily that regarding Defence.)

The Laws of Nations include how a nation deals with foreign states and foreign nationals; such as granting asylum, granting residency; and is inclusive of Migration.

Before the Constitution, each of the 13 states, as “free and independent States” as per the Declaration, had the power to regulate such dealings under the Laws of Nations. Section 8 granted those powers to the feds, save the significant, though temporary, limit on Migration and slave Importation. (Earlier drafts had that reservation of power to the 13 states without an end date.)

The Framers had a Lockean natural-law understanding of the proper interaction among not just persons, but also nations.

You should probably consult the Vattel text “The Laws of Nations,” to clarify your muddled thinking on these matters. This was a, if not the, primary reference text used during the Constitutional Convention.

Hope this helps.

Whether or not countries (actually, governments) have the “right” to determine immigration laws within their boundaries is irrelevant. The fact remains that the US Constitution denies this government that power.

A Natural Right to Expatriation…I totally agree, as long as it is not done for fraudulent purposes, or with the intent of otherwise evading obligations they may have within the country they are leaving.

You mentioned Mexican labor in the comment I responded to…I feel they have every right to seek a better life within or outside Mexico. (I say this in a general sense, because I am not familiar with Mexican expatriation laws.)

Although I agree with their right to leave, the country they plan to immigrate to will dictate whether they are “allowed” in, and what the procedures are for naturalization and citizenship.

If they immigrate to the US, they are making the …decision… to come here. There are procedures in place that allow for immigration, if they bypass these procedures and come in illegally, then they are subject to deportation. It is a choice they made…

The Free-Market, and Freedom of Movement go hand-in-hand. However, I see a difference between freedom of movement and immigration. As I see it there are circumstances that would call for restricting entry or monitoring movement of “non-resident” persons in the US.

You cited Talbot v. Janson for the same reason I have seen others post it before…you like the quote…And as long as nobody comments on it, very few notice that it is from a decision on expatriation. Countries have the right to determine immigration law within their boundaries, and this includes the US.

The government also has the right to define conditions for naturalisation, although onerous conditions, applied to friendly aliens, who only desire a better life, is Un-American at its very foundations, and International Borders, which are a sieve to capital freely flowing from collectivist business entities, yet serve to barricade labor behind them, are antithetical to free-markets.

I offered the citation from Talbot v Janson, because it was a SCOTUS decision in 1795; or three years prior to The Alien and Sedition Acts. Another reason I cited it is because Justice Iredell was able to strike at the very heart of the issue concisely, with words that still ring true and are easy to understand over 200 years later. Where is the legalese in it? I can also offer Jefferson citations:

————————{
A foreigner of any nation, not in open war with us, becomes naturalized by removing to the State to reside, and taking an oath of fidelity; and thereupon acquires every right of a native citizen; and citizens may divest themselves of that character, by declaring, by solemn deed, or in open court, that they mean to expatriate themselves, and no longer to be citizens of this State.

Thomas Jeferson, “Notes On Virginia”: QUERY XIV. “Laws” The administration of justice and description of the laws?
}————————{
My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter To Doctor John Manners, June 12, 1817
}————————

Talbot was denied his claim of expatriation, and French Naturalisation in Talbot v. Janson, because it seemed evident that he had renoubced his Virginia citizenship, and became a naturalised French citizen, as a part of a criminal conspiracy with Edward Ballard, who also claimed to have expatriated himself, yet was not able to offer any evidence that he had taken any affirmative steps to become a French Citizen. Expatriation is a natural Right, but it cannot be rightfully asserted in every circumstance. In this instance, expatriation was a ruse, intended to cover for acts of piracy, using a sketchy French Letter of Marquis against Dutch vessels. Expatriation over to an enemy state during wartime is still a treasonous act.

————————{
The doctrine of expatriation, or the right of a citizen formally to renounce allegiance to his country, and assume citizenship in a country of his adoption, is one that has been steadily advocated by the American people from the foundation of their government. It was one of the principal causes of the War of 1812 with Great Britain.

Perhaps no better exposition of the American view can be found than in that section of the Revised Statutes of the United States which declares the right as follows (Section 1999):

“Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: therefore any declaration, restriction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.”

Wise, John S. 1906. A treatise on American citizenship. Studies in constitutional law. Northport, Long Island, N.Y.: Edward Thompson company.
}————————

I’d be real surprised if Jefferson were asked: If we could screen for visitors who were in fact British troops, would the Constitution allow that?, I suspect he’d say Yes. We’ll never know, of course.

TAAALism isn’t Constitutionalism, for TAAALism is more “radical.” So, I ask more basic questions. It goes something like this:

1) Is it wise for a nation to check visitors to reasonably assure that they are not contagious or violent? Yes.

2) Does the Constitution literally allow for such government functions? Maybe

3) Should the Constitution be changed to allow for such government functions? Yes, if possible.

4) Does the government and the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution check for visitors who pose a threat to the general welfare? Yes.

5) All things considered, am I OK with that function? Yes.

6) Could that function be performed better? Yes.

7) Does my comfort with that checking function make me a statist? No, since I view that function as one of the few I tolerate as a means to maintain peace and domestic tranquility.