From:  John Wilde 
Date:  Tue Aug 10, 2004  1:35 pm
Subject:  Re: [badnarik2004] PROBLEM: Badnarik TV ad asks voters to "End illegal immigration...

 You know I have watched this thread develop on two or three different lists and there is one fundamental omission that is being made by everyone.

    The constitution only permitted the United States Congress to make Uniform Rules of Naturalization.  If Michael is truly a constitutional student, then he should know that when ever the Constitution uses the term "Rule" it only means a procedure.  Congress cannot decide issues of immigration.  Immigration and naturalization do not necessarily go hand in hand.  And until the first Immigration and Naturalization Act in 1890, the Congress only defined Naturalization Rules that were uniformly applied throughout the country.

    Naturalization merely defines procedural rights for changing your status from that of an immigrant to a Citizen.  Naturalization cannot define substantive rights for who can and cannot immigrate.  Immigration involves substantive rights and, until 1890 (actually it still is if the state legislatures would grow some balls), is supposed to be an issue of state law, not federal law.  If a person meets all of the immigration requirements of the particular state in accordance with its laws, then from there they are eligible to follow the naturalization laws which define the procedures for becoming a citizen.  Oh, and naturalization was done through the state courts not the federal courts.

    Remember the states are still independent sovereign nations in many areas.  In those areas that were not delegated to the U.S. Government they retained.  One of the things the states retained for themselves is who could and could not immigrate to their state.  One of the requirements for immigration into a particular state was the immigrant had to have a sponsor from that state.  That sponsor was then responsible to insure the immigrant was given the necessary education and understanding of the constitution and local customs.  Then after that the immigrant would then go through the process of naturalization under the guide of their sponsor.

    We are now seeing the "unintended consequences" of a Congress who enacted (unconstitutionally mind  you) a one size fits all immigration policy, that removed virtually all of the local component that is essential to the smooth transition from a stranger in a new land to a hard working and successful participant in a local community.

    If most of you take a look at this and many of the other issues that we are facing, the solution is in the local and state governments.  Not some all seeing, all knowing national authority.  Immigration and naturalization is no different. Granted the state legislatures are so full of a bunch of chicken shits they go cowering into their coops every time the federal boys snap their frellin' fingers.

    Quite frankly a Presidential candidate who is looking to sell message of freedom, must be ready to emphasize that point.  By engaging in this open borders, closed borders debate we are involving ourselves in an emotional battle that can't be won.  It is time to redefine this debate.  Our battle must be, what is the CONSTITUTIONAL solution.  Since it is a state issue, if a state wishes to be more restrictive on immigration than another, then those seeking to immigrate wish to seek a sponsor in the less restrictive state.  If a state wishes to have no restrictions at all, then that is also up to that state and its citizens.