I Adore Congressman Ron Paul But....

He has a very large blind-spot his field of vision. That spot is the issue of legal immigration and "illegal" immigration.

There is an article up on his Campaign for Liberty website about the new Arizona alien invader law. Here is the text of the article written by Michael Boldin. Boldin tries to assert that the law is constitutional. It probably is, but I don't think it would be for the reasons Boldin states.

Boldin writes that the dictionary definition of the word naturalization does not necessarily mean that the Constitution gave the federal government the power to determine naturalization rules. Now, I'm a big fan of the 10th amendment, but I don't buy that.

Because of the dictionary definition from the 18th century Boldin concludes:


"I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization."

Please, Mr. Boldin, let me try to find one for you.

What did the Founders (and not the dictionary) have to say about that? Let me quote at length from Federalist No. 42 written by James Madison (Avalon Project). Beginning in the eleventh paragraph, we read:


"The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce,'' etc...

...There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens,'' "all the privileges of trade and commerce,'' cannot easily be determined...

...It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants'' to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed...

...The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other...

...We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped...

...By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against...

...The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. " [My emphasis, coloration, and separation into paragraphs for ease of reading. Capitalization is from the original].

What James Madison is saying is that there was already a chaotic condition of naturalization rules possessed by the individual states of the Confederation existing under the laws of the Confederation during the deliberations of the Constitutional Congress. And he said the individual states having control over the power of immigration was a "fault". He says that in the opening paragraph above.

He then concludes by stating clearly that the proposed Constitution authorizes "...the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States."

The general government Madison is referring to is the Federal government, not the individual states.

It couldn't be any more clear.

Debates held several years after Madison penned those words confirm what Madison said. As Elliot's Records of the Debates of Congress reads, Page 1148 on "Rules of Naturalization", February 3, 1790:

"Mr. Hartley said, he had no doubt of the policy of admitting aliens to the rights of citizenship; but he thought some security for their fidelity and allegiance was requisite besides the bare oath; that is, he thought an actual residence of such a length of time as would give a man an opportunity of esteeming the government from knowing its intrinsic value, was essentially necessary to assure us of a man's becoming a good citizen. The practice of almost every State in the Union countenanced a regulation of this nature; and perhaps it was owing to a wish of this kind, that the States had consented to give this power to the General Government. The terms of citizenship are made too cheap in some parts of the Union; to say, that a man shall be admitted to all the privileges of a citizen, without any residence at all, is what can hardly be expected."

Is it not absolutely clear then? And it didn't take me long to find this information on the internet. It's not like Mr. Boldin doesn't have the same access as I do.

I find the 1790 statement fascinating because it assumes that some persons waiting to be naturalized might prove to be unfit because they do not "esteem"our government even if they "know its intrinsic value".

I assert that Hispanics, as a group, don't even know what are our intrinsic values such that they could esteem the Constitution and the government it provides. They are about as bad a large immigrant pool as we have ever had, who openly flaunt their contempt for our intrinsic values.

If ever there was a immigrant pool who fit a category of undeserving persons it is the Hispanic people in America. Nearly to a person they will not admit that a moratorium is necessary. They are totally unable to put the interests of America (and her intrinsic values) ahead of their own ethnocentric viewpoint because they simply refuse to admit that their ethnic group possesses a shamefully unfair, unbalanced and monopolistic grip on the immigration system such that it poses a threat to our national security. Instead they flock to the Democratic Party in part because of bribes (welfare handouts) and amnesty.

There has never been a more disreputable immigrant pool by virtue of their own conduct.

The reason the Founders discussed the need for rules of naturalization is because they understood that some people didn't deserve the privilege.

Indeed.

The biggest problem I find with Libertarians, is that they tend to be intellectually lazy on the matter of national sovereignty and immigration. There is little if any love of country in them.

They are not worse than the Democrats, of course, who intentionally hack away at our foundations driven by their hatred of them.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp