Comments on: Immigration vs Naturalization

By: Barely A Blog » UPDATED: The Cause Ron Paul Should Champion (Defer to the Tenth)

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:46:24 +0000

[...] (Jan. 6): DEFER TO THE TENTH. That’s what Ron Paul should do. Michael Boldin’s Tenth Amendment Center article draws the distinction between immigration and naturalization, in the context of 18th century [...]

By: french chandeliers

french chandeliers — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:39:31 +0000

I read your article, and sorry to say that I don't agree with the fact that you sound like you are blaming on illegal for many things that are happening here. The most important thing to consider at this point are the words “immigration” and “naturalization” themselves.

By: Sheriff Joe, Sheriff Mack and Derek Sheriff: Three Views on Arizona’s New Immigration Law – Arizona Tenth Amendment Center

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:05:07 +0000

[...] Here, I would like to express my own disappointment over three things which were not mentioned in the segment. The first is that no distinction is being made by most people between immigration and naturalization in this debate. The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to control the process of naturalization, not exclusive control over immigration. The two words may be related, but they are not synonymous. So where does the federal government claim its authority to control immigration as opposed to the process of naturalization? For a more detailed treatment of this question, please read Michael Boldin’s article, Immigration vs. Naturalization. [...]

By: Jerry Silovich

Jerry Silovich — Mon, 10 May 2010 01:42:54 +0000

foriegn born shouldnt be ble to marry to become an americaan citizeenship. they shouldnt buyy thier citizenship either by paying off an american cititzeen! ytthey must have a passsport,work visa,suporter and file for an I-9 form to get an I-94 documeent to work herre legally.

By: RepealThe16thA

RepealThe16thA — Wed, 05 May 2010 02:31:11 +0000

Again, given that Congress now has the power to prohibit migration, Congress's only option concerning the issue seems to be to build a fence along the border, not to give illegal aliens amnesty.

In fact, Joseph Story wrote that the reason for making Clause 4 of Section 8 was to up the bar with respect to who can become a naturalized citizen.

"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." –Joseph Story, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents…

The idea of Congress giving citizenship to anybody they damn well please doesn't complement the Founder's intent for giving naturalization laws to Congress. But this doesn't stop the corrupt Democratic Congress from giving citizenship to illegal aliens in exchange for voting for Democrats.

By: RepealThe16thA

RepealThe16thA — Wed, 05 May 2010 02:31:11 +0000

Again, given that Congress now has the power to prohibit migration, Congress's only option concerning the issue seems to be to build a fence along the border, not to give illegal aliens amnesty.

In fact, Joseph Story wrote that the reason for making Clause 4 of Section 8 was to up the bar with respect to who can become a naturalized citizen.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Tue, 04 May 2010 05:22:02 +0000

The answer is that Congress may enact any law it desires and naturalize anyone it wants. Too many people think there must be some requirement that the order of naturalizing (waiting lists, etc.) must be "fair." However, I know of no rule that grants the right to a non-citizen to be treated in any such manner in terms of who jumps ahead in line, etc.

There is a requirement that the rule be "uniform," but I don't take that to mean non-complex, not do I take it to mean everyone in the world is given equal standing.

Maybe someone else can shed additional light.

By: swehes

swehes — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:23:17 +0000

So my question is this. If I, being a citizen of Sweden, but want to become an American, is here legally. Will I be granted the same citizenship for free the way an illegal alien would get through the Amnesty program? Also how many other people in the USA that are legally here, that wants to become a citizen but hasn't been able to become one yet, for whatever reason, will these become citizens as well? The other question is. What about those Terrorists out there, that are here illegally, should they get Amnesty?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 03 May 2010 18:48:34 +0000

Why stop with Mexico? The Mexicans 'stole' land from Guatemala and the Guatemalans are constantly streaming into Mexico through that unsealable border. Then, of course, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, etc. should be annexed.

And that's just Central America. What about South America. Canada is lookin' mighty good, too. There's that troubling Pacific NW area that separates mainland US from Alaska…

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 03 May 2010 15:52:21 +0000

If every state controlled immigration, then every state would have to control immigration from every bordering state. This puts up huge friction between the travel of goods and people between states. Congress, under the Commerce clause, does have a valid interest in reducing this friction. So, a national immigration policy is useful, but not under the Naturalization clause (as you've noted).