The Congressional Power over Immigration: A Detective Story

by Rob Natelson

The Original Constitution

Get the New Book Today!

Did the Founders’ Constitution give Congress the power to restrict immigration?  Or was this a subject reserved to the states?

The question has come to the fore in recent months because of the controversy surrounding the Arizona immigration law.   My own search for the answer offers some important lessons about constitutional interpretation.

The Constitution, as readers of this website know, grants Congress only certain enumerated federal powers.  About half of these are found in Article I, Section 8, while the rest are scattered throughout other parts of the document.  Yet none of those powers explicitly mentions immigration.

This apparent silence has led some to suggest that immigration was left exclusively to state control.  However, the Founders gave primary control over foreign affairs to the federal government, and immigration (and emigration) was an important aspect of foreign affairs in the eighteenth century.   Also, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, which prohibited Congress from prohibiting before 1808 the “Migration” of free people as well as “Importation” of slaves presupposed a congressional power to prohibit or restrict immigration after 1808.

But if Congress has power to regulate immigration, where in the Constitution was it granted?

Some writers have argued that it was part of Congress’s authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”  For a while, I was misled into accepting this position.

As I thought about it more, I became troubled.  From reviewing hundreds of eighteenth-century sources, I had learned that “commerce” nearly always referred to the activities of merchants and certain closely-related activities.  These activities certainly encompassed travel for business purposes and travel by ship or other conveyance.  But constitutional scholar David Kopel pointed out to me that those activities did not include the fellow who hoofed it over the international border to live in the United States.  An immigrant of that description was not engaged in “commerce,” as the Constitution uses the word.

So I began another search to learn whether there was a federal power over immigration, and if so where it came from.  Eighteenth-century law provided the answer – not commercial law, but international law.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution granted power to Congress to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations.”  I decided to dig more deeply into the eighteenth century legal sources to determine whether that might include authority over immigration.  Sure enough, it turns out that during the Founding Era, restrictions over immigration and emigration comprised a well-recognized branch of the “Law of Nations.”  In other words, Congress’s power to “define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations” included authority to “define” immigration rules and “punish” those who violated them.  An explanation appears in latest update of my book, The Original Constitution: What It Really Said and Meant .

Why is this constitutional detective story significant?  First, clarifies why the constitutional text assumes that after 1808 Congress could regulate “Migration” from foreign lands.  Second, it clarifies that Congress cannot use the interstate commerce power to bar non-commercial travel within the United States.  Third, it knocks one of the props out from under an argument that, however silly, is solemnly advanced by some “liberal” writers – that “commerce” included non-business travel, and therefore that “commerce” also included nearly all other human relationships.

Finally, this story underscores a point I explain for the layperson in The Original Constitution: When the Constitution is unclear, eighteenth century law offers us valuable trail marks toward the truth.

Rob Natelson, a leading scholar of the Founding Era, is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado and Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. He retired from the University of Montana earlier this year, where he taught Constitutional Law.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, ,

11 comments
Rob Natelson
Rob Natelson

Thank your for all your comments. I do have a few observations:

P-King: The problem with supposing that Congress had no power over immigration is not just the language in Article I, Section 9, but also the grant of power over the law of nations. The international law treatises used at the time (specifically Vattel and Grotius) make it crystal clear that restrictions over immigration were part of the the law of nations.

Jeff Matthews: Note also that even before 1808, a limited federal power over immigration (imposition of a duty of up to $10 -- a significant sum then) -- was recognized. (Such an imposition would not necessarily qualify under the taxing power.) The power was clearly intended to "spring" into full effect in 1808.

B. Johnson: Regarding the Jefferson quote: Here are two relevant rules of constitutional interpretation: (1) statements issued AFTER ratification was complete (i.e., after May 29, 1790, when RI ratified) usually are not of much value in determining original meaning, particularly if issued in the middle of a political fight, and (2) Jefferson's statements of constitutional meaning are not particularly useful, since he was in Europe when the Constitution was drafted and approved. TJ was very often mistaken about the understanding reached when he was away.

The KY and VA resolutions make the point: They were issued in the midst of a huge partisan political battle, and all other states expressly or impliedly rejected them. Seven of the 13 other states even passed resolutions of condemnation.

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

Although I'm open to arguments to the contrary, based on the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's writings, I respectfully disagree that the Founding States delegated to Congress the power to regulate immigration.

"4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.a...

I understand that Jefferson was VP of the USA when he wrote the above paragraph, his stance that Congress doesn't have power over "alien friends" seemingly reasonably synonymous with the idea that Congress has no power to regulate immigration, IMO. And if Jefferson was indeed talking about immigration, I understand that his stance that immigration is a state power issue actually helped him to be elected the 3rd president of the USA.

This would also emphasize the constitutional principle that Congress has only those specific powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration clearly not one of those powers.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

Naturalization Act of 1790

(Excerpts)

"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States."

Looks like federal power was not intended to be exclusive. This should punch a big hole the federal government's case against Arizona.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

This is kind of a side not but isn't interesting that laws were always written in plain comprehensible language back in those days. Now they have to deciphered by lawyers which makes it impossible for the average person to actually understand what they are suppose to follow. This gives politicians and the government an advantage as they can interpret it the way they want to and not by what is written.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

Interesting article. Many of us have written articles suggesting Congress' power was limited to "Naturalization," thus requiring us to point out that naturalization and immigration are two different things. As to P-King's comment, Art. 1, Sec. 9 includes "migration," not just "importation." As to this provision, it does seem to presume Congress would have the power to regulate and even prohibit "migration" and "importation" after 1808, with the proviso that before 1808, a tax could be levied on persons "imported."

Incidentally, this provision would grant/imply a power to "prohibit." What does your research or reason tell you with regard to any argument that Congress would have authority to prevent the states from prohibiting if Congress chose not to? Does this Law of Nations suggest or establish that a national government may require admission against the will of a sovereign politic within its jurisdiction?

Good article! Thanks for pointing that out.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

There still is no power to regulate migration of people into the states. The reason they put that in there is that if the federal government wanted to expand its power to do so with an amendment it could not do so before 1808. That is why Article V says no amendment may be added that gives the federal government that power before the same year.

The fact that you had to add an amendment to the constitution to give the federal government that power says that it does not have that it in its present form since no amendment was ever added to it giving the federal government that power.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

Also, a very interesting comment! However, your reasoning is not the only possible construction. The provision in Article V simply states that no amendment may have the effect of repealing two of the provisions of Art. I, Sec. 9. Thus, you can think of the power as a "springing interest." This is a legal term which means that an interest (or power over something) will occur at some future date. Art. I, Sec. 9 could, by implication, as suggested by Natelson, recognize the power over immigration exists, but limit that power until 1808. Art. V simply provided that the amendment process could not be used to repeal the rule so that Congress could exercise the power sooner. This is an interesting issue.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

The only reasonable construction is the truth and there is not more than one version of the truth.

Anyways, where does it say that the importation and migration of people can be regulated AFTER 1808? You may be right that that particular section in article V might be just preventing the amendment procedure from interfering with that before the year 1808 but where does it say that you the importation and migration of people can be regulated after that?

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

It could be construed that way, but that's not the only reasonable construction, It could simply mean that the amendment procedure may not be used to interfere with the sec 9 provisions before 1808.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

The provision says that no amendment may be passed before that year that interferes with the importation or migration of people but after that year you could. This implies that the only way the migration of people could be barred was through an amendment to the constitution.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

You don't import 'free people'. We only import property such as cars. The clause you are referring to is importation of indentured servants and slaves. Those were considered property which is why they used the word 'importation' rather than migration.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, Capitol Circle Right, Susan Westfall, William Jones, Ron Paul and others. Ron Paul said: The Congressional Power over Immigration: A Detective Story http://bit.ly/eqjxRf #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]

  2. [...] article by Rob Natelson on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Did the Founders’ Constitution give Congress the power to restrict immigration?  Or was this a [...]