New at Reason

Nick Gillespie debates Ed Morrissey and Judd Legum in the second round of their AP-sponsored slugfests - this time, on immigration.

Comments

MikeP | October 13, 2006, 12:15pm | #

For an IM conversation, that transcript was very lacking in instances of "lol", "brb", and "well I have aa totally stiff wood now".

jp | October 13, 2006, 1:07pm | #

Nick won.

The "conservative" guy (Morrissey) seemed surprisingly moderate. He even took a slight jab at Buchanan.

Rogus | October 13, 2006, 1:41pm | #

It's always nice to have people from Washington DC, Minnesota, and Maryland discussing border control.

Rogus | October 13, 2006, 1:48pm | #

Always nice to see people from Washington DC, Minnesota, and Maryland discussing border control when they don't share a border with Mexico and their state economy, budgets, and infrastructure from roads to school to hospitals to jails are not as greatly impacted as those states that do.

MikeP | October 13, 2006, 2:04pm | #

Always nice to see people from Washington DC, Minnesota, and Maryland discussing border control when they don't share a border with Mexico

Do you mean like the sponsor of the House immigration bill, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin? Or do you mean like the 22 of his 35 cosponsors who aren't from border states? Or are you referring to the fact that neither Arizona nor New Mexico -- where most of this insane fence will go -- is represented in those cosponsors?

Rogus | October 13, 2006, 2:43pm | #

MikeP:

Why did you stop at the co-sponsors? They voted on the issue. Why not show this link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-661

And yes - I do believe that the border states should have more of a say on border control issue than the non-border states. It does effect them the most.

If AZ and New Mexico don't want a fence, good, let them figure out a way to control the border. But say California and Texas (interesting you didn't mention them) want a fence as a way to control the border, by all means they should put one up.

joshua corning | October 13, 2006, 2:51pm | #

what i would like to know is what nick is looking over shoulder at?

MikeP | October 13, 2006, 3:12pm | #

Rogus,

Thanks for that link. It supports my point well. No representative in New Mexico voted for the bill. No representative on the border in Arizona voted for the bill.

As for California and Texas, the large populations of those states allow cosponsors to come from highly conservative enclaves.

But look at all the blue throughout the unbordered middle of the country!

I do believe that the border states should have more of a say on border control issue than the non-border states. It does effect them the most.

Indeed, that's one of the reasons that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to control immigration.

Rogus | October 13, 2006, 3:51pm | #

I'll agree with you up to a certain point. Since no representatives from New Mexico voted for the issue, if they want to bypass the fence, then I'm fine with that.

But I will disagree with regarding the non-border representatives. First those areas have a very high hispanic community. I'm guessing that the high amount of hispanic voters in their district had a good amount of influence on the votes. I will also not disregard those of us whole do not live on the border but live on a border state because there is still an impact on the State Economy and how tax dollars are spent.

I will also point out there is a fair amount of Red on the East Coast and around the Great Lakes.

Lowdog | October 13, 2006, 4:33pm | #

Rogus - where do you live? Because I live in Phoenix, and I can tell you I'm pissed at any rep that voted for this crap. Instead of building some ridiculous wall, (which environmentalists are decrying because it'll hurt fragile species of plants and animals and will not allow certain large predators and prey to have their regular migratory routes...bet no one thought of that shit, huh?), why don't we implement a serious guest worker/resident authorisation process and cut back the welfare state.

I'm pretty certain that would solve our problems much better than this other bullshit.

I also want to mention that I see immigrants as pretty much all positive. No problems with Mexicans from where I stand.

Pig Mannix | October 13, 2006, 5:43pm | #

Indeed, that's one of the reasons that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to control immigration.

Really? Then I'd be interested in hearing your explaination for this:

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

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.

Now, if congress didn't have the authority to control immigration, why did the framers see a necessity to restrict that power for a specific period of time?

Obviously, they wouldn't have had to put a limit on a power congress didn't have in the first place.

Rogus | October 13, 2006, 7:09pm | #

Lowdog:

I live in the Bay Area of California. While it's not as hot as Phoenix, we do have more than our fair share immigrants both legal and illegal.

I agree with you that there needs to be a guest worker program, I would support cutting back the welfare state, and I would also favor fiscally punishing companies that hire illegals. And I'm also glad that they pass building this wall, though I think it should be under the guidance of the border states.

And no, implimenting a Guest Worker Program will not stop the problem. People will still want to come across the border illegally. Why wait X amount of time when you can skip ahead of the line and just walk right over. Why hire a Guest Worker that will have all the US laws applied to him/her when you can hire an illegal for half the price?

I'm fine with making access but that also needs to be combined with prevention for those who will skip ahead of the line.

MikeP | October 14, 2006, 4:05am | #

Pig Mannix,

Surely you know that "persons" in this clause is a euphemism for a particular type of person who could be "imported". As such, the matter fell under Congress's "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations" and thus needed this exception written in as part of the compromises that resulted in the Constitution.

The Confederate Constitution, which is 95% identical to the US Constitution, but has less of an aversion to talking about slavery, makes this clause clearer:

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Tucker's Blackstone is equally clear:

This article, at the time the constitution was framed, was deemed necessary to prevent an opposition, on that ground, to it's adoption in those states which still permitted the importation of slaves from Africa, and other foreign parts. A more liberal policy has since prevailed, so far as to render it probable that congress will never have occasion to exert the right of prohibiting the importation of slaves, such being now prohibited by the laws of all the states in the union. But should any of them shew an inclination to rescind the present prohibitions, congress, after the year 1808, will be able to interpose it's authority to prevent it, and impose some partial restraint upon the farther extension of the miseries of mankind. How to remove the calamities of slavery from among us, is left to the wisdom of the state government; the federal government can only prevent the further importation of slaves after the period limited.

Pig Mannix | October 14, 2006, 10:01am | #

Surely you know that "persons" in this clause is a euphemism for a particular type of person who could be "imported".

Yes, I do know that. But it also states "Migration", which indicates a voluntary action. But in either event, that the framers needed to include a restraint on that power acknowledges congress did indeed have the power to define who may, or may not, be admitted to the country, hair-splitting notwithstanding. Further, given your insistence on a literal interpretation of the constitution, at least when it suits you, I'll point out that taken literally, the clause is in no way restricted to the importation of slaves.

And as long as we're splitting hairs, let me point out that nowhere in "provide for the common defence" is defence defined specifically as "defence against military invasion". The country is perfectly entitled to define an external threat in whatever way it suits them, for any reason it suits them. Restricting migration falls under the authority to "provide for the common defence" with plenty of room to spare.

In regard to the Confederate constitution, it is not and never has been operative in the United States, and Confederate interpretations of it have no relevancy, whatever.

James | October 14, 2006, 10:34am | #

Rogus: if Texas wants to build a wall on its section of the border, the Federal government surely cannot stop them. But they don't just want to build a wall, they want to use the Federal government's money to do it. That is the hole in your argument. What you're arguing is that Texas should be able to dictate what to spend Federal money on without any interference from those nasty old Minnesotans. You don't want our opinion, use your own damned money.

If you've been following these IM chats, you'll find that everyone is usually on their best behavior in them, trying to win converts from the middle. It's true that party loyalty doesn't seem to have anything to do with one's opinion of illegal immigrants (or, in fact, legal ones.) I believe that this implies that it really is a race/culture/emotional issue rather than a technical one. The statistical talking points are really just ammunition for an emotional debate.

Chad | October 14, 2006, 11:46pm | #

Everyone here knows that the pure libertarian policy on immigration is "Anyone can live wherever in the Hell that want".

Now, does any libertarian want to explain what we do the day after we implement such a law, when several hundred million people flee their $1/day poverty in Africa, inner China, India, etc and start showing up by the boatloads?


The "anywhere you want" policy is a wonderful goal, but is also only a policy that works in a much flatter, much less statist world - one that we will not have for some time.

MikeP | October 16, 2006, 3:49am | #

Pig Mannix:

I am neither a literalist nor a hair-splitter. The people writing, debating, and approving the Constitution meant something when they put together that document. Everyone involved knew they were developing a clause allowing the importation of slaves for a particular time and then forbidding it. The particular language used was all that was under debate, and finickiness about including the word "slave" or even the notion of imported people resulted in the clause we see today.

As Madison himself said in Federalist 42:

Attempts have been 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 from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.

Other evidence of what this clause meant can be found in the writings at the Founder's Constitution.

Nonetheless, I agree that arguing against free migration on the basis of constitutionality is, in the end, disingenuous. The US government habitually violates the Constitution, so the fact that a power is not granted to the US is no evidence that such a power wouldn't be granted to it if it was actually made to behave constitutionally. In particular, it is easy to imagine that the United States would have passed an amendment empowering the federal government to regulate immigration in the 1880's the 1920's or, indeed, today.