Home » Articles \ Tags: , ,

Yearning to Breathe Free

The Constitution is Clear on Immigration

By
Published: 1 October 2009
Yearning to Breathe Free

Since October 2003, 104 people have died in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Perhaps another thousand perished in the deserts of the American southwest while crossing into the United States without government permission. And who can forget the 14 refugees fleeing Cuba’s hell in a tiny rickety boat nine years ago? Only a little boy named Elian Gonzales and two others survived the voyage – but not life in America under Bill Clinton’s regime. His administration kidnapped Elian and remanded him to Castro’s clutches.

No question about it, the federal government’s immigration policy results in hundreds of deaths annually. And why not? Death and mayhem always result when the feds assume powers the Constitution never granted them, whether it’s the War on Drugs, the undeclared one on guns, or the battle against unauthorized migration.

Search the Preamble, all seven Articles, and 27 Amendments: You’ll find no authorization by which the federal government may control the movement of anyone into or out of the country. (The exception Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,” a euphemism for slaves and the slave trade.) Indeed, the document never mentions the words “immigration” or “immigrants” in the sense of voluntary movement. The framers knew the concept: The Constitution specifies that the president must be native-born and members of the House and Senate must have been citizens for seven and nine years, respectively. And Article I, Section 8 does allow Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” But that’s a long way from authorizing a federal stranglehold on travel. The Constitution does not permit rulers to issue passports or visas, keep lists of visitors, police the country’s borders, or bar anyone, citizen or not, from coming and going.

Because they understood government’s lethal potential, the founding generation limited its role. Even so, they probably never thought to prohibit Leviathan from controlling immigrants simply because it seldom bothered to in their world.

The State occasionally meddled in migrations – the British government often dumped those criminals it didn’t hang on Australia and the New World; soldiers in earlier times would surround cities stricken with epidemics and shoot anyone trying to flee. But John Wilkes’s experience was far more usual. A radical member of Parliament whose rapier wit frequently skewered the King or his fellow legislators, Wilkes skipped across the English Channel to France when the House of Lords expelled him. No guards on either shore tried to prevent his travels. Ditto for the Marquis de Lafayette, who wished to enlist with the American revolutionaries in 1776, before France had formally pledged its support. When British spies told King Louis XVI of Lafayette’s plans, he promised to arrest him. Lafayette fled to Spain and, finally, America. He feared the royal agents chasing him, not officers on any of the borders he crossed.

This openness prevailed through the first century of our national existence. People came and went as they pleased, citizen or not. It wasn’t until the 1870s that this freedom died – and intriguingly, its murderers never once blamed the Constitution for their crime.

Instead, the Supreme Court invented a governmental “interest” in people’s movements when Californians began hiring Chinese immigrants rather than one another. The Court claimed it had to act when the Chinese “engage[d] in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field.” Where the feds’ newfound “interest” had been hiding during the previous century is anyone’s guess. Nor do we know its origin, unlike that of our rights, which “their Creator” endows on all humankind and which include freedom of movement. The government’s interest apparently materializes out of thin air whenever the feds lust after unconstitutional prerogatives. (Among other interests, the Court found one during the 1960s in “safe” aviation. Hence, federal checkpoints, warrantless searches, high taxes, and grief now curse American airports just as they do the borders).

Sadly, Americans cry ever more loudly for Leviathan to increase its unconstitutional power. Yet each time we clamor for the feds to restrict foreigners’ movements, we tighten our own bonds. Among other evils, government charges us hundreds of dollars for passports and erects bureaucracies that consume billions of our taxes while harassing both citizens and foreigners. It’s building a wall to rival the one Berlin tore down and has even introduced a national ID.

Like the truth, the Constitution can set us free.

Becky Akers is a writer in New York City.

9 Comments »

  1. [...] Akers is a writer in New York City. http://fee.org/article/yearning-breathe-free/ Share and [...]

  2. This is where I draw the line. And lines are O.K. We have lines for our individual property. Fences make good neighbors as the old saying goes. Property rights are championed. We have many lines of property, local, state, and yes federal. If they have no meaning, why have them?
    Of course part of the problem is the largess offered to citizens and noncitizens. Change that and some of the dynamic may also change of who wants to come to the USA (there is that concept of a Nation and borders again)and why.
    But a free-for-all at the border, I don’t think so. Our “wall” is not yet being proposed to keep people in like it served in many nations. I think our national security is an obligation of the national government, one of the few it has. There are those out there in the world that wish our way of life and citizens to be dead, period. It has nothing to do with anything but evil, which exists independent of the dynamics of economics.

  3. Elian Gonzalez was returned to his FATHER, who happened to have been born in Cuba. According to you, should children be kidnapped from their parent(s) if the parent(s) happen to live in a country you don’t like?

  4. For once I completely agree with Ms. Akers. “No question about it, the federal government’s immigration policy results in hundreds of deaths annually.”

    Deaths of Americans that is.

    In 2007, Alfredo Ramos, illegal alien and convicted felon, was driving drunk when he collided with a car driven by Tessa Tranchant , 16 and Allison Kundhardt 17, killing both of them.

    Ramos had a prior DWI conviction but sanctuary laws in Virginia Beach prohibited his deportation.

    Here is a link. http://hamptonroads.com/node/245121

    In July 2008, gangbanging’ illegal alien Edwin Ramos murdered a father and his two sons in San
    Francisco.

    Ramos had been arrested in SF earlier that year but the laws of that city prevented authorities from revealing his immigration status to the Feds.

    Here is the storyhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/MNK011MAFR.DTL

    Our prisons are full of illegal alien gangsters guilty of similar atrocities.

    We need to act now. Article IV Section 4 our Constitutions mandates that the Federal government must protect each state against invasion and domestic violence. Illegal immigration is clearly an invasion of our national sovereignty, the Federal government must act.

  5. Two criminals out of an estimated 11 million “illegal aliens.” Oh–and of course, those full prisons. Come on: that doesn’t pass the laugh test. And warping the word “invasion” in Article IV Sec 4 is a cute trick — but only if you’re four years old.

    Taking a child at gunpoint is kidnapping. Wearing one of Leviathan’s absurd uniforms while doing so doesn’t mitigate the obscenity.

    And those so lacking in both imagination and historical literacy as to consider beneficial a wall the government controls…well, perhaps you should talk to some East Germans or US prisoners.

    “Illegals” are breaking the law: good for them! Because it’s not only a stupid law, it’s unconstitutional. Those of us who love liberty should champion the old adage that bad laws are made to be broken. Our loyalty ought never be to the State and its silly, immoral rules.

    Whether or not we personally approve of their color and their culture, immigrants of any stripe, legal or illegal, are fellow human beings endowed by the Creator with the same rights we have. Thank God, prejudice against them doesn’t affect that simple fact. The US government, not immigrants, is the aggressor when it impedes travel — theirs or ours.

  6. The deaths of five innocent people is nothing to laugh about, Ms. Akers. I am sure the families of the victims are not laughing.

    There are many more than 2 criminals amongst the 11 million (probably double that number) of illegal aliens that enter this country. My intention in my last post was merely to highlight two recent egregious examples of what the horrors of open borders has wrought. My point is that there was absolutely no reason for these people to die.

    I could sit here all day knocking away at my keys citing facts about illegal immigration and crime, about MS-13, about prison violence, about the costs of illegal immigration. But instead I have a few questions for you Ms. Akers.

    I am having difficulty envisioning the type of country you would like to live in. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? It seems to me that your philosophy is more analogous to neo-conservatism. Both you and neocons seem to believe America has an obligation to extend liberty to all those suffer under tyranny or corrupt governments. Neocons believe we must invade the world, you seem to believe we should invite the world.

    I’m sure there are many people who would like to immigrate to the United States but are unable to do so because of the tyrannical nature of their countries and the distances they must travel to get here. People living under the regimes of Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and other third world tyrants would surely like to come here. Should we send planes and boats to pick them up? Under your philosophy they have an absolute right to travel and you seem to think we owe them a duty to preserve it. How about if one of these tyrants opposes this mass exodus…what then? Should we go to war over foreign nationals’ absolute right to travel?

    You also seem to confuse immigration with a right to travel. Illegal aliens are not coming here for vacation. They plan on staying. I don’t hear anyone, even the most vehement opponents of immigration, calling for restrictions on a right to travel. Moreover, the right to travel, if it exists at all, is certainly not absolute. Courts restrict the rights of all kinds of people to travel, those accused of felonies are often asked to surrender their passports and convicts are not allowed to venture beyond the prison walls. Sovereign countries have banned people from entering their territory. The Constitution does not seem to guarantee an absolute right to travel. I do not know what legal precedent you are using to establish this “absolute” right to travel.

    I am not asking you these question to be insulting or disrespectful. I think we would agree on a great many issues however I am trying to understand why we disagree so profoundly on immigration.

  7. This goes to the heart of the survival of America as we have known it. There are millions of Americans now in the last few decades who have promoted and accepted the idea that America is not a collection of like-minded indviduals but is the two headed Federal Leviathan himself, Washington Republicans & Democrats. In my home state, 90% of the land is owned by this behemoth. King Leviathan sells his estate at about $600,000 per acre to developers, but always maintains monopolistic power over those given the privilege and collective responsibility of real property rights.

    Second and Third world nations must be walled out because we fail in our attempt to physically complete with their workers, many of whom have been working since well before puberty in gruelling low paying jobs the market provides. Our kids have a right to be kids Levi proclaims, it is forbidden for American children to do real work. Let us preach capitalism but neglect practicing whenever it becomes dangerous or unpleasant.

    Physically we are defeated, mentally we are also rapidly losing our ability to compete. Immigrants are feared and hated because we are no longer mentally their superior. We have forgotten where capital comes from and instead stumble around trying to buy or legislate American Ingenuity instead of being able to possess and exercise it. We seem unable to grasp even step one, the accumulation of excess goods and services above our current needs that can be made to work for us instead of immediately consumed.

    Certainly the constitution can be amended to codify and recognize these weaknesses and concessions of ours, but instead we angrily and irrationally lash out at immigrants and those who wish to employ them and treat them as fellow human beings.

    Let us commence the petition and signing of a broad constitutional ammendment.

    We the people…cede our individual rights to The LARPers of Leviathan. To the huddled illiterate masses bring us Feds in Scholarly Robes, Doctor Coats, Biohazard Suits, and the like (all backed by guns and weapon stockpiles larger than the next 15 nations combined) …to secure the blessings of comfort and safety for our posterity.

    Like the oft changed propaganda barn wall in Animal Farm, the Statue of Liberty now reads, huddle masses yearning to be safe and be guaranteed education, employment, health care, and pension in old age regardless of personal effort or ability. The liberty bell now rings out, let us be like the grasshopper not the ant, and consume all our resources today, and leave tomorrow to the political promises of our Federal Ant Farm.

  8. [...] Yearning to Breathe Free | Foundation for Economic Education [...]

  9. “…Two criminals out of an estimated 11 million “illegal aliens.” Oh–and of course, those full prisons. Come on: that doesn’t pass the laugh test…”

    It’s not two, nor is it 11 million. But let’s not get confused by facts.

    Yes, the prisons are full. Border-straddling prison-based Barrio Azteca alone provides argument of why border control might be a nice idea. But then, you probably find it charmingly entrepreneurial BA provides assassination services to both the Juarez and Sinaloa cartels. Prices start at $100. 1,300 contracts professionally and courteously filled, so far.

    So the Constitution doesn’t allow for borders, or border control, or something to that effect? Does it prohibit it? There are some things, and some people, that even Ms. Akers would want to restrict. Chagra’s Disease kind of bothers me, the whole brain-burrowing-parasite-transmitted-by-poor-personal-hygiene thing. Ew.

    I realize you’re paid by the cheap labor lobby to write your weak little essays. Times are hard, got to get by some how. But still…

    I haven’t run across any of your rants directed at the unconstitutionality of foreign aid, or wars in the Near East, or Social Security. Funny, that.

    “…Whether or not we personally approve of their color and their culture, immigrants of any stripe…”

    As long as they’re not mayates.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2009 | Foundation for Economic Education | 30 S Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 | 1-800-960-4FEE (1-914-591-7230) | Fax 1-914-591-8910 | Log in