Gingrich ignores Constitution in illegal alien debate, willing to take heat!

[johnwk]

SEE: Gingrich Taking Heat Over Immigration Stance


”(CBS) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the United States should not break up families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and he was willing to "take the heat" from Republicans for deviating from his party's orthodoxy.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said at the CNN debate on foreign policy in Washington, near the White House.”

From what Gingrich states, he is more concerned with the well-being of those who have entered our country illegally and concerned about their families, than our federal government’s current attempt to prohibit Arizona and other States from regulating aliens within their borders.

Surely the well being of aliens ought to be of secondary concern to Mr. Gingrich from that of our federal government’s current despotic attempt to forbid the various States to deal with and regulate aliens within their borders__ a power never delegated to the united States, and is one retained by the States under our Constitution‘s Tenth Amendment!

Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich in expressing his opinion about “immigration policy” seems to give legitimacy to what Eric Holder is arguing in Court, that:


“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

But is our federal government vested with a “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” within the various State borders and adopt “immigration policy“ which suits Mr. Gingrich‘s vision? Let us review some facts so Mr. Gingrich may rethink his priorities.

FACT: Congress may not assume a power not granted by the Constitution. And so, Eric Holder’s statement that the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration matters is “derived from numerous acts of Congress” is totally without foundation! Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution!

This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?


OBSERVATION:

With reference to the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”_ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language.

FACT: Nowhere in our federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear! And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” and “This authority derives from the United States Constitution” is not to be found or substantiated from the text of our Constitution! However, the word “naturalization” does appear in the text of our Constitution and involves an exclusive power granted to Congress!

This leaves us with two important questions which Mr. Gingrich has avoided while promoting his compassionate political views concerning the families of aliens who have entered a State illegally. The two questions being: What are the limitations of this power (naturalization) granted to Congress? And, does such power allow the federal government to interfere with a State’s authority to adopt legislation regulating aliens within its borders?

In answering these questions we are bound to observe the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

So, to answer the above questions we must determine the meaning of “naturalization’ as our founders used the word with respect to a power granted to Congress, and, we must likewise determine the legislative intent for which said power was granted, and if such power was intended to allow Newt Gringrich’s compassion to interfere with a state's power to regulate aliens within its borders.

In documenting the meaning of “naturalization” as our founders used the word, and the legislative intent for which such power was granted to Congress, let us turn to Federalist No. 42 in which Madison questions how “obnoxious” aliens may have “acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship“ within a State proscribing them.

Madison goes on to say “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.”

The irrefutable fact is, the meaning of “naturalization” as used by our founders, is nothing more than a power to establish a rule(s) by which an alien is granted citizenship, and was never intended, nor does it include, a power granted to the federal government to interfere with a state regulating aliens within its borders!

This of course is confirmed when studying our founder’s very own words when debating our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, in February of 1790, e.g., REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

And so, Newt Gingrich, in posturing his compassion towards the families of aliens who have invaded our borders, while ignoring Eric Holder’s attempted usurpation of power and his assault upon the powers retained by the States, especially Arizona‘s retained power to regulate aliens in preserving its general welfare under our Constitution’s Ten Amendment, gives us an indication that Mr. Gringrich’s priority is in harmony with that of Eric Holder and Obama, and not with their sworn oath to support and defend our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

 

[johnwk]

Newt Gingrich has offered his vision for America with respect to aliens who have invaded the borders of the united States, and he would impose that vision upon each of the various States. And in the process he ignores that we have a Constitution which includes the power retained by each State to regulate their internal affairs. And this retained power includes regulating aliens within their own borders to preserve the State‘s general welfare!


Our federal government’s limited power in the area under discussion is that of “naturalization” ___ the setting of a rule by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ and its power does not extend to circumventing a State’s retained power to adopt regulatory legislation to control aliens while in the State’s own borders!


Instead of Newt Gingrich respecting our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment which was specifically adopted to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, Mr. Gingrich has worked for years to centralize and concentrate power in Washington, as he did with impunity when voting to create Jimmy Carter’s un-constitutional federal department of education!


Is it not apparent that Mr. Gingrich intentionally spat upon our founder’s expressed intentions when helping to create the federal department of education, especially the expressed intentions of Representative Page spoken on Feb.7th, 1792?


"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page


JWK




Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

 

[Dot Com]

Gingrich? Oh yeah, the guy who rec'd $1.6- $1.8 million from Freddie Mac? THAT Gingrich

 

[JDzBrain]

That was a long and drawn out posting that could have been boiled down to...the founders didn't waste words. They used them intentionally. And the WORDS they chose to use were these, as stated in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution...titled Powers of Congress. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

The words "Rule" and "Laws" being the operative words. They chose to capitalize these words for emphasis. Laws are just that. Congress has the power to make laws so that all states MUST enforce. Rules are guidance...NOT legislation that carries the force of law!

It's pretty dang simple!

It is ALSO clear that the founders DID intend that the Congress have a say on immigration. THAT is made plain by the first clause of Section 9 of Article II, titled 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."

As I said, the founders did NOT waste words. They would not have gone to the extraordinary measure of placing a restriction on Congresses ability to prohibit the importation or migration of people into a State as the State saw fit until 1808 if they Congress did not have the power to prohibit that importation or migration in the first place.

The founders intended that the Congress SHOULD set the Rules for who and how many people a state could "admit" into their states. NOT that they HAVE TO admit them, but if and who they could!

THAT is just common sense!

BY the way John. The critics should have kept reading or listening to Newt. He says he wants to set up citizen's panels at the LOCAL level to determine the disposition of each illegal on a case by case basis. THAT puts the implementation back in the state and local level.

See, I view THAT as a guidance to the states just as directed by the Constitution.

So...I say hear the man out...COMPLETELY before deciding whether or not he is a Federalist.

 

[Flopper]

Gingrich is simply taking a practical approach to the problem, control the boarders and hiring of illegals so as to reduce the size of the problem, then deal with those that remain, probably with some form of permanent resident status or a path to citizenship. It's really the only workable solution. The public does not support mass deportations.

 

[USArmyRetired]

The public does not support mass deportations.

Has the public been asked?

 

[Avorysuds]

Newt turned out worse than Cain... lol.

Newt supports:

Obamacare

Global warming

Amnesty (well only for some). Newt thinks deportation of 12 million illegal’s is too hard, but advocated deporting 11 million + lol.

War with Iran

Eroding the Constitution with the Patriot Act.

Yeah, Newt will do real well against Obama, lol.

 

[Dot Com]

We need LadyGunslinger's "take" on this

 

[Avorysuds]

I wana see Gramps and 44 blame the liberal media... That's why Newt did it!!!! Then vote for Newt anyways...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?

Here:

The Court eventually found the source of the federal power to regulate immigration in a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government. Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now "remove") non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally "absolute and unqualified."

What are the limitations of this power (naturalization) granted to Congress?

There are virtually no limitations:

To date there have been no successful challenges to federal legislation that refuses admission to classes of non-citizens or removes resident aliens. Federal immigration power thus appears limitless. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete." Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977), Kleindienst v. Mandel, (Sup.Ct.1972), and Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan (Sup.Ct.1909). Extreme judicial deference bears witness to the truth of this statement.

And, does such power allow the federal government to interfere with a State’s authority to adopt legislation regulating aliens within its borders?

Yes.

Actually, it’s the states which are not allowed to interfere with Federal immigration law:

States may not usurp the federal power over immigration. State attempts to regulate concurrently in a field already occupied by a federal statute have been struck down under the doctrine of preemption. In Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), for example, the Court held that the Federal Alien Registration Act preempted Pennsylvania alien registration provisions. Under the preemption doctrine, federal law in a specific area may even preclude consistent state regulations.

Remember also that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich in expressing his opinion about “immigration policy” seems to give legitimacy to what Eric Holder is arguing in Court, that:


“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

Consequently both Gingrich and Holder are correct. In the case of Gingrich, however, it’s likely inadvertent.

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

Per the case law noted above, therefore, no state has any ‘retained power’ to regulate aliens.

Source for the cited above:

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

 

[rightwinger]

The federal government has the authority to regulate immigration.

Gingrich is right ....the OP is wrong

 

[American Horse]

His stance on this issue seems to this observer to be the most logical, practical, honest, and likely to eventually take place. I'm one of those people who has seen the bad results of illegal immigration in my occupational field, construction; the way young skill-less local boys miss opportunities to get O.J.T .in the trades. But it exists, and will continue to exist until something far less onerous than mass deportation takes place.

We don't even have the national will to hold the employers responsible; neither the Ds nor the Rs want that. And we don't have and never will have the national will to conduct a mass deportation; better to incentivize them to leave on their own. And that outcome is not precluded by Newt's position.

He draws fire from the other candidates, but ends up looking more reasonable and rational, and his attackers more dogmatic and irrational. Going into Iowa where their congressman (Steve King) has been a strong advocate of deportation, seems very risky for Newt, but to me it shows that he is willing to take the strongest position versus the politically popular position.

This is what we need in a president. He wins my support for this stand. By comparison, in my view, Michelle Bachmann looks opportunistic, particularly when she distorts Newts words to use this as a way to win in the Iowa caucus. In reality when she was asked to give her own stance, she coincided with Newt on leniency for long time residents. Her only rhetorical condemnation is to call it “amnesty” which it is not.

He’s the boldest candidate, by far, and we’ll see what happens in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, much less the ones that come later.

I'm a Republcan voter since 1964 (Goldwater), and I "fancy" myself a conservative. I want the issue resolved, and no one else has a better answer than Newt, that won't just kick it down the road, or come to gridlock and cause damage to themselves later politically, and all without the issue really being resolved.



I don’t think there is any question that immigration is a federal not a state issue.

 

[rightwinger]

Rounding up 13 million illegals is like herding cats

Throw some employers in jail and watch the jobs dry up

 

[johnwk]

It is ALSO clear that the founders DID intend that the Congress have a say on immigration. THAT is made plain by the first clause of Section 9 of Article II, titled 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."

first clause of Section 9 of Article II? I believe you mean Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

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.

Aside from that, I am somewhat concerned that you would take a provision of our Constitution and attach your own expanded meaning to it, when the provision in question was elaborated upon by Mr. Madison in Federalist No. 42 and specifically adopted ” to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.”

The irrefutable fact is, the provision you cite was never intended by its authors, nor the States when ratifying the Constitution to remotely suggest that immigration was to be regulated by the federal government.

Why do you attempt to attach your own meaning to our Constitution?

JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[johnwk]

This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?

Here:

The Court eventually found the source of the federal power to regulate immigration in a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government. Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now "remove") non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally "absolute and unqualified."

How sweet of you to quote the opinions of our Supreme Court rather than the expressed intentions of our founders and which I quoted at the top of the thread.

JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[American Horse]

This is like arguing that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. You may have some winning points and sound philosophical arguments, but it's like P****** into the wind; it comes to naught.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The irrefutable fact is, the provision you cite was never intended by its authors, nor the States when ratifying the Constitution to remotely suggest that immigration was to be regulated by the federal government.

And the case law in support of this is where?

 

[bucs90]

Once again....I find myself agreeing with liberals on this.

We should not deport 13 million mexicans.

After all, seeing the young labor pool in OWS.....I'd much prefer hire a hard working, humble immigrant than a whiny, spoiled, entitled, overeducated punk liberal.

Welcome immigrants! We are glad you dont have the same piss poor entitlement attitude our domestic liberals do.

 

[johnwk]

His stance on this issue seems to this observer to be the most logical, practical, honest, and likely to eventually take place. .... I don’t think there is any question that immigration is a federal not a state issue.

Your thinking is not in harmony with the founder expressed intentions!

Have you ever considered the States encouraging self deportation which Obama is interfering with by dragging the States into Court who dare to exercise a reserved policing power to regulate aliens within their borders?


As Thomas Sowell correctly points out in: The Amnesty Fraud:

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.

I agree with Mr. Sowell!


Illegal aliens who are caught on our soil ought to be punished, perhaps with a minimum one year sentence to hard labor…cleaning our roadways, painting our public buildings, maintaining our city parks, etc., and then deported. When the word gets out that getting caught means a jail term, hard labor for food, and then deportation, instead of medical care, education of their children and other welfare benefits, self deportation will quickly start.

In addition, a bounty should be paid for identifying businesses who hire illegal aliens, and if found to have hired an alien who is here illegally, and has not procured sufficient documentation to substantiate the alien is here legally, those who have hired an illegal alien should first receive a heavy fine and a second offense means jail time.

After a few successful prosecutions and sentences are handed out for those who hire illegal aliens, I suspect the job market will dry up for aliens who are here illegally giving them another reason to self deport.

The big bluff by our Washington Establishment types is, that we cannot round up 20 million illegal aliens and deport them is just that __ a big bluff___ we don’t need to round them all up, we only need to make it very, very impractical for them to stay.

JWK


Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

 

[American Horse]

That all sounds ideal, and I am an admirer of Thoms Sowell, but not going to happen. The issue is too politicized. If the Republican party was able to institute that solution through their party's presidential candidate once elected, it would be the death of the party. Political parties do not commit suicide. A third party would be needed for that to happen, spurred by an overriding national recognition of the issue (like the creation of the R party), but where is the illegal immigration issue in the public consciousness? In reality it is not even in the top tier of issues.
Here's how it breaks down among various constitutencies:

For Republicans to continue to make a fuss over this issue (as you and Sowell state it) is to shoot oneself in the foot; a self inflicted wound. But of course the Libs love it when that happens. It's almost as if they are manipulating the Rs to pull the trigger on that.