He has tried, but the 1795 law specifies that only Congress has the ability to alter the policies for Immigration and Naturalization. Not that that's ever stopped him from trying of course.

Incorrect. We gain the protection of our rights when we obey the law. If we fail to do this, we have our rights abridged or our privileges rescinded. From losing our drivers' license to DUI to being incarcerated for theft, all of these are instances where we give up our claim to the protections of our rights through our own actions.

Legal aliens are granted permission to reside or visit the United States because they come in through the front door. They agree to live here as good guests and in exchange are afforded privileges not unlike citizens. Illegal aliens neither received permission to enter the United States, nor have agreed to uphold our laws and in return receive their protections.

If one reads the Founding Fathers' comments on citizenship and allegiance to the United States, as well as the comments from the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Rights afforded to Citizens through the Constitution were for those who proclaimed allegiance to the United States and its Constitution. The Supreme Court in Wo ruled that legal aliens should also be afforded the same protections, but illegals' privileges have never come before the Supreme Court.

I agree. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

"Which reminds me I also mean that state fees should be based on expenditures, not budget."

I am assuming that you mean that the fees collected from the States to operate the Federal government should be based on expenditures rather than budgeting, but please feel free to clarify. I'm assuming that you intend this as a way to avoid the current problem we have of borrow and spend, which I agree is a huge problem. If the levies to the individual States were based on expenditures, you can bet that that additional load would prompt outrage from the citizens and a change in spending bills. Great idea!

But you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. They are restrictions on our government. All human beings, just by virtue of their humanity, have those rights and our government is not to infringe on those rights. This shouldn't be a case in the first place.

I am not confident we could get the 16th abolished as easily as the above, even though 16 is highly questionable on its own. That said, if we were able to do this, the certain Removal the 16th would, in my estimation, be easier.

Senators paid for by their state, absolutely. House members I would leave with the fed. I base this on the difference in purpose between the two, though I see an argument for all of it being state level funded if the people were no longer paying income taxes to the fed.

On purse strings, yes good catch as I forgot the bold "don't" in there. My reasoning there is that as State representatives it gives the states representation in addition to the people. For me this is a critical flaw in our current system which the original design got spot on. If the senate could originate the spending bills it would be more of a conflict in my opinion.

Of course, in today's world it doesn't matter much when they don't actually pass budgets and simply spend money. Which reminds me I also mean that state fees should be based on expenditures, not budget.

Your proposal about apportioning the income to the individual States is intriguing. I would ask whether or not you would do that rather than abolish the 16th Amendment and force the Federal Government to return to the idea of tariffs and import duties for revenue.

I would extend on that idea and further propose that the payment of salaries, benefits, etc. for national representatives (Senators and Representatives) and their staffs and offices be paid for by their individual States so as to increase accountability and transparency. Your thoughts?

(I would mention, however, that according to the Origination Clause, all revenue bills must originate from the House rather than the Senate. Thus the purse strings are controlled by the House rather than the Senate. It is also one reason why the Speaker of the House is more powerful than the President Pro Tem of the Senate.)

"No, you didn't say it, it is what your argument results in if accepted."

Don't put words into my mouth. It does not and I specified why.

"There was no concept of illegal immigration at the time. I know this is hard for people today to grasp but until after the Civil War there was no federal immigration rules."

Again, your history class failed you. Check the Naturalization and Immigration Act of 1795 - more than 65 years before the Civil War and only three years after the ratification of the Constitution. And I would note that Congress has not yet altered the provisions therein after more than 225 years.

"The Wo case was not about citizenship, true."

Yes, it was about the rights of non-resident but legal aliens. Huge difference between that and an illegal alien because Wo was in the country legally and had abided by those terms. Illegals have not. To equate the two is fallacy and madness.

"The key piece here is the there was no other qualification to become a "citizen" than to say you wanted to be one and renounce your original allegiance."

Again, check the 1795 law. It is quite explicit. And the allegiance portion which you do admit is quite important was cited by the Founding Fathers as a necessary part of being deemed a citizen. Do illegals pledge their allegiance to the US and its laws? No. Therefore they have no claim on its protections.

"The distinction you are missing is that people have rights whereas citizens have privileges and immunities the government may grant."

On the contrary, what I am pointing out is that the Constitution only protects the abridgement of rights from citizens and through the Fourteenth Amendment to legal aliens. The Constitution gives no such privileges to illegal aliens. The problem again goes back to jurisdiction.

You also make the fallacious assumption that rights are absolute and do not depend on the actions necessary to uphold them - which include law-abiding behavior. That is also key. Criminals have their rights infringed in many ways once they have committed acts contrary to the laws of the land. Trespass is certainly an abrogation of the law - not only of the US, but of the courtesy one owes as a guest in a foreign land. I owe no trespasser in my home anything - their presence there is right enough for me to act.

"The fact is there was no such thing as illegal immigration back then. The facts of history show that federal immigration control arose ..."

Please cite your references, because as I have stated several times, the 1795 law is still in force and quite clear. Ellis Island was the designated point for immigrants coming to the United States so they could become official citizens (I believe that there was a similar operation in San Francisco for the West Coast) - that we facilitated such at that time was a tribute to the desire of many to come here and to embrace our culture, our lifestyle, and our morals - to swear their allegiance to it. The illegals of today do not share those values and as such should in no way be equated with them.

If people are here legally, yes, they are afforded the privileges of being treated like a citizen. If they are not here legally, they have no such claim and I would ask that you cite a Supreme Court opinion that says so. I can not find one. The ones I am acquainted with deal with legal aliens - not illegal ones.

The problem again is one of jurisdiction. If their embassy/consulate decides to, they can claim the right by treaty to have the person kicked out of the country rather than stand trial. It is only if the embassy waives this right that the US Courts have jurisdiction. And they can do the same for sentencing - which has happened several times in death penalty cases.

Again, the process of trying someone under secondary jurisdiction is completely different because it depends on the treaties between the two nations as to how the trials proceed, but those provisions take priority over the process imposed on citizens because of the jurisdictional issues.

Check your history, including the quotes and sentiments of the Founding Fathers. They were quite specific in that they did not fight for those who refused to owe their allegiance to this nation. You are quite incorrect.

The Naturalization and Immigration Act of 1795 - which has not since been altered - declared what was necessary to become a US citizen. That the process was simpler in those times (Ellis Island was a processing center) than nowadays does not alter the fact that it was still required of those who immigrated.

Actually, according to a Constitutional scholar of the Fourteenth Amendment, what I stated was completely accurate. See http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-i...

I would also point you to the sentiments of the Founding Fathers on the matters. It was very clear to them that jurisdiction of the Constitution only applied to those who were citizens - by right or naturalization - and who owed allegiance to it. None others were considered applicable.

If you'd care to to dispute it, I'd like to hear your reasoning after listening to the interviews above.

Again, States have been accepting other States' licenses because they have been issues to citizens for whom there is a legitimate claim to that privilege that is transferable from State to State. An illegal has no such legitimate claim! That is the whole problem with this debate. California can choose to issue what amounts to a contract with a Driver's License and it can within its own borders enforce the legality of such. Once one crosses to another State, however, California's jurisdiction fails - just like the jurisdiction of the United States fails when crossing into Mexico. That is why accused criminals have to be extradited - not merely from one nation to another, but from one State to another to face charges. If I am wanted in California for murder and I escape to Oregon, Oregon has to agree to extradite me to face charges. If they refuse, all California can do is wait until I return to try to arrest and try me. It's the same thing that happens with speeding tickets in other States: if you ignore it until the statute of limitations runs out, there's nothing they can do.

And it doesn't matter that they have only committed what is called a misdemeanor in trespassing: the State of California does not have the legal right to conduct a treaty with a foreign national - which is what they are doing by issuing licenses. It is an illegal contract in the first place. There is no reason other States are required to uphold it.

Hear, here! Their, there! Everywhere! Well said. :D +1

"It could very well be argued that the State can not bestow privileges upon non-citizens and then expect that those be transferrable, however, as that is a gross violation of sovereignty of the other States. Thus I would argue that the other States would have complete authority to deny the validity of the drivers' licenses which were issued to illegal aliens."

I've been thinking about this. I initially was somewhat in agreement. Now I think it isn't the case. The states have already accepted that whatever criteria another state uses for issuing DLs is up to that state, and if recognizing and accepting DLs are covered by the full faith and credit clause then you can't impose an additional criteria such as "must also be a U.S. citizen".

Now, a state does have the power to legislate that upon conviction of the crime of being in the country w/o permission (illegal alien) you are disqualified from obtaining a license. But they would likely lose the challenge if they went based on current status as being here illegally as they don't have that authority (anymore) by way of federal assumption of jurisdiction.

However, even the first option there has issues. What if someone is here illegally (possibly through parents choice or by overstaying their visa for example), but becomes a legal citizen or resident alien? Such a law would have to account for that, which could get tricky and abused.

Ultimately the political nature of DLs for illegal residents is not based on what it should be - ie. the safety of the road - but because of what getting a government issued ID is entitles you to. This is the fault of those programs, not of the DL. This is why I am of two minds in general on the subject. I have the emotional reaction many have withe regards to illegal residents obtaining privileges they are not entitled to, but cognizant of the safety aspect of it.

And ultimately, what level is crime is being here illegally? None, in point of fact. In fact the subject at hand is actually composed of two parts: unlawful presence and illegal entry. Only the latter is a crime, a misdemeanor.

To wit (pasted from findlaw):
"To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:
- Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than designated by immigration officers;
- Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
- Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.
The punishment under this federal law is no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry."

This is the only part which is an actual crime. Merely being here w/o proper documentation is actually not a crime; it is a civil offense. This makes it even less likely a state could make proscriptions on DLs based on presence. It is why I specified conviction as opposed to presence.

Thus, acting rationally, I suppose I have to come down on the side of being in favor of the states issuing DLs to whomever based on objective, pre-defined, non-biased criteria and any government program which provides benefits solely based on identification be fixed or eliminated.

"Do the individual States have the ability to set their own policies for Drivers' Licenses? "

Constitutionally, yes. And the entire history of licensing drivers in the United States supports this. Nor does the Constitution bestow the authority for licensing drivers on the federal government. It can't even regulate speeds on the Interstate. It accomplishes speed limits by coercing the States - as in "we won't give you money (which we took from your state) to help pay for your roads unless...".

Your second paragraph is correct, but your first is incomplete and inaccurate. The jurisdictional arguments around the fourteenth were state vs federal, not federal vs extraterritorial.

Indeed, your second paragraph demonstrates the incorrectness of the first.

Depending on what exactly you mean and how you go about it, yes. The constitution doesn't address what you do outside of the country's territorial jurisdiction. Well, outside of allowing the government to hire privateers. ;)

"Uh, not so. The very first words to the Constitution define what People means and it clearly states in VERY large letters: "We the People of the United States of America.""

False. This is establishing who this is done on behalf of. The phrase "the People of" is not the same thing as "the people".

"We can be good hosts and only bother them when they break our rules, or we can refuse them entry in the first place. But they are our guests - not our citizens."

This does not support your position, it counters it. The reference to citizens was regarding claiming they are no longer citizens of their country of origin against their will. All a guest had to do at that time to become a citizen of the U.S. was to decide be one. The distinction was made because of the laws of other nations regarding citizenship (or subject status for monarchies), not to prevent guests from exercising their rights.

hear, hear

they did it in New Mexico. and something like 20k licenses all listed the same address. what's the point?

I'm going to break some of this into different parts for clarity and focus.

"I did not say that."
No, you didn't say it, it is what your argument results in if accepted.

"The Constitution very specifically forbids the abridgement of the rights of citizens - not non-citizens."
No, it does not. The constitution uses both words, but not interchangeably. Perhaps you're looking at a bastardized "modern" version but the sections dealing with rights use person, persons, and people - not citizens. The sections granting privileges uses citizen.

" All the cases to this point have been about legal aliens - not illegal ones, a point made clear by Mark Levine."

Not entirely true. This is one of those "deceive by omission" things. There was no concept of illegal immigration at the time. I know this is hard for people today to grasp but until after the Civil War there was no federal immigration rules. In fact the federal government only stepped in, not but constitutional mandate, but as a reaction to States passing laws on immigration. Even then, the States actually ran immigration policy while the fed collected immigration tax.

The first federal law regarding immigration was in 1882 (IIRC) to stop Chinese immigration. Yet even this act was deemed not possible until a treaty between the U.S. and China allowed the U.S. to do limit Chinese immigration by withholding from Chinese immigrants the privilege of naturalization.

Over the next decade additional laws came in to "protect" certain jobs by preventing immigrants in those fields from immigrating in.

The Wo case was not about citizenship, true. But it was because of a separate issue that it arise and why is illuminating. Not about citizenship or jurisdiction, but about foreign nationals under the influence or control of another power - known and referred to as "owing allegiance to" another power. There was a specific treaty also in place with China at the time regarding treatment of Chinese citizens in America. Specifically it was to confirm that loyal Chinese nationals were to be treated the same as non-nationals.

When you look at the text of said treaty you see the recognition of rights as distinct from privileges. The treaty provides for visitors in either country to be afforded "..the same privileges, immunities or exemptions in respect to travel or residence " as citizens or subjects. Regarding rights: ".. cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration ...". This is in effect both nations saying they recognize an extant right to become a citizen of whatever country they want to.

Indeed from the opinion in the Wo cases you can see the clear understanding that there is no distinction in rights (other than "political rights") between citizens an non-citizens. To wit: "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequalhand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." Fundamentally the Wo cases were about racial discrimination.

The key piece here is the there was no other qualification to become a "citizen" than to say you wanted to be one and renounce your original allegiance. This is not something the government managed for you nor was there a formality for it. As such there was no concept of "illegal immigration". Ti means we did, in fact, do exactly what you say could not have been done - and we did so for around a century. This meant that if you moved to the United States with the intent to stay there and not owe allegiances to your country of birth you simply did so. That is no different than what you are saying isn't allowed by the constitution.

In other words we precisely did in fact do this:
"if one grants the rights of a citizen to anyone who manages to somehow deposit themselves inside a country's borders, one is inviting invasion"

The distinction you are missing is that people have rights whereas citizens have privileges and immunities the government may grant. These are distinct and important concepts and constructs and the constitution recognizes this. For example, a person does not have a right to be President, but a citizen has the privilege of the opportunity. Also note the constitution prior to the 19th Amendment does not provide a "right to vote". Because voting is a privilege granted by the state, not a right.

Further you assert this is logical, but it isn't - it is an opinion. The facts of history show your conclusion is not certain or tenable. Until around the 1900's there was no control over immigration and people were afforded the same protection of rights regardless of allegiances, while those who owed allegiances to other countries did not get certain privileges (such as the writ of habeas corpus) absent treaties with that country.

Invasion is also a specific term and you are misusing it here to further your opinion over the facts. The fact is there was no such thing as illegal immigration back then. The facts of history show that federal immigration control arose as a result of two things: dealing with "the Rebels" in the south and basic mercantile protectionism. They do not originate or serve as a form of invasion prevention. Even after WWII when the quotas were first implemented they were made apportioned based on the proportions of nationalities in the previous census. Regardless of how we feel about it, the facts are the rights of people protected and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are applied to all people within it's territorial jurisdiction.

That's what I've been thinking!

Are you saying that a non-citizen accused of a crime cannot plead the 5th, for example? Or expect to be able to use it as a "right"?

... as if the law and the vestiges of the Constitution matter any more...

It all depends. Do the individual States have the ability to set their own policies for Drivers' Licenses? I would argue yes. The conflict comes with the application of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, because the presumption there is that the State is acting in good will. It could very well be argued that the State can not bestow privileges upon non-citizens and then expect that those be transferrable, however, as that is a gross violation of sovereignty of the other States. Thus I would argue that the other States would have complete authority to deny the validity of the drivers' licenses which were issued to illegal aliens.