> In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good call, although if someone comes to where they are not wanted > it is at least tresspassing but tresspassing is not a federal > matter. > If someone tresspasses own my property and on my neigbors and my > roads road here in south east Tennessee it is no bodies business in DC.
But what if you lived along the border in California, Arizona, NM, Texas, Maine, NH, VT, NY, PA, OH, MI, WI, MN, ND, MT, WA, AK, or, for that matter, if your home is along one of the coasts? Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the united states; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the united states... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish an uniform rule of naturalization... To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies... navy... The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by he Congress prior to the year 1808... No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another... No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts... No state shall, without the consent of the congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the united states; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the congress. No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops, or shipd of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay... I think the most important parts here are setting the rules for naturalization, defending against invasion, and inspecting what enters and leaves the USA (and charging the people doing the exporting or importing to cover at least the costs of the inspections -- states are allowed to charge up to the absolute minimum necessary costs to do the job, but the feds can also use it as a revenue source). These last cover both seaports and border ports but also inland ports where aircraft land from foreign lands. So, if you want to enter the USA, you have to ask "pretty please", and we ought to be carrying out reasonable and substantial background investigations to fend off that fraction of a percent of visitors and immigrants who aren't such nice people (and charging for the costs). I don't know of anyone, off-hand who is "anti-immigration", but there are a lot of people who realize that we've had extremely excessive immigration for the last 50 years and would therefore like to decrease the rate of flow a bit. Some are activated by over-crowding, feeling packed in like a sardine; others by environmental concerns; still others by suddenly worse job markets. I thought many of them were over-reacting until I started putting many little details together. There were changes in law and regulation in the 1960s that dramatically increased the in- flow, amidst promises to guard the borders and decrease illegal immigration. Then more of the same in the 1980s. Off-shoring was actively encouraged. In 1986, they took the line "not for identification purposes" off of Socialist Insecurity cards and started requiring employers to prove that you'd produced one. This did a lot to reduce privacy and little to stop illegal immigration. At the same time, laws and regulations cracked down on free- lancers and herded people into body shop arrangements and employers of all kinds were encouraged to shift to body shopping from real, full-time, permanent employment. Then in 1987, House at NSF made up a scientist and engineer "shortage" out of whole cloth of 675K, with the express purpose of driving down compensation to people who had earned PhDs by increasing the numbers of student visas issued and splitting out the H-1B visa from the old 1950s H visa program which was mainly for seasonal agricultural workers (which was accomplished in the early 1990s). In short, I'm personally prompted by opposition to the fraudulent claims. There never was a shortage. Far more US citizens have been earning degrees in these fields than are employed in them, and having a degree isn't really a necessity at all in order to do a good job, though it is now an artificial minimum requirement to get most employers to hire you. And, the USA has been over-crowded for many decades, even before the increased flood of immigration both legal and illegal that started with the Johnson-era, Ted Kennedy amnesty legislation.
