hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
There need not be one. Congress has all the implied power, necessary and proper, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
Read the first line in your link.
What is the "expressed power" that pertains to roadside interrogation checkpoints? Cite the clause of the constitution.
There need not be one. Congress has all the implied power, necessary and proper, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
The BP is under the executive, so you would have to refer both to the executive power, and then the ability of Congress to pass relevant enabling legislation. Presumably the bill dealing with the BP has legislative findings. The function in this case seems predicated on the detection of illegal immigrants. Seems if the Congress can pass laws on immigration, this sort of action is derivative of that authority.
Now if the government doesn'thave the power to exclude "visitors", then I guess we don't need the checkpoints.
The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.
The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.
Naturalization takes place at internal immigration checkpoints?
Wait: I should keep that thought to myself. Obama might get ideas. Drive-Through Amnesty, anyone?
Congress has the power of naturalization, thus, they have implied power over immigration. The establishment of a border patrol is necessary and proper for enforcement of naturalization and immigration powers bequeathed in the constitution.
are you being this dense on purpose?
Sorry, I am unconvinced. You've made an impressive stretch. It belongs in the same category as using the "General Welfare" clause to justify passing out free cell phones.
The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.
So you don't believe Congress has the authority to pass laws related to immigration?
Agreed. But the border is... at the border. Not 100 miles from the border. Not 30 miles from the border. At the border.
I don't care what SCOTUS opines. Stopping all motorists at a random point inside the country not at the border, to determine legal immigration status, is absurd, ineffective, and unreasonable.
That said: immigration/legal status/presence in the country and naturalization are two entirely different matters (immigration can be granted temporarily or permanently, and one can be a permanent legal immigrant without ever being naturalized). So claiming that naturalization authority confers power to establish interior checkpoints to determine legal status in the country is a bit of a non sequitur. The power to establish such checkpoints should derive from immigration authority.
Okay, I'll try again: naturalization authority has absolutely nothing to do with setting up checkpoints 30-100 miles away from the border and stopping all and sundry motorists to determine if they are legally present.
I don't think proximity to the border is the argument Prerna Lal is going to make, but I could be wrong. Certainly folks would not argue that if ICE detains someone more than 30 miles from the border they're home free?
The location in this case wasn't exactly random. Does Indiana have any such checkpoints? That would seem random.
Not caring what SCOTUS opines is certainly anyone's right. Whether the federal judges will see it the same way is another matter. By the way, did everyone hear that a federal judge struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage? Live by the courts, die by the courts metaphorically speaking.
One could make similar arguments about sobriety checkpoints.