Tag Archives: immigration

The Skeptical Libertarian says about being a GOP spoiler vote during 2012

Chances are good in 2012 that a majority of libertarians lean center-right and should favor Republicans.

Libertarians are a bit unpredictable. Leaning doesn’t mean pulling the lever.

From The Skeptical Libertarian, here is one view:

“A lot of people say that the Libertarian Party just works as a spoiler, because it can’t win. Well GOOD. That’s a valuable function: it penalizes the Republican Party for being anti-immigration, anti-gay, pro-war, and lousy on personal liberty. It shows that there’s a significant group of people who are fiscally responsible and are being alienated by the Republicans’ backward social priorities. That’s the kind of pressure we need to put on the GOP, since reforming it from within is evidently a failed project.”

“If it does nothing else but spoil the election for Romney, to me it will have served its purpose entirely.”

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The DREAM ACT. Amnesty or the right thing to do?

When America was founded our borders were open to anyone that moved here and kept out of trouble for five years.If that was good enough for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and ….

That was essentially the standard until 1921, when we tied immigration to the 1910 census. The 1910 census documented the ethnic background of Americans; many in Congress were worried that our ethnicity was changing too rapidly and with too many of the wrong people. Think: Italians, Greeks, swarthy people. (Yes, “swarthy people” was considered a definition of ethnicity back then. This law, amended in 1924, remained in place until 1965.

Learn more about the DREAM Act : http://www.americasnewsonline.com/immigration-reform-what-is-the-dream-act-909/

Google and learn even more about the DREAM Act : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS252&q=DREAM+Act

History of Immigration in the U.S.: http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=u.s. immigration law history&q=u.s. immigration law history

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 21st – Online or Live – Cato Institute Debates Whether Arizona’s New Immigration Law Can Survive Challenge

!! This is a free event. No cost to participate.

The Politics and Law of Immigration

Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Noon (Luncheon to Follow)

The controversy over America’s immigration policies will ratchet up once the new Arizona law, known as SB 1070, goes into effect on July 29. Can that law withstand the legal challenges that are awaiting it? And legality aside, will the Arizona law create more problems than it can resolve? The federal policy options are no less divisive. Should illegal immigration be reduced by deploying soldiers or by enacting a comprehensive immigration reform bill? Join us for a wide-ranging discussion of the politics and law of immigration policy.

Cato events, unless otherwise noted, are free of charge. To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or email events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by noon, Tuesday, July 20, 2010 . Please arrive early. Seating is limited and not guaranteed. News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call (202) 789-5200.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

If you can’t make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Arizona and the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

by Bill Golden
JeffersonConservatives.com and Bill4DogCatcher.com

A permanent resident alien is entitled to constitutional protection, and specifically the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For all Americans, knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is important — probable cause, reasonable suspicion, search and seizure all have highly defined meanings.

Below are two important constitutional challenges that are relevant to Arizona’s recently passed law SB1070:

Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-4 (1982):
‘[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.’ Bottomline: Legal aliens (immigrants) have full protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 392 U.S. 1 (1968):
As for how reasonable suspicion plays a role in checking someone’s identification, the courts acknowledges that this is a tricky area of law. However, the bottom line is that the police are ultimately held to an objective justification reviewable by the courts.

“It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs “seizures” of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime – “arrests” in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person. … This Court has held in [392 U.S. 1, 18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. … The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate?”

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

The 4th Amendment reads like this:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment requires that in order for a government official, such as a police officer, to search a person’s home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, he must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

In order for a warrant to be issued, someone must affirm to the judge that he has a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, he believes he will find evidence that will verify the crime. The person submitting this information to the judge is usually a police officer. The police officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone’s private property will yield evidence of the crime.

The judge then reviews the information and if he also believes that the information the officer has submitted shows probable cause, he will issue the warrant. In order for the warrant to be good, it must identify the place and the particular items or persons that are to be seized if they are found. A warrant is not a general order that can be used to search for anything, anywhere the officer wants. It is very specific about what is being looked for and where the officer can look for it.

Learn more about Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Learn more about the Fourth Amendment via Google

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Short History of (il)Legal Immigration in the USA

The biggest challenge that we have to get beyond in discussing immigration reform is the concept of “legal” and “illegal” immigration.

Throughout most of American history (until 1907) the only legal basis for immigrating to the USA was the color of your skin — and it had to be right tone as well (caucasian yet not Mediterranean or Eastern European).

So when someone says that their forbears immigrated “legally” to the USA they often are only barely technically correct. There was no restriction on immigrating to the USA prior to 1907 other than being racially qualified.

Although the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, protects children born in the United States it was not until 1898 (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that non-whites or non-blacks were allowed to be included under the protection of this part of the U.S. Constitution.

Prior to 1907 you only needed to buy a ship ticket or enter via some port (land or sea). No visa  required. No immigration paperwork other than you checked in at the port and no reason was found to bar you.

The first naturalization law in the United States was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalization to “free white persons” of “good moral character” who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year.

Migrant workers were always welcome into the USA, they just weren’t eligible for citizenship. Most of our current illegal immigrants are here because U.S. industry needed them and has been willing to pay for their services. Where once we had “indentured servants” (7 years of service to an employer) we evolved long ago to employing migrant workers once indentured servitude was outlawed.

In 1870, the law was broadened to allow African Americans to be naturalized. Asian immigrants were excluded from naturalization but not from living in the United States.

It was not until 1921 that the United States Congress passed the ‘Emergency Quota Act’, which established national immigration quotas. The quotas were based on the number of foreign-born residents of each nationality who were living in the United States as of the 1910 census.


Filed under Uncategorized