Immigration or invasion?
Russ Vought is a Trump loyalist who believes we live in a “post-Constitutional” nation:
““We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted:
“Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”
‘Post-Constitutional’ sounds suspiciously similar to the post-Tsarist vision of the Bolsheviks in 1917: forget the past, ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears, and let the ends justify the means. That didn’t end well for Russia, and I don’t think we should be turning to Lenin and Stalin for models of political change.
WRT immigration and the Constitution, the SCOTUS has held that the US government possesses all the powers incident to a sovereign, including unqualified authority over the Nation’s borders and the ability to determine whether foreign nationals may come within its territory. Vought, who is a JD but has no special expertise in Constitutional law, argues for a re-interpretation of Constitutional law to permit hijacking of US border control by the states. Kevin Drum over at jabberwocking.com has read Vought’s “seminal essay” so we don’t have to. Here’s what Vought concludes through his process of historical telepathy:
“We have looked to the Constitution for what the Founders would do if one was a current governor of a border state, and lo and behold, we found Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, articulating that states cannot engage in war making unless invaded. And in our research, we found that they did not mean threats from foreign nation states, but rather smugglers, militias, Indian tribes, etc.”
Apparently, Vought’s “research” refers to the practice of using tortured reasoning and legalistic bafflegab to flog an argument from its pre-ordained conclusion backwards to the selective reading of evidence. As Drum succinctly observes:
“This is ridiculous. “Invasion,” both then and now, refers to an organized force attacking the country with violence and malice. Individuals acting independently with no intent to conquer or kill do not constitute an invasion under any plausible interpretation.”
Beware, my friends. Vought and his fellow travelers do not respect the rule of law and will say and do whatever is necessary to achieve power and control.
Post-Constitutional immigration law
Joel:
One of the reasons, or maybe there are two or three reasons I laid out the numbers on immigration was to make the point of not being overwhelmed by immigrants. If they are coming to our borders, why are they showing up there? The wrong messageis being told by political interests.
As to Vought and the Governor of Texas, they both should be out on the border and leading the defense of it. Lets see how long the effort will last then.
@Bill,
Vought and Abbott are keyboard commandos, officers in the 86th Chairborne. They’re not interested in policy or problem solving, they’re interested in power and single party government.
How would we know the intent of those crossing the border between ports of entry? One can assume every single one of them only have the best intentions. One can infer every single one of the Chinese, Middle Eastern, Indian, Pakistani and thousands and even millions of other foreign nationals are coming only to seek refuge and a better life. But the truth is we don’t know, and we’ll never know. Therein lies the problem. It’s a crapshoot, a gamble. Hopefully our gamble pays off. Hope and gambling are 2 very dangerous ways to shape a society. Maybe we’ll get lucky and hit a 7. Luck………..another one of those tricky words.
@Matt,
LOL! It’s not a matter of “luck.” The immigration processes in the US are not a gamble, they are lengthy and designed to screen out criminals, deadbeats and other malefactors. There’s no assumption of intentions.
Immigrants have been a strength for the US throughout its history (although the indigenous Americans would likely disagree).
Quite the contrary. When millions of migrants enter the border between ports of entry claiming asylum unvetted, it IS a gamble. When you have millions of people entering the country and have no way of knowing who they are, it’s actually a DANGEROUS gamble. The fact is America has enemies as do all countries. It’s also a fact these enemies wish to do us harm as we all saw on 9/11/2001 and it’s also fact if there’s nothing stopping them entering the country by crossing the border to inflict that harm or at least making it difficult for them, you’d have to be blind not see where that can present a problem.
@Matt,
LOL! If our enemies think the way to infiltrate is through our immigration system, they are stupid. You’d have to be blind not see where how silly your premise is.
“claiming asylum unvetted” is a lie. Stop lying about the asylum system.
As far as I understand, none of the 9/11 hijackers applied for asylum. All entered with passports. At least two, and possibly as many as six carried fake passports. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; there were significant security weaknesses in the Saudi government’s issuance of Saudi passports in the period when the visas to the hijackers were issued. Two of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers may have obtained their passports legitimately or illegitimately with the help of a family member who worked in the passport office. I know of no evidence that any of the hijackers were immigrants or asylum-seekers, so your attempt to link immigration to 9/11 appears to be fraudulent.
” if there’s nothing stopping them entering the country by crossing the border.” But there is. Tens of thousands are detained every year. You need to learn something about immigration before posting here. If you continue to lie about immigration, it will be considered trolling. This is your only warning.
Hmmm:
All of the documentation I posted does not appear to be enough to convince people immigration is secure, is needed, and does benefit the country economically.
Or maybe they did not read it or look at the neat graphs?
@Bill,
Unfortunately, too many people valorize their gut feelings and propaganda over facts and evidence. Sad.
Still perplexed as to how people conflate migrant asylum seekers crossing the border between ports of entry or outright sneaking past and evading border patrol and immigration which is when a foreign national applies for an immigrant visa and which there is a background and check and medical evaluation and if the person is accepted and receives a green card and eventual citizenship where they are now an “immigrant”.
@matt,
Asylum seekers are seeking legal asylum. You have to apply for asylum and undergo a legal process that involves hearings. Still perplexing to me how people conflate economic migrants crossing the border between ports of entry or outright sneaking past and evading border patrol and immigration with people applying for asylum, for which there are background checks, medical evaluations, etc.
The initial claim for asylum is made. The information given by the immigrant applicant is vetted after we know what the reasons for claiming asylum are. That is the procedure.
Yes, any foreign national in this country can claim asylum, legally up to a year after entry, and then we vet their claims. Making the claim is the first step in the vetting process.
Like turning a tanker with a rowboat, some people are finally catching on: the atmosphere, the thin layer of both exponentially and increasingly no longer potentially toxic gasses we live in that envelopes the only ball of rock we know of that we can live on, does not recognize the ‘Boundaries of Nation/States’. They do not exist. People are going to leave places they can no longer live
You will not stop the migrations, they can not be stopped
Ask the Neanderthal …
@Ten,
Exactly. And resource wars, not the heat, are what will kill human civilization. They’ve already started.
Also to your point, “illegal immigration” is a victimless crime.
Joel:
The country has enough room and an economy which can absorb them.
@ Bill,
D’accord.
I’d bet on the heat.
well, i get a little anxious when my friends demonize the people who are afraid of, or just dislike, “illegal”(or frankly, all) immigration…Matt’s “reasoning” is a good example of why demonizing is understandable. it is bad reasoning to begin with, based on misinformation or lack of information, and ultimately nightmare quality paranoia.
ordinary police work and routine screening would prevent the level of “malicious invasion” Matt envisions, and probably no level of screening would prevent a nation-state effort to smuggle atomic bombs into the country by carrying them through the arid southwest under guise of seeking jobs. [unjustified shift in logic here is just a shorthand way of pointing at two problems with the paranoid secenario; THEY are not going to do it, and they wouldn’t do it that way.]
for what it’s worth, i am one of those who worry about massive immigration…i still remember the year the Rhine froze over. but I am much more worried by the cruelty of our response to it….which Matt and his friends would seem to be endorsing.
Did anyone read Nick Kristofs opinion piece in the NewYork Times endorsing Biden’s executive order?
Jack:
I do not believe many or any of us have access to the NYT. I pirate it at times off site. Any chance you could put a couple of short paragraphs together. I would help you after you wrote it.
Bill,
My computer is having issues on trying to forward it to Angry Bear or you, personally. Any subscriber can share it if they wish and their computer allows them to.
He basically asserts that the issue is one that could put Trump back in power through the swing states’ electorate and that the country’s economy may be able to support them but it will have consequences on the wages of blue collar people which is part of the reason for the resistance from the swing states. He also asserts that the majority of the asylum applicants are not qualified for admission under our statutes and know that but come because they are allowed to stay pending their hearings which are years off. While it is true that the Republicans are responsible for the failure to pass immigration reform legislation, voters tend to blame Biden because he is President. Essentially, Kristof argues that those insisting on admission of migrants in virtually unlimited numbers, seem to be oblivious to the likelihood that their policy, if allowed, would likely elect Trump. They don’t seem to care what the ramifications of that would be.
Jack:
As I wrote twice now, Republicans are more than likely responsible for the masses showing up at the border as they advertised “US Open Borders” and here.
I can not access the article even where I would go to find a version of it under another name.
Reads to me (I could be bias) like he is endorsing moving from mitigating immigration to managing immigration, something I’ve been harping on forever. I don’t necessarily read Joe’s executive order thus, and I could be wrong about Kristof, I could be wrong about it all, it happens, but it feels like we’re moving from mitigation to management
TB:
I am glad you are back.
Jack:
Just did on a pirated version. Democrats did not advertise open borders. A slurry (manure suspended in water) of Republicans were advertising open boarders when Biden wase elected.
As I wrote twice now, Republicans are more than likely responsible for the masses showing up at the border as they advertised “US Open Borders” and here.
The word gets around among the migrants regardless of who is hyping the situation. It was simply true for quite awhile that anyone claiming asylum was allowed to stay in the country once they got here, crossing illegally or overstaying visa. Because of the delay in asylum hearing dates, applicants could and did stay for years in the country. There’s “open borders” legally and “open borders” in slang, jargon, and/or rumor. The practical effect of the procedural problems was it was an open border in the sense that if you could get here, you could stay and that’s what attracted many migrants.
@Jack,
” . . . and “open borders” in slang, jargon, and/or rumor.” I think the word you’re looking for is “propaganda.”
Jack:
Again you missed or ignored my point . . .
Jack:
Republicans Senators, Representatives, etc. went on an all-out advertisement of the borders being open. It is not a “regardless.”
Why do you underplay what Republicans did enmasse globally? Are there no laws or processes in place to follow up with those who are released in the US? Hmmm? Yes, there is as you well know. The issue is enforcement of those laws. It is not the Biden presidency which has created the issue. It is the Biden administration which has to live with it due to lack of resource and the politics which will do everything possible to deny resource and yet encourage people to come to our borders as they are open for legal and illegal crossers.
Why is that so hard for you to take issue with the opposing politics?
Which is why the bipartisan Senate legislation was a good thing, increasing the personnel to do the processing and determination so the claims could be handled quickly. And also why Trump opposed it. The years in this country was not accidental or unintentional, IMO. It is not like they are too stupid to know what would happen when budgets and personnel were cut for years.
Bill. it is also a fact as I’ve pointed out before, that Biden and the other primary candidates in the runup to 2020 committed to not deporting undocumented people unless they had committed crimes. That’s another way of saying if you can get here, you can stay. Open border? Doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s an inducement to cross illegally or stay illegally.
Bill, Im not denying your point that Republicans are exacerbating the problem. However, they are hardly the sole cause. There is a migrant grapevine, reported on many times over the years, and the marketing of the Coyotes which seems to be effective. But the basic objection of voters opposed to large scale immigration is that the system permits illegal crossers and visa violators to stay virtually indefinitely and that situation encourages more migration. I agree that they should blame Republicans for their obstruction but it seems obvious that Biden is getting seriously damaged by the situation whatever the voters “should” do. Biden ignoring the problem would be politically suicidal.
“Permits illegal crossers and visa violators to stay virtually indefinitely and that is only under special circumstances which has a time limit to it.” A time limit such as the TPS. All of the abilities to stay have to be applied for in the US.
And they do hold raids and collect people to deport too.
It just does not happen because they are here. That is the Repub politics also.
Anything I said on Replacement and the population just makes no sense, heh? There is a need for people.
When you have a limited resource, you spend it where it does the most good. We don’t have the capacity to deport everyone, so start with the criminals and let the guys working alone until we do have the capacity to handle more than the criminals. Why do you think the GOP killed the senate immigration legislation? Speeding up the process would help “close” the borders.