_It's time to let the free choices of millions of individuals determine America's complexion._ Here they must mean millions of non-Americans should determine "America's complexion", not Americans -- they and what they might want, i.e. their "free choices", don't matter. Even for libertarian fare this is, uhh, hmm, err...

This is part of an exchange between Ms. Akers and myself. Ms. Akers evidently has little understanding of the Constitution that whe quotes. The thread begins in the last paragraph and progresses forward to this: Ms. Akers, Where we disagree is the right of the citizens to decide their demographics, instead of resorting to chance upon the assumption that all cultures are equally good for this nation. Supposing we had open immigration, and we introduced millions of moslems who have an affection for Sharia law. The social chaos that that would ensue would hardly be conducive to national harmony. We're currently on a course to adopt millions of poor and ill-educated individuals, many of whom will no doubt eventually extract more out of Social Security they pay in, and who will no doubt have to access our welfare system to bring them up to a standard of living acceptable to our social inclination. Despite what some of our politicians tell us, these people will no doubt receive more in tax benefits than they pay in, not to mention their burden on our health care system. As citizens, we are the stewards of the legacy of our Founding Fathers, not simply the sons of immigrants with no responsibilities for our nation's future. We must not forget that our Constitution must be protected from unwanted change. Our Founding Fathers didn't write our Constitution in stone, incapable of change, but made it subject to the will of the people. We must take care to select immigrants who have our democratic ideals, as those we declare citizens today have the power to radically alter our Constitution to reflect anti-democratic tendencies. Taking the power of immigration from the citizen is like rolling the dice on the future of our nation. If you cannot accept the right of the government, be it federal or state, to enact laws on behalf of the people, within the bounds of the Constitution, then you cannot accept the legitimacy of our democratic republic. The 12th Amendment is still the law of the land, and cannot be ignored as the source of the legitimacy of states rights, no matter how you feel about the competency of our legislators. And our state legislators are actually better representatives of he people than the congressmen in smoke filled back rooms of Washington. The imposition of wearing a particular hat is the least of risks in our form of government, but no one has thought of a better system. However, the electorate does has recourse when their representative manifests incompetence, that of the power to elect good government by voting for honest men. We may become disillusioned with our lawmakers, but we are a nation of laws, and laws cannot be enacted except by inherently flawed men, through our Constitutional legislative process. George W From: libertatem@netzero.com Subject: Re: FW: Your Article, "Why restrict immigration at all?" Mr. W, I am uncertain why you think we're disagreeing. You plainly assert that c

Omitted the following from my previous post: Subject: Re: FW: Your Article, "Why restrict immigration at all?" Mr. Williams, I am uncertain why you think we're disagreeing. You plainly assert that control over immigration doesn't belong to the Feds, per the Twelfth Amendment. I said as well that the Constitution never empowers the Feds to control immigration. I disagree that the Twelfth A hands such power to state bureaucrats; the Feds can't compel me to wear a hat, either, but the Twelfth doesn't mean the states can. Are you sure you want to live in a country where this amendment is stretched so that all non-delineated powers are handed to the states? Maybe Alabama's local bureaucrats are wiser and kinder than New York's, but the last thing I'd want is the surly incompetents at the DMV given even more power over us. You are correct that many of the Founding Fathers worried about assimilation. However, concerned as they were, they prized our freedom to come and go as we please so much they protected it from Federal oversight. For a more thorough exploration of this, see http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=5910 . For liberty, Becky Akers Ms. Ayers, I've just read your article in the Christian Science Monitor regarding immigration and I take issue with your assertion that the Constitution compels us to welcome all immigrants. There's just no evidence in the writings of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation before that that they believed in unrestricted immigration. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson and others looked upon situation that our country was of like-minded political philosophy, religion and language, because they promoted harmony among the people. In other words, they considered it a blessing. Multi-culturalism was not a concept of our founding fathers because they would of considered it divisive. As an example, it would have been unreasonable for them to have welcomed a large influx of exiled Tories who could have tipped the political balance in favor of a monarchist form of government. Imagine our Founding Fathers establishing a government by the blood of their democratically minded revolutionaries, only to invaded by immigrants from England who would change it overnight through the power of their newly acquired vote. This is a concern even today, and one that the citizens, as stewards of their birthright will not surrender, no matter the musings of economists and immigration lawyers. While you are correct that the Constitution does not give the federal government plenary power over immigration, only the right to establish naturalization rules, you are wrong to assert that our country does not have the right to make immigration law. Under the 12th Amendment, the states have the right to establish immigration law. Article the twelfth [Amendment X] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, n

_This is part of an exchange..._ You're wasting your time; with people whose views are this extreme, it's obvious you're dealing with ideology that is impervious to logical argument.

It's a good thing we kept the Catholics out of America. If we'd let them in, our country would be run by the Pope by now. You KNOW how those folks breed. Why, they don't even believe in abortion!

You were polite only calling him a fool. I would put it more along the lines of a rabid jackass. "Free and open trade with china, open our borders to the world." Donald is just another retarded pawn of big business wanting a pool of cheap slave labor that's nice and local. Sad thing is his so called credentials give the illusion of competence.

Unlike you, these professionals know what they are talking about. What's even funnier is that you think *they* are ideologues!