“The Cause Ron Paul Should Champion” is my new WND.COM column. Here’s an excerpt:
On his website, tricky Dick Morris, former adviser to Bill Clinton, claims comically to be fighting for the soul of the Grand Old Party. Morris has dubbed a potential contest between Republican presidential contender Ron Paul and President Barack Obama as “the biggest [Republican] wipeout in American history.”
Less dramatically, the Des Moines Register conceded, in the aftermath of the “the first contest of the 2012 election season,” that, while “many Iowa caucus-goers connected with Paul’s belief in less government spending and regulation, in free trade and private property rights and in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”—they nevertheless “worried about Paul’s prospects in the general election.”
With 21.4 percent of a volatile vote, Rep. Ron Paul came in a strong third in Tuesday’s Iowa Republican caucuses. Assuming second place, and trailing Mitt Romney by eight statistically insignificant votes, was former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, the dark horse in this race.
Still, what separates Dr. Paul from his Republican rivals is this: Whereas their national appeal is likely to plateau—coffined by militarism and social conservatism—Paul’s appeal, by contrast, has the potential to transcend the confines of the Republican Party.
For one, Ron Paul can woo Obama’s sizeable anti-war base which is sick and tired of the killer drone. (One definition of a drone is “an idle person who lives off others; a loafer, a drudge,” a Barack Obama. Another definition of a drone is “a pilotless aircraft operated by remote control,” frequently utilized by the aforementioned “idle person who lives off others” to kill others.) …
Read the complete column, “The Cause Ron Paul Should Champion,” on WND.COM.
My book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is available from Amazon. (Don’t forget those reviews; they help this cause.)
A Kindle copy is also on sale.
Still better, shipping is free and prompt if you purchase Into the Cannibal’s Pot from The Publisher.
UPDATE (Jan. 6): DEFER TO THE TENTH. That’s what Ron Paul should do. Michael Boldin’s Tenth Amendment Center article draws the distinction between immigration and naturalization, in the context of 18th century locution:
…a common 18th century definition of naturalization was “The act of investing aliens with the privileges of native subjects”, while emigrate had a common meaning of “to move from one place to another.”
Such a delegated power over “naturalization” then, does not specifically address the power over immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause) to find authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
But, I’m sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I’m all ears! Otherwise, such power is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments or not – as they see fit.
One of the finest minds on matters pertaining to immigration and the Constitution is Kris W. Kobach, a University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law professor, and an author of the Arizona law. Kobach has determined that “state police, exercising state law authority only,” may make arrests for violations of federal law”—a right Kobach anchors in a state’s status as a sovereign entity.
States are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superseded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. … the states possess what are known as ‘police powers,’ which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are ‘an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people.