Natural market dynamics have are effective at managing resources in society. Yet, even supports of free markets reverse that position in regard to immigration.
Now I’m not talking about in cases where the people trying to come here are criminals or terrorists; the purpose of the federal government is to hold this nation together in the more simply way possible and to protect us from foreign threats with the least amount of restrictions possible, but so many people are trying to come to this country and can’t because of an obfuscated immigration policy.
The first point of contention is the idea that the ability to regulate immigration is even constitutional. While the SCOTUS has long held that it is, nothing in the constitution actually grants the government the authority to regulate immigration. Arguments have been made that certain sections of the constitution do allow the regulation of immigration, but they fail to hold up.
Article I Section 8
One argument is that since the federal government was granted the authority to regulate naturalization, it is a direct extension that it can also regulate immigration. Of course, to argue this one would have to show that regulation of immigration is necessary in order to regulate naturalization. However this is not the case. The federal government can still determine who can and who cannot become a citizen.
Article IV Section 4
Others argue that Article IV Section 4 grants the government the authority to control immigration. Their argument is that immigration can be considered an invasion. The flaw of the argument is that in order to define “undocumented” immigrants as invaders, they use the idea that they are here illegally and therefore are invading. However, the constitutionality of that law rests on them being invaders in the first place. It is a circular argument. If such reasoning were considered valid, it would allow essentially any section of the constitution to be bypassed.
Interestingly, not even even the SCOTUS looks to the constitution, at this point, for a source of the authority to regulate immigration. So what is used, by the SCOTUS, to justify the idea that the federal government does indeed have the power? The answer is national sovereignty: the idea is that every sovereign nation has the inherent power to control who can cross its borders. However, the idea of inherent power flies in the face of the tenth amendment. Any power not granted to the federal government rests with the states or with the people. Either inherent powers exist or the tenth amendment is automatically null and void. The latter certainly is not the case.
Clearly there have been plenty of attempts to justify the constitutionality of immigration control, but how about a solid argument against the power? For that, I will rely on the fifth amendment, which states that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because the constitution is a collection of rules that the government must follow, rather than a collection of rules for the people, the fifth amendment, as all other rules in the constitution, must be applied in every situation. The fifth amendment, as written, is not a protection against government for citizens, but a rule that the government cannot violate any person’s life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. The ability to move from one region to another is such a liberty that is protected by the fifth amendment. Therefore the federal government is prohibited from preventing any person from immigrating to America or from expatriating.