My thanks to the readers who responded to my query below. I will attempt to address their explanations in good faith and not set up any straw men.
The most comprehensive answer was this one:
1) If you want to make an argument that immigration is a state matter and that states can restrict immigration, I'd be happy to take away all of the federal governments power in doing this. However given that a variety of court cases have said that states are not allowed to even deny health care or education benefits to illegals, or for that matter detain illegal aliens. I'm sure if Arizonans or Californians, or for that matter mayors of Hazleton, PA were able to make their own immigration policy with Mexico, it would be for more enforcement against illegal immigration and less legal immigration. 2) The vast majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional under a super strict interpretation, and in fact most of it would have been considered unconstitutional 100, if not 50, or 25 years ago, yet restricting immigration has been part of the federal agenda since the end of the Civil War. Arguing over whether or not the fedreal government has a right to do that is not going to do much to keep our country from being colonized by Mexico, a fact that you have relished over in past blog post. Once that is solved, then we can argue over what is and isn't constitutional, but I can promise you that a reconquista'd country will care even less about the finer points of constitutional interpretation than they do now. A good friend of mine compares this type of thinking to the Aztecs fighting over how to plant the corn while ignoring the fact that their homeland is being taken over. 3) Article 1, section 8 says it is Congress' duty "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Massive immigration is an invasion of this country on a scale greater than anything this country has ever faced.
I'll address these point by point.
1.) The second is a true enough statement. Some localities would indeed get tough on immigration. This would allow for those areas who are in need of labor, like most farming areas of Western states to be more lax on immigration as many of them would like to do.
The first statement about court cases denying various sorts of autonomy on immigration to localities is true as well. Yet, as a libertarian principle, I fail to see what this necessitates giving additional police powers to the federal government just because it has been the tradition since the Civil War.
2.) "Once that is solved, then we can argue over what is and isn't constitutional" This one is quite plainly an ends-justifies-the-the means argument. Essentially it says, "The rule of law is nice in theory, but since there is a crisis of some sort, the rule of law must be rejected until the crisis can be resolved." This is the same argument used to defend actions like those of Lincoln, i.e., "He had to ignore the Constitution in order to save it." The hysteria following the Reichstag Fire would also be a good example of how this argument has been employed. I don't say this to imply that those who make this argument are Nazis or anything even resembling Nazis, but it bears noting that from time immemorial this is the exact same argument made by those in favor of disregarding restraints on government because some "crisis" demands it.
3.) This argument makes the case that unarmed immigrants seeking work in the United States are analagous to armed soldiers executing a military invasion. I have never seen anyone using this terminology ever make the case of how exaclty this is so. This is a lazy use of language, in my opinion, which attempts to make a case for a quasi-military solution for a totally non-military problem.
Let us compare and contrast:
Immigrant "Invasion"
1. unarmed immigrants cross into a territory in search of work
2. unarmed immigrants buy and rent housing in said territory
3.unarmed immigrants pay sales taxes and income taxes in said territory
4. In some cases, unarmed immigrants use the existing political system to dilute the political power of the native population
5. some are criminals and are subject to local legal system.
real Invasions
1. Widespread death and destruction by armed invaders
2. Rapid overthrow and replacement of ruling regime by force
3. Massive expropriation of property
4. Disbanding of native military personnel and replacement by occupying force
5. Members of the occupying force function under their own laws separate from the native population.
The bottom line is this. To say that the average American, because of this invasion is in anything resembling the position of a Polish citizen during or after the Nazi invasion or a Mexican citizen during or after the American invasion of 1846-8 strains credibility.
