Our aim is Georgian Cultures and in general Georgian Popularization abroad civil diplomacy promotion and support of tourism.

We offer all travelers non-profit accommodation in Georgia only city of Tbilisi Travelers are only expected to provide a small contribution for additional services (expenditures concerning e.g. usage of hot water, gas and electricity, etc.) a breakfast are provided without charge…. Read More

We undertake different non-profit tours around the Georgia and also we undertake any tours around Georgia from your desire if you appeal to us with your application we can organize different tours for you over territory of Georgia.

Our aim is Georgian Cultures and in general Georgian Popularization abroad civil diplomacy promotion and support of tourism.

We offer all travelers non-profit accommodation in Georgia only city of Tbilisi Travelers are only expected to provide a small contribution for additional services (expenditures concerning e.g. usage of hot water, gas and electricity, etc.) a breakfast are provided without charge…. Read More

We undertake different non-profit tours around the Georgia and also we undertake any tours around Georgia from your desire if you appeal to us with your application we can organize different tours for you over territory of Georgia.

Our aim is Georgian Cultures and in general Georgian Popularization abroad civil diplomacy promotion and support of tourism.

We offer all travelers non-profit accommodation in Georgia only city of Tbilisi Travelers are only expected to provide a small contribution for additional services (expenditures concerning e.g. usage of hot water, gas and electricity, etc.) a breakfast are provided without charge…. Read More

We undertake different non-profit tours around the Georgia and also we undertake any tours around Georgia from your desire if you appeal to us with your application we can organize different tours for you over territory of Georgia.

I completely agree with you that it would be utterly impractical to make immigration strictly a state issue. You make my points for me:

1. A lot of things have changed since the Constitution was written.
2. Many parts of the Constitution are open to interpretation.

My deeper point is that the “original intent,” “limited Federal goverment” philosophy you say you believe in is deeply flawed, for the above reasons. It seems like falling back on the Constitution is a defense many conservatives resort to when they don't like certain federal programs. But when a strong federal presence is necessary to further a “conservative” agenda item, such as strong limits on immigration, then somehow bringing up the Constitution becomes “ludicrous,” or the Constitution's stance is moot because things have “changed dramatically,” or the opposing interpretation is dismissed as utterly asinine.

For example, I know many conservatives espousing the states rights interpretation of the Constitution that staunchly believe the EPA and pollution regulation is a gross overreach of the government (not saying you're one Bridget, I don't know you views on this). Yet it's not ridiculous to suggest that pollution is a byproduct of commerce that crosses state borders, thus making it legitimate under the commerce clause.

So really, my point I guess is this: I'm happy to agree to disagree on immigration, health care, et al, but I find it distasteful for you to hide behind the Constitution when it serves your ends but dismiss it as impractical, outdated, and ludicrous (essentially employing the “but we really NEED this from the feds” argument) when it gets problematic. Just say you're laissez-faire or libertarian or something, that's fine — just don't disingenuously drag out the Constitution.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the analysis on page I linked to?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article I, Section 8 – Powers of Congress, wherein it reads:

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

Part of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization of citizens is establishing how these potential citizens are to be allowed into the country. Limiting the number of immigrants wasn't really an issue back in Jefferson's day because the U.S. was so sparsely populated. That has changed dramatically, and if we had completely open borders we'd soon be so swamped that I can't even imagine the overcrowding in our cities, whose infrastructures aren't ready for such an influx.

The idea of saying that states should be able to (or be stuck with the responsibility to) secure their borders is asinine, since the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from restricting travel between states. Under this ridiculous “states' rights” plan of border control, all it would take is a single state opening its borders, and then the entire country would have open borders — which, I realize, some people want. How they think we're going to handle that many people is beyond me, unless of course they want to open up a lot of the BLM and other federal land to development, which something tells me wouldn't go over too well with those of you who don't like my stance on illegal immigration.

I did not respond to this initially because I thought it was so ludicrous it didn't need to be addressed. Since some have taken my silence as inability to address it rather than contempt for a ridiculous argument, I have done so.

Just trying to understand your position.