If They Walk Across the Border, They are Legal

   Someone suggested to me that the court basis for restricting immigration rests in Gibbons v. Ogden. Ah, then here's a notable discovery.
   If Gibbons v. Ogden is the basis for keeping them out  . . .
  This is going to surprise you.
  While those coming in by jet, and ship, and truck, and train might be illegal, those walking across the border are perfectly legal.
   I confess, I wonder if anyone has bothered to read Gibbons v. Ogden. It notes the Constitution gives the federal government authority over commerce. And, since migration takes place with people coming in by vessels, then that means migration is commerce. So, therefore, the federal government has authority over immigration.
   But, what if a person doesn't come by vessel? What if he doesn't come by commercial jet, or ship, or truck, or train? What if he walks? Gibbons v. Ogden doesn't apply to him. The only immigration Gibbons v. Ogden restricts is immigration coming by commercial vessels. If a person walks across the border, he is legal.
  So -- let's see -- the very immigrants we oppose the most -- the ones walking across the Mexican border -- are the ones who are legal. The very immigrants Trump's wall would keep out are the ones who are legal.















   Someone suggested to me that the court basis for restricting immigration in the U.S. lies in Gibbons v. Ogden. Ah, then someone should read that court case. If this is what our immigration system is based on, then . . .
   Listen up; This will surprise you.
   While those coming in by jet, and ship, and truck, and train might be illegal, those walking across the border might just be perfectly legal.
   Has anyone read Gibbons v. Ogden? It suggests the federal government has always had authority over commerce, and since migration takes place with people coming by vessels, then that is commerce, so, therefore, the federal government has authority over it.
   But, what if a person didn't come by vessel? What if he didn't come by jet, or ship, or truck, or train? What if he walked? Gibbons v. Ogden wouldn't apply to him. The only immigration Gibbons v. Ogden restricts is the immigration involving vessels. If a person walks across the border, he is legal. So -- let's see -- the very immigrants we oppose the most -- the ones walking across the Mexican border -- are the ones who are legal. The very immigrants Trump's wall would keep out are the ones who are legal.