I wouldn't have to repeat myself, at all, if you didn't insist on resorting to fallacies to make a point you don't with an argument that doesn't work.
Appeals to ignorance and non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Why not get a point and an argument?
I got it Ignore the broken record. You know you are simple minded. AMENDMENT X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You have that backwards my friend. Government has no need for the expense of YOU !! Your Utopian society doesn't exist, never will. Been tried before countless times and failed each every time.
Like every question of the Constitution there is a hazy interpretation that is used for both sides. As in all of these situations we will spit and froth until the economy rebounds and unemployment wanes. At this time a common sense solution will prevail for illegal immigration, the best possible solution will be for an industrial and education boom in Mexico where the conditions will improve to the point that immigration to the US will recede into tolerable amounts (writer ignores rolling of eyes of some readers here.) I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I will say it again. The Constitution is a living document, the most Conservative poster in this forum will at some time advocate a deviation from the written word and intent of this venerable document. The most liberal will do the same. In the end it will be precedence that changes the laws for the better. As for the original thesis of this thread, long ago we decided to make voting easy for all, not everybody who is a citizen carries an ID and no law should make that so unless this person wishes to do something that requires training and public responsibility. Practicing a citizens given rights is not one of these things. Voter fraud in this department is so low that it does not rise to the occasion of writing new law.
That isn't what our Founding Fathers ordained and established. It wasn't their fault their posterity slacked.
I think we should goad other federal republics to our south into simply paying people to become couch potatoes instead of making us first worlders look bad with their third world work ethic.
By your own assertion, it would be un-Constitutional for the States to engage in importing immigrants.
Actually, the several States already have Constitutional authority to inspect market participants for compliance with usual and customary, and regulatory requirements for lawful Commerce within that State.
What you describe would no longer be the case with true forms of supply side economics which should be used to provide better governance at lower cost. The work visas you describe must not be very market friendly, but rather more a form of central planning and that form of command economics without a just Cause.
If our politicians would enforce our laws, and protect our borders properly, we wouldn't have an illegal problem now. With unemployment as high as it is, and with a legal way to live and work in the U.S., your plan is useless.
My plan relies on Capitalism and market friendliness. Your plan relies on Socialism and more arbitrary use of command economics to prosecute a form of Prohibition, which has never worked, in the history of the US.
Why not present an actual argument and demonstrate why a market friendly work visa won't work in a market economy.
Why do you believe persons don't want to work in an economy that has an unemployment rate at or above one percent? I may only agree with you in an economic environment that has an unemployment rate below one percent.