[DugwayDuke]

“...oppose every act of the federal government not specifically approved in the Constitution (including niceties such as congressional gold medals for such people as Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks and Pope John Paul II).”

Unfortunately, this means that Ron Paul must oppose any attempts to control illegal immigration since there is no explicit language authorizing Congress to do so.

If you dispute the above, please provide an explicit statement in the Constitution giving these powers to any branch of the government.

If you can’t provide that statement, then, it follows, that Ron Paul is a fraud.

[Designer]

"..oppose any attempts to control illegal immigration.."

What a stretch! Not even Bill Clinton could get that far off track.

How about just enforcing the laws? Isn't that part of the job description?

BTW: perhaps you ought to take a moment to compare what our current president is doing with what it says in the Constitution.

That could be an eye-opener.

[Victor_VI]

If you dispute the above, please provide an explicit statement in the Constitution giving these powers to any branch of the government.

Article I, Section 9

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Now, why would the Founders feel the need to restrict a power of Congress, for a specific period of time, that they didn't believe it had in the first place? Obviously, they had no issue with Congress regulating the migration of persons after 1808.

The authority to control borders is an implied power of sovereignty. Apparently the Founders understood it exists a priori, else they wouldn't have needed to explicitly restrict it. Apparently Ron Paul also understands that.