Constitutionalists For Gays & Immigrants

(LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This site provides information about the law designed to help users safely cope with their own needs or analysis of issues. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation. The analysis this site provides is based on personal analysis and opinion and should not be quoted as fact. The information below only pertains to the United States of America.)



ABOUT MUHAMMAD MIGUEL ALI HASAN:

Muhammad Miguel Ali Hasan
     Facebook twitter
Muhammad Miguel Ali Hasan was born in Pueblo, Colorado, and raised in the American Southwest. He is an award winning film director and screenwriter, who has also served as a political pundit on Fox News, BBC Radio, Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, and the Dennis Miller Show of CNBC. Hasan ran for Colorado’s State House in 2008 and for Colorado State Treasurer in 2010. Hasan received his Bachelor of Arts from Occidental College and a Masters in Fine Arts, with an emphasis in Film Directing, from the Dodge College of Film under Chapman University. Hasan also spent over a year serving as a public school, tyro-teacher, in the Los Angeles Unified School District, as he is a candidate for a Masters in the Arts of Teaching from Occidental College. An expert snowboarder, Hasan currently lives in Sunset Beach, California, with his dog, Deelya.

CONTACT:
Muhammad Miguel Ali Hasan
PHONE - 310-770-6953
EMAIL - constitutionalists@me.com

We are Constitutionalists, who support Gay Marriage and a fair pathway of citizenship for illegal immigrants.

The purpose of this website is to provide Constitutional arguments and reasoning for why Gay Marriage should be legalized, nationally, as well as for why a pathway to citizenship should be offered to all immigrants, including illegal ones - reasoning that we hope activists will consider using when debating on television, radio, or any other political arena, as Constitutionally based arguments tend to be much more powerful than emotional pleas.

Of important note - no one can prove that the Founding Fathers were for Gay Marriage or amnesty, but as Constitutionalists, we can make our best attempt at winning these debates based on the Constitutional principle and analysis below.

If you would like to contribute analysis to the arguments below, please email us, as we want this page to serve as an area where we can create the finest Constitutional arguments, in favor of Gay Marriage and legalization of pathways towards citizenship for all immigrants, in an effort to win both political issues. We will personally say that we could be wrong, but if we are to help gays and immigrants, the analysis below should be our best attempt at winning the arguments.

THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

The United States of America, unlike almost all other countries, does have a recognized code that we all abide by, which is the Constitution, its Amendments, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

By swearing to uphold the Constitution, all Americans agree to live by Constitutional law, laws which were written by our Founding Fathers.

For these purposes, we should look to Constitutional documents, as well as the opinions of our Founding Fathers, in determining what is the ‘Right Thing To Do’ in regard to policies, here in the United States of America.

The ‘Right Thing To Do’ should not be determined by religious text or poll numbers, but rather, by Constitutional text, official documents written and signed by the Founding Fathers, and the overall vision provided by our Founding Fathers.

As activists, it is important that we use the phrase the ‘Right Thing To Do,’ because when engaged in a debate, it is important to ask what is the ‘Right Thing To Do?’ In the United States of America, the ‘Right Thing To Do’ is to follow Constitutional principle and base our laws on the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Lastly, the Founding Fathers did leave much power with current politicians, thus, as discussed below, it is sometimes valid to seek opinion from contemporary examples.

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT FOR GAY MARRIAGE -

As mentioned in the Declaration of Independence -

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And as mentioned in the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 -

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

First, gays are entitled to their “pursuit of Happiness,” which should allow them to marry people of the same sex. In addition, States should not deprive gays of their “liberty.”

Second, by legalizing Gay Marriage, we would not be violating any aspect of the Constitution, its Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence.

In turn, when arguing, what is the ‘Right Thing To Do,’ in terms of Gay Marriage in America, the right thing to do is to provide individuals with a right to liberty and happiness - thus, Gay Marriage should be legalized, under the vision left by the Founding Fathers.

Lastly, being against Gay Marriage is not an American ideal, because nothing in the Constitution, its Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence, encourages us to be against Gay Marriage or the rights of gays.

Overall, in this debate, always ask “What is the right thing to do, under Constitutional standards?”

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT FOR IMMIGRANTS -

For the sake of clarification, while this argument is meant to relate to the idea of offering citizenship towards illegal immigrants, who are currently living America, the analysis below can also be used towards arguing for why America should allow greater amounts of immigration, overall.

In addition, we are not arguing that a straight-out amnesty should be instituted - rather, illegal immigrants should pay their back-taxes, and likely, pay a reasonable fine towards the Federal & State Governments, excusing their breaking of the current, contemporary laws.

Onto the argument -

The most important note within this argument is that, the Founding Fathers did not take an opinion on immigration or amnesty, when reading the Constitution, its Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence.

After all, there is nothing in the Constitution, the Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence that prohibits immigration and/or criticizes amnesty. In addition, the idea that we need to shut our borders is not an American ideal, according to our Constitutional ideals. The idea of shutting down our borders and instituting an isolationist policy is simply a modern concept, pioneered by those who do not support immigration.

Often times, calls are made that illegal immigrants should be sent back home and “get in line.” Again, “getting in line” is not a Constitutional ideal, as the Constitution, its Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence makes no notes of how Congress should conduct its Naturalization processes. In turn, anyone who proclaims “getting in line” or “building a fence,” as the ‘Right Thing To Do,’ in accordance with American principle, is completely wrong.

To my best analysis, there is no part of the original Constitution, its Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence, that would be violated by offering a pathway of citizenship to illegal immigrants, a practice that has happened before in American history, without Constitutional challenge - again, the current laws against immigration are contemporary, not Constitutional ones written by the Founding Fathers.

Of historical note, before 1921, immigration to the United States was mostly an open practice. The idea being, if one could arrive in the United States, one would have a great chance of becoming a citizen. Ellis Island opened around 1892, and according to much analysis, most people arriving had over a 90% chance of becoming a citizen, after certain evaluations were met.

The Emergency Quota Act was instituted in 1921, but was strengthened and more strongly institutionalized with the Immigration Act of 1924. Many would say that the Immigration Act of 1924 was the first time that American law would actually regulate immigration, as the law put severe restrictions on who could become a citizen, as well as how many immigrants America would accept each year. Of very important note, the architects behind the Immigration Act of 1924 were Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed.

Congressman Johnson was a Head of the Eugenics Research Association, a group that supported sterilization of people who were mentally disabled, as well as actively opposed interracial marriages. Senator Reed has been criticized by many historians as a racist, as his quotes on immigration included, “...the races of men who have been coming to us in recent years are wholly dissimilar to the native-born Americans,” as well as, “If this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now.”

Many would argue that a great improvement took place with the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which seemed to improve the system of immigration by removing quotas against specific countries, however, quotas still remained against hemispheres, and more importantly, numbers were still set, mostly, on how many immigrants would be allowed in, each year.

In turn, the current immigration system, which relies on a quota-based system, the idea of “getting in line,” was not instituted by the Founding Fathers, but rather, by the isolationist attitudes of Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, their most important sentence, regarding immigration, can be found in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4, as follows: “[The Congress Shall Have The Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States”

In turn, the Founding Fathers kept immigration laws in the hands of contemporary politicians, which brings us to an analysis, in terms of why the Constitution, today, would favor a pathway of citizenship for illegal immigrants, as follows -

The Constitution calls for the establishment of Armed Forces, as noted -

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 12: “[The Congress Shall Have The Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”

And -

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 13: “[The Congress Shall Have The Power] To provide and maintain a Navy”

And -

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15: “[The Congress Shall Have The Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

And -

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 16: “[The Congress Shall Have The Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

Considering the requirements to maintain “Armies,” a “Militia,” and a “Navy,” the Constitution clearly architects a vision of America that boasts robust growth - after all, a country’s ability to field a strong department of Armed Forces is dependent upon positive growth.

Unfortunately, as of 2008, according to the World Bank, the fertility rate within the United States of America is only at 2.1 births per American woman, barely positive enough to keep our population replenished. In turn, without high amounts of immigration, the United States of America is in danger of actually shrinking, not growing.

Under Constitutional Law, America should always field strong “Armies” and a strong “Navy.” Therefore, under Constitutional principle, when America is in danger of shrinking, not growing, aggressive forms of offering citizenship, should be done, for the sake of preserving the Constitutional values of sustaining strong “Armies” and a “Navy.”

For the sake of further discussion, a historical perspective on Senator William Evarts and President Ronald Reagan -

The funds to build the Statue of Liberty were primarily organized by Senator William Evarts of New York. Senator Evarts is credited as one of the prime Founders of the United States Court of Appeals, in addition to serving as the primary, legal counsel, of the Alabama Claims, a tribunal where the United States successfully received settlement funds from the British government, by proving Britain’s assistance towards the Confederacy during the Civil War.

To our best research, it was Senator Evarts who decided to place the words of Emma Lazurus, at the foot of Lady Liberty, which read, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

If our moral code should be influenced by the construction of the Statue of Liberty, its symbolism, as well as Senator Evarts, then clearly, an intelligent form of offering citizenship to all illegal immigrants should be approved.

Of important note, President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in instituting it, himself, by signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

We write these perspectives because, intellect is on the side of this argument - Senator Evarts supported high amounts of immigration and President Reagan supported amnesty.

Let us not forget - the Founding Fathers left immigration in the hands of contemporary politicians, not themselves. In turn, would the Founding Fathers wants us to follow the path of Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed? Or would they prefer that we follow the path of Senator William Evarts and President Ronald Reagan?

Most importantly, in regards to what is the ‘Right Thing To Do,’ denying American citizenship to any group of people is not an American ideal - it is not documented or supported within the Constitution, its Amendments, or within the Declaration of Independence. In addition, the idea that immigrants should “get in line” or “wait their turn” is also, not a Constitutional principle - rather, it is a principle based on the vision of Congressman Johnson and Senator Reed, not the Founding Fathers.

And overall, for the sake of positive growth, high amounts of immigration, in these modern times, should be encouraged - if we are to accord ourselves to the vision of the Founding Fathers, in producing a country that is robust enough to maintain strong “Armies” and a strong “Navy,” then we must give our country a high amount of growth and immigration is the best and most expedient way to do such a thing.

Ultimately, encouraging immigration, in these current times, is the ‘Right Thing To Do,’ in accordance with the vision of the Founding Fathers.

ABOUT THIS GROUP -

Constitutionalists For Gays & Immigrants is privately funded and does not accept contributions.

The Founder of the group is Muhammad Miguel Ali Hasan. Artwork and logo is by Dr Aliya Gull Hasan.

The motivation behind this group is to provide Constitutional reasoning to the issues of Gay Marriage and immigrants, as we encourage all activists to fight for these issues on the basis of Constitutionality, not emotion.