Jerry Brown’s Senate Bill 54, protecting illegal entrants, violates federal law!

[johnwk]

The argument is repeatedly made that local police are under no obligation to enforce Federal Law. But the argument under review is not about “local police” being under an obligation “…to enforce Federal Law.” That argument is an intentional distraction injected into the conversation to avoid what is being argued. What is being argued is political hacks, such as the Governors and Mayors of sanctuary cities being in violation of the law when they order their local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal ICE Agents.


There is an enormous distinction between local political leaders ordering local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents, and local police refusing to cooperate. In this discussion we are talking about the former and not the latter. We are talking about local elected leaders, such as the communist, socialist, progressive Jerry Brown and his Senate Bill 54 which limits local law enforcement officers in their communications with Federal Ice Agents.


And what has the court stated about local elected leaders restricting their law enforcement officers from cooperating with our federal government?


For the answer to this question let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION (http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/091517_Chicagov%20Sessions%20memo%20opinion%20orde r.pdf) dealing with 8 U.S.Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373)



_“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under theTenth Amendment._

Id. at 32.

_The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel sate or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”


_______


Harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing when they instruct local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents.


And what is the definition of harboring? CLICK HERE (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1404412.html) for the Courts’ own words:


”In a later decision, the Second Circuit announced the following test for determining what constitutes shielding, concealing, and harboring under 8 U.S.C. § 1324: “harboring, within the meaning of § 1324, encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his unlawful presence.” United States v. Kim, 193F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir.1977)(stating that proper test is whether charged conduct tended “substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally”) (quotingLopez, 521 F.2d at 441).”


So, as it turns out, when sanctuary city politicians direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents, they have crossed the line and are engaging in the act of harboring.


The bottom line is, our open border crowd is intentionally eengaging in a distraction when talking about local police not being required to enforce federal law. The subject underdiscussion is about local elected politicians ordering local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal Ice Agents ___ an act which falls within the definition of harboring as stated by the Court!

So, when will Jeff Sessions grow a spine, send federal Marshalls into sanctuary cities and arrest, and then prosecute, local elected leaders who engage in the Act of Harboring?


JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

[fisharmor]

Federal immigration law violates the 10th Amendment.
If you write enough words on a single sentence you can eventually make it say the exact opposite of what it actually says.
If uncountable pages of federal law violates the clear meaning of one primordial sentence of federal law, then what is and is not federal law stops mattering.

[johnwk]

Federal immigration law violates the 10th Amendment.
If you write enough words on a single sentence you can eventually make it say the exact opposite of what it actually says.
If uncountable pages of federal law violates the clear meaning of one primordial sentence of federal law, then what is and is not federal law stops mattering.


Your personal opinion is noted. Now, what has the court stated?


''The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under theTenth Amendment._


Id. at 32.

_The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel sate or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.''


_______


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[PierzStyx]

Your personal opinion is noted. Now, what has the court stated?


''The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under theTenth Amendment._


Id. at 32.

_The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel sate or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.''


_______


JWK


So?

You act like the courts justifying the violation of the Constitution somehow makes such a violation acceptable. The truth is the exact opposite. Government only has one purpose, to expand its power. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The Constitution doesn't authorize the US government to regulate the immigration of any group of people except African slaves. The Tenth Amendment forbids the government from having the authority to regulate anything it isn't empowered to do by the Constitution and specifically says that the states or people hold all power not expressly given to the federal government.

This means states have to power to set their own immigration policies and to regulate policing within the state boundaries. any order that compels the state or its police to comply with the federal government is not just immoral, it is unconstitutional. And what should the states do in response to said unconstitutional laws?

"Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits." -Thomas Jefferson, the Kentucky Resolutions

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" -Benjamin Franklin

[johnwk]

So?

You act like the courts justifying the violation of the Constitution somehow makes such a violation acceptable. The truth is the exact opposite. Government only has one purpose, to expand its power. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The Constitution doesn't authorize the US government to regulate the immigration of any group of people except African slaves. The Tenth Amendment forbids the government from having the authority to regulate anything it isn't empowered to do by the Constitution and specifically says that the states or people hold all power not expressly given to the federal government.

This means states have to power to set their own immigration policies ...

Your opinion is noted. But the fact is, Congress is specifically charged with protecting our borders from "invasions". Additionally, Congress may " ... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to protect us against invasions.


JWK

[Swordsmyth]

Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

[fisharmor]

Your opinion is noted. But the fact is, Congress is specifically charged with protecting our borders from "invasions". Additionally, Congress may " ... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to protect us against invasions.


JWK

All you are doing, is the same thing Congress is doing, which is the same thing the courts are doing, which is to write so many words about the Tenth Amendment so as to make it say the exact opposite of what it clearly says.
Therefore this has nothing to do with my opinion. You yourself have shown that I was documenting a fact.

[Swordsmyth]

All you are doing, is the same thing Congress is doing, which is the same thing the courts are doing, which is to write so many words about the Tenth Amendment so as to make it say the exact opposite of what it clearly says.
Therefore this has nothing to do with my opinion. You yourself have shown that I was documenting a fact.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10


<<Back (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html) | Table of Contents (https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am11.html)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.


U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 4
<<Back (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html) | Table of Contents (https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican (https://usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC) Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
<<Back (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) | Table of Contents (https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html)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

[fisharmor]

Does anyone have any relatives who participated in the Normandy campaign?
How shocked were the Germans when the US troops started cutting the grass in France?
I was reading a book about William the Conqueror the other day. It actually contained his taco recipe. Apparently he had to use wagons to sell them though. Trucks didn't exist in 1066.
I go to church with a few Russians. I will have to ask them weather the Afghans in the 1970s were as threatened by having their hotel rooms cleaned as you appear to be

The moral of that story of course is that Invasion doesn't mean what you think it means. When you redefine words to match your political ideology you are no better then leftist communists who do it to exert Federal power over everything under the sun.

[Danke]

Does anyone have any relatives who participated in the Normandy campaign?
How shocked were the Germans when the US troops started cutting the grass in France?
I was reading a book about William the Conqueror the other day. It actually contained his taco recipe. Apparently he had to use wagons to sell them though. Trucks didn't exist in 1066.
I go to church with a few Russians. I will have to ask them weather the Afghans in the 1970s were as threatened by having their hotel rooms cleaned as you appear to be

The moral of that story of course is that Invasion doesn't mean what you think it means. When you redefine words to match your political ideology you are no better then leftist communists who do it to exert Federal power over everything under the sun.


Right, and the second A only covers muskets...

[Swordsmyth]

Definition of invasion

1 : an act of invading (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invading); especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

Definition of invade

invaded; invading transitive verb
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder

2 : to encroach upon : infringe (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe)

3 a : to spread over or into as if invading (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invading) : permeate (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/permeate)

doubts invade his mind


b : to affect injuriously and progressively

gangrene invades healthy tissue



Synonym Discussion of invade

trespass (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass), encroach (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encroach), infringe (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe), invade (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade) mean to make inroads upon the property, territory, or rights of another. trespass (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass) implies an unwarranted or unlawful intrusion.



⟨hunters trespassing on farmland⟩



encroach (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encroach) suggests gradual or stealthy entrance upon another's territory or usurpation of another's rights or possessions.



⟨the encroaching settlers displacing the native peoples⟩



infringe (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe) implies an encroachment clearly violating a right or prerogative.



⟨infringing a copyright⟩



invade (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade) implies a hostile and injurious entry into the territory or sphere of another.



⟨accused of invading their privacy⟩








Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518826-Illegals-commit-crimes-at-double-the-rate-of-native-born-Study)

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180129_madness.jpg

http://www.cryptogon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/picard.jpg

[undergroundrr]

Definition of invasion

1 : an act of invading (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invading); especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

Definition of invade

invaded; invading transitive verb
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder

2 : to encroach upon : infringe (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe)

3 a : to spread over or into as if invading (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invading) : permeate (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/permeate)

doubts invade his mind


b : to affect injuriously and progressively

gangrene invades healthy tissue


[.........]

Instead of trying to make words mean anything you want them to, you may do better consulting an actual legal definition, like Bouvier 1865 instead of a modern dictionary compiled by university liberals.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm

INVASION. The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.

In my view, a trader or laborer is not a public enemy. Your economics may differ.

[Swordsmyth]

Instead of trying to make words mean anything you want them to, you may do better consulting an actual legal definition, like Bouvier 1865 instead of a modern dictionary compiled by university liberals.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm

INVASION. The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.

In my view, a trader or laborer is not a public enemy. Your economics may differ.

Webster's Dictionary 1828
Invasion INVA'SION, noun s as z. [Latin invasio, from invado. See Invade (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Invasion#).]
1. A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force. The north of England and south of Scotland were for centuries subject to invasion each from the other. The invasion of England by William the Norman, was in 1066.
2. An attack on the rights of another; infringement or violation.
3. Attack of a disease; as the invasion of the plague, in Egypt.





Invade INVA'DE, verb transitive [Latin invado; in and vado, to go.]
1. To enter a country, as an army with hostile intentions; to enter as an enemy, with a view to conquest or plunder; to attack. The French armies invaded Holland in 1795. They invaded Russia and perished.
2. To attack; to assail; to assault.
There shall be seditions among men and invading one another. 2 Esdras.
3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate. The king invaded the rights and privileges of the people, and the people invaded the prerogatives of the king.




Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518826-Illegals-commit-crimes-at-double-the-rate-of-native-born-Study)

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180129_madness.jpg

http://www.cryptogon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/picard.jpg



Law breakers are public enemies, they break immigration law so they are public enemies.

Immigration law is provided for in the constitution:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9



<<Back (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) | Table of Contents (https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html)
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

[johnwk]

Instead of trying to make words mean anything you want them to, you may do better consulting an actual legal definition, like Bouvier 1865 instead of a modern dictionary compiled by university liberals.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm

INVASION. The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.

In my view, a trader or laborer is not a public enemy. Your economics may differ.


And you may want to consult the rules of constitutional construction, the most fundamental rule being is to carry out the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Was it the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Constitution to allow a foreign force to flood across the borders of the United States without any form of regulations? And with regard to this question, legislative intent, Mr. Justice Swayne (90 U.S. 380) says the following :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


So, was it the intentions of those who framed and ratified our Constitution to have no federal control over the borders of the United States of America?


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[undergroundrr]

Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518826-Illegals-commit-crimes-at-double-the-rate-of-native-born-Study)

https://www.facebook.com/robert.higgs.568/posts/10156076383334400?pnref=story

[Swordsmyth]

And you may want to consult the rules of constitutional construction, the most fundamental rule being is to carry out the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Was it the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Constitution to allow a foreign force to flood across the borders of the United States without any form of regulations? And with regard to this question, legislative intent, Mr. Justice Swayne (90 U.S. 380) says the following :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


So, was it the intentions of those who framed and ratified our Constitution to have no federal control over the borders of the United States of America?


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28


But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)



In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...or-citizenship (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/28035-switzerland-s-new-immigration-statute-sets-high-hurdle-for-citizenship)

[undergroundrr]

So, was it the intentions of those who framed and ratified our Constitution to have no federal control over the borders of the United States of America?


Their intention was to repel enemies, not to restrict trade.


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


They're made into tax slaves by their government. Keep your eye on the ball.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.facebook.com/robert.higgs.568/posts/10156076383334400?pnref=story

They don't have a right to enter our territory without our permission.

[undergroundrr]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28


But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)


[INDENT] In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.


This is all absolutely gorgeous. And it has absolutely nothing to do with 90% of the anti-immigration rhetoric people are spewing.

[Swordsmyth]

Their intention was to repel enemies, not to restrict trade.


In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...or-citizenship (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/28035-switzerland-s-new-immigration-statute-sets-high-hurdle-for-citizenship)






They're made into tax slaves by their government. Keep your eye on the ball.

And the foreign socialists will come here and make our government even worse.

[undergroundrr]

They don't have a right to enter our territory without our permission.

Do I have the right to invite them onto my property without your permission and house them there?

[Swordsmyth]

Do I have the right to invite them onto my property without your permission and house them there?

Once they comply with OUR rules about entering OUR territory by crossing OUR border you do.

[undergroundrr]

And the foreign socialists will come here and make our government even worse.

Again I concur with Higgs.

"For example, when the anti-immigrationist claims that he wants to keep Mexican migrants out of the USA because such persons, if allowed to enter, will sooner or later act politically in ways that jeopardize his freedoms, he is seeking to act unjustly on the basis of speculations that, even if they should rest on correct predictions about group averages, may not correctly predict any particular individual's actions, In any event, morality pertains to how one treats individuals, not to groups, and preemptive injustices are wrong regardless of the group correlations from which they are derived.

"Besides, it's just silly to suppose that foreigners are the big threats to American liberties. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of U.S. history knows that native-born Americans, in overwhelming part, have been responsible for the destruction of freedoms in the USA -- and no doubt will continue to be so in the future. American collectivists and anti-freedom groups don't need Mexicans to do their dirty work."

[Swordsmyth]

Again I concur with Higgs.

"For example, when the anti-immigrationist claims that he wants to keep Mexican migrants out of the USA because such persons, if allowed to enter, will sooner or later act politically in ways that jeopardize his freedoms, he is seeking to act unjustly on the basis of speculations that, even if they should rest on correct predictions about group averages, may not correctly predict any particular individual's actions, In any event, morality pertains to how one treats individuals, not to groups, and preemptive injustices are wrong regardless of the group correlations from which they are derived.

We have a right to restrict entry into our territory on any basis we choose and politics is a matter of groups so decisions based on groups are not only just but necessary.


"Besides, it's just silly to suppose that foreigners are the big threats to American liberties. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of U.S. history knows that native-born Americans, in overwhelming part, have been responsible for the destruction of freedoms in the USA -- and no doubt will continue to be so in the future. American collectivists and anti-freedom groups don't need Mexicans to do their dirty work."

And we shouldn't give THEM the extra power that a horde of anti-American foreigners will provide.

If your house is on fire because you did something stupid do you let your neighbor spray gasoline on it?

[johnwk]

.

With California being deeply in debt, and its pension fund a ticking time bomb, one needs to ask Jerry Brown how much of California's tax revenue goes to pay for the economic needs of illegal entrants?



Let us take a look at the destructive social and economic consequences in just one county in California inflicted upon its citizens in 1995 when this massive invasion of our borders began to accelerate.


CLICK HERE (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnativeborncitizen.files.wordpress .com%2F2013%2F05%2Fsocietallegaliss00unit1.pdf&ei=DNy9U6uSE8KQyATbqIHADQ&usg=AFQjCNEmdHdMT6W-I380gWQK8fOGRG-Qag&sig2=kdhITFjpabZ5lkQwsxEcrg) and scroll to page 93 for testimony given by JOAN ZINSER before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 13, 1995




Good morning Chairman Smith and other honorable members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I am Joan Zinser, Deputy Director of the San Diego County Department of Social Services. I direct the department's Income Maintenance Bureau, which has responsibility for AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility determinations. I am here today to tell you about the effects of illegal immigration on the County's assistance programs, and to present information regarding impacts on other county-funded services.




Impacts on San Diego County


In 1993, illegal aliens in San Diego County were estimated to be 7.9% of the population, or a total of almost 220,000 illegal aliens in a county with a population of slightly over 2 1/2 million. A 1993 Calffornia State Senate report estimated that the State, local governments - primarily the County - and schools incurred $304 million in costs to provide services to illegal aliens. These costs were offset by only $60 million in taxes generated by illegal aliens - leaving a net impact of $244 million.


Welfare Costs.


When a child is a US citizen, AFDC can be granted for the child but not the parent, if the parent is an undocumented immigrant. In 1992 there were 6,414 children born to undocumented immigrant parents in San Diego County hospitals. Each year, the illegal alien parents of nearly 2000 "citizen children" apply for and receive AFDC in San Diego County. The cumulative total of these "citizen child" cases continues to rise each year.

Public assistance is intended to support the citizen child, but is paid to the illegal alien parent and is, no doubt, used by the parent to support the entire family. Costs for providing AFDC to "citizen children" cases in San Diego totaled $37 million in 1993 for approximately 5430 AFDC cases.

Additional costs are incurred in Child Welfare Services. Combining costs for Out-of-Home and Family Maintenance services to families of illegal aliens results in an additional cost of $1.7 million.


Medicaid and Other Health-Related- Costs.


Medicaid services are an increasingly large portion of the costs involved in illegal immigration. In 1992, Medicaid paid for 6,414 births illegal alien mothers. Although studies have shown that illegal aliens use fewer Medicaid services than do the age-equivalent members of the general population, significant costs remain. Delivery costs are greater for babies with mothers lacking adequate prenatal care and many medical conditions are treated more cost-effectively in their early stages. Infectious diseases are also a major concern of the County. San Diego County has historically carried large costs because of illegal aliens with these problems. Costs associated with providing emergency and pregnancy related needs to illegal aliens are paid for under "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." During the 1992 calendar year, an estimated $37 million was paid for "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." Other costs, including uncompensated care in hospitals, community clinics, and other health services elevated the 1993 total costs to over $50 million.


Criminal justice.

A recent 90-day pilot project involved having INS Agents present in the county jails to interview those suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Approximately 20% of the persons booked into the jails during that pilot were identified as being illegal aliens. With annual bookings of approximatel 105,000 persons a year, it is estimated that up to 21,000 were illegal aliens.

According to the San Diego County District Attorney, 8,521 felony crimes were committed by illegal aliens between 1987 and 1992. Illegal aliens commit an estimated 22% of felony crimes committed in the county. The number of misdemeanors committed during the same period in San Diego County by illegal aliens is estimated to be 17,000. In 1993, approximately 15. 1 % of the costs -accrued in dealing with crimes were spent on illegal aliens. Costs for illegal aliens to the legal system totaled $151 million in the County of San Diego for 1993.


Education.


Recently, a video of students crossing the border and getting on a school bus in San Diego County in order to receive free education was shown nationwide. Locally, we have worked to make sure that this situation does not recur, but education of the children of illegal aliens is also a significant CDSt. It is estimated that $60 million was spent in San Diego County in 1993 for education of illegal aliens.
________


And, more recently see:



Illegal aliens cost California billions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/6/20041206-102115-6766r/)


2004


”Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.”



JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[johnwk]

In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:


In addition, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

[fisharmor]

Right, and the second A only covers muskets...

Does it use the word 'muskets'? Because if it did I would expect it to cover muskets.
As it is, it uses the word 'arms' which does, by its dictionary definition, cover today's weapons.

BTW everyone I'm personally willing to help any and all of your with your horrible vocabulary issues.

[fisharmor]

Was it the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Constitution to allow a foreign force to flood across the borders of the United States without any form of regulations?
The clear meaning AND intent of the amendment I keep quoting, which you've apparently never actually read, was to bar the federal government from having a say in the matter unless and until the constitution was explicitly amended to allow it to do so.

[johnwk]

The clear meaning AND intent of the amendment I keep quoting, which you've apparently never actually read, was to bar the federal government from having a say in the matter unless and until the constitution was explicitly amended to allow it to do so.


:rolleyes:

JWK

[undergroundrr]

decisions based on groups are not only just but necessary.



I’d love for some others to corroborate you. Would anybody else besides Swordsmyth here like to argue that social justice is valid and necessary?

I utterly despise and reject the concept. Yet your entire argument hinges on it.

[nikcers]

I’d love for some others to corroborate you. Would anybody else besides Swordsmyth here like to argue that social justice is valid and necessary?

I utterly despise and reject the concept. Yet your entire argument hinges on it.

There's a good reason why they make sure we don't know who the enemy really is. They make us blame each other, blame democrats, blame immigrants, blame terrorists, blame Russia, blame China


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
-Sun Tzu

[Danke]

Does it use the word 'muskets'? Because if it did I would expect it to cover muskets.
As it is, it uses the word 'arms' which does, by its dictionary definition, cover today's weapons.

BTW everyone I'm personally willing to help any and all of your with your horrible vocabulary issues.

lol.

[Swordsmyth]

I’d love for some others to corroborate you. Would anybody else besides Swordsmyth here like to argue that social justice is valid and necessary?

I utterly despise and reject the concept. Yet your entire argument hinges on it.

Nice try at taking me out of context, I said nothing about "social justice", the full quote in context is as follows:


We have a right to restrict entry into our territory on any basis we choose and politics is a matter of groups so decisions based on groups are not only just but necessary.

Letting more than a certain number of people from socialist or communist countries into our republic where they will eventually be allowed to vote is not only national suicide and the death knell of liberty but also a violation of the rights of the current voters to control the destiny of the nation, if the current voters vote for it then it is valid but none the less suicide but fortunately the current electorate is dead set against it.

You anarchists are quite insane, not only do you pretend that government isn't inevitable but you also pretend that it doesn't exist when discussing topics like this and you pretend that the immigrants from statist countries wouldn't use government to violate the current citizens' rights and wouldn't force government on your anarchist society even if government didn't exist.

[undergroundrr]

Nice try at taking me out of context, I said nothing about "social justice", the full quote in context is as follows:

Adding more words to the front and back doesn't change the context AT ALL. "Social justice" isn't something that only happens when somebody flies a BLM flag or wants special treatment in the workplace. Political decisions based on groups are not just. Ever. There is no justice for groups or rights for groups. Justice and rights only apply to individuals. They apply equally to all individuals. Abandoning this conviction means stepping right into the deep and devouring pool of collectivism, which is invariably misery-dealing whether it comes from the "right" or the "left."

Give this a read:


4"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.

But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.

I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

Now go back and read it again. Do they say anything about excluding some kind of people in terms of the political makeup of their country, IQ or anything other than individual virtue or worthiness? It's 180 degrees from when you're arguing about importing communists. You are not a member of the political faction of Madison and Jefferson.

Regardless of social science statistics, the only thing one can conclude about somebody from the words "immigrant" or "illegal immigrant" is that he came from outside the country. If he came from a communist country, it doesn't mean he's a communist or even likely to be a communist. If he came from a country where rape is more prevalent, it doesn't mean he's a rapist or even likely to be a rapist.

If he came from a shithole country, by definition he sought something better and comes with massive impetus to be productive. It could be a reason why Nigerian immigrants make more than white Americans here.


Letting more than a certain number of people from socialist or communist countries into our republic where they will eventually be allowed to vote is not only national suicide and the death knell of liberty but also a violation of the rights of the current voters to control the destiny of the nation, if the current voters vote for it then it is valid but none the less suicide but fortunately the current electorate is dead set against it.

You anarchists are quite insane, not only do you pretend that government isn't inevitable but you also pretend that it doesn't exist when discussing topics like this and you pretend that the immigrants from statist countries wouldn't use government to violate the current citizens' rights and wouldn't force government on your anarchist society even if government didn't exist.

Your definition of anarchist is even more elaborate and full of extraneous suppositions than your definition of immigrant. An anarchist is the most severe kind of realist, knowing that giving the state more power will never result in more freedom. YOU are the purist, shaping your worldview around a ridiculous collectivist premise. And trying to get Madison and Jefferson to agree with you from the grave is just sad.

You want more state to achieve less immigrants, thinking it will result in you having more... income? freedom? safety?

An anarchist is a conservative who just wants less state, and generally couldn't care if there's more or less immigration. Having said that, increased immigration from all areas is a positive indicator. Venezuela? Well, I guess you might want to move there if you're from Columbia.

And you must tell me more about the "rights of the current voters to control the destiny of the nation." Or well, maybe not.

[Swordsmyth]

Adding more words to the front and back doesn't change the context AT ALL. "Social justice" isn't something that only happens when somebody flies a BLM flag or wants special treatment in the workplace. Political decisions based on groups are not just. Ever. There is no justice for groups or rights for groups. Justice and rights only apply to individuals. They apply equally to all individuals. Abandoning this conviction means stepping right into the deep and devouring pool of collectivism, which is invariably misery-dealing whether it comes from the "right" or the "left."

Give this a read:



Now go back and read it again. Do they say anything about excluding some kind of people in terms of the political makeup of their country, IQ or anything other than individual virtue or worthiness? It's 180 degrees from when you're arguing about importing communists. You are not a member of the political faction of Madison and Jefferson.

Regardless of social science statistics, the only thing one can conclude about somebody from the words "immigrant" or "illegal immigrant" is that he came from outside the country. If he came from a communist country, it doesn't mean he's a communist or even likely to be a communist. If he came from a country where rape is more prevalent, it doesn't mean he's a rapist or even likely to be a rapist.

If he came from a $#@!hole country, by definition he sought something better and comes with massive impetus to be productive. It could be a reason why Nigerian immigrants make more than white Americans here.



Your definition of anarchist is even more elaborate and full of extraneous suppositions than your definition of immigrant. An anarchist is the most severe kind of realist, knowing that giving the state more power will never result in more freedom. YOU are the purist, shaping your worldview around a ridiculous collectivist premise. And trying to get Madison and Jefferson to agree with you from the grave is just sad.

You want more state to achieve less immigrants, thinking it will result in you having more... income? freedom? safety?

An anarchist is a conservative who just wants less state, and generally couldn't care if there's more or less immigration. Having said that, increased immigration from all areas is a positive indicator. Venezuela? Well, I guess you might want to move there if you're from Columbia.

And you must tell me more about the "rights of the current voters to control the destiny of the nation." Or well, maybe not.

The founders were speaking of abstract ideals, once you choose your ideals you must then figure out how to apply them in the real world with the limitations that humans have.

Show me a way to scan an applicant's mind and see if he is liberty oriented or not and we can follow the ideal of not excluding a single person of good fame.

Until then any immigrants we let in are going to reflect the politics and culture of their home countries which means we can only let so many in at once and still be able to retain our liberty and assimilate the newcomers into our culture and politics.

This country belongs to us and nobody else has a "right" to come here, we have a right to limit immigration to preserve what we and our forefathers built.

Freedom creates prosperity, prosperity attracts leeches, then leeches destroy freedom.
The only way to break the cycle and preserve freedom is to put up a fence and limit immigration to a low enough percentage of the population that it doesn't overwhelm the current political culture's ability to maintain freedom and assimilate the immigrants.

[Wooden Indian]

I'm just gonna go RPF Old-school on y'all and suggest "we" control unsavory immigration by increasing financial freedom... End. Handouts. Crazy, huh?

But yeah, increasing government usually leads to less government, so... yeah... your way works too. Totally. Never fails.

Being a native of Sarcasticania, my native tongue, much like my homeland, is rich and wondrous!

[Swordsmyth]

I'm just gonna go RPF Old-school on y'all and suggest "we" control unsavory immigration by increasing financial freedom... End. Handouts. Crazy, huh?

But yeah, increasing government usually leads to less government, so... yeah... your way works too. Totally. Never fails.

Being a native of Sarcasticania, my native tongue, much like my homeland, is rich and wondrous!

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=deskbar&q=site%3Alewrockwell.com+ron+paul+federal) but I do think it is a federal responsibility (http://www.vdare.com/archives/2007/09/06/republican-debate-giuliani-claims-his-sanctuary-policies-were-in-response-to-federal-failure/)to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty (http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty)

[Wooden Indian]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/september/05/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem/

"Trump was right that the media ignore legitimate questions we have on our immigration policy and he is right that special interests have a great interest in maintaining the status quo.

However when it comes to really solving the immigration problem he gets it all wrong. And instead of making us more free and prosperous, his solutions will accelerate our downward slide toward authoritarianism.

First let’s consider his idea of building a big wall between the US and Mexico. It is said that all one needs to get over an eight foot fence is a nine foot ladder. Or perhaps a shovel. So walls are never very good at keeping people out. But they are very good at keeping people in. Just ask the East Germans. The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East Berlin would try to get out. We have all seen the horrific videos of East German civilians risking – and losing – their lives to escape that prison of razor wire and cinder block.

Is this really what we want for our own future?*

What a wild conspiracy theory, some may claim. The wall would never be meant to keep us from leaving. Well ask the IRS. Under a tax enforcement provision passed in 2015, the US government claimed the right to cancel any American citizen’s passport if Washington claims it is owed money.*

Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?

The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple."

-Ron Paul

[Wooden Indian]

Now since I official won my imaginary RP Quote War, let me say that I personally am not a fan of immigration. Not only do I not like most foreign cultures, I flat out admit to really not liking Mexicans. I don't. Sue me.

That said, my feelings and emotions, should not make law.

So, let em in... but if one more sparsely mustached asshole in a western shirt and cowboy boots stands in the middle of the aisle with his 14 kids and fat wife, so help me God...

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/september/05/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem/

"Trump was right that the media ignore legitimate questions we have on our immigration policy and he is right that special interests have a great interest in maintaining the status quo.

However when it comes to really solving the immigration problem he gets it all wrong. And instead of making us more free and prosperous, his solutions will accelerate our downward slide toward authoritarianism.

First let’s consider his idea of building a big wall between the US and Mexico. It is said that all one needs to get over an eight foot fence is a nine foot ladder. Or perhaps a shovel. So walls are never very good at keeping people out. But they are very good at keeping people in. Just ask the East Germans. The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East Berlin would try to get out. We have all seen the horrific videos of East German civilians risking – and losing – their lives to escape that prison of razor wire and cinder block.

Is this really what we want for our own future?*

What a wild conspiracy theory, some may claim. The wall would never be meant to keep us from leaving. Well ask the IRS. Under a tax enforcement provision passed in 2015, the US government claimed the right to cancel any American citizen’s passport if Washington claims it is owed money.*

Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?

The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple."

-Ron Paul


Now since I official won my imaginary RP Quote War, let me say that I personally am not a fan of immigration. Not only do I not like most foreign cultures, I flat out admit to really not liking Mexicans. I don't. Sue me.

That said, my feelings and emotions, should not make law.

So, let em in... but if one more sparsely mustached $#@! in a western shirt and cowboy boots stands in the middle of the aisle with his 14 kids and fat wife, so help me God...

You didn't win, nothing in what you quoted disavows legitimate immigration controls or enforcement.

[timosman]

Why is the government allowed to dole money out to non-citizens and constantly rake in debt?:cool:

[Swordsmyth]

Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders (http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-future-that-works-despite-dubya-illegal-immigration-can-be-controlled)and get rid of some incentives for illegals. (http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-by-edwin-s-rubenstein-307)...Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty (http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty)

[Swordsmyth]

Why is the government allowed to dole money out to non-citizens and constantly rake in debt?:cool:

The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.

[Wooden Indian]

You didn't win...

Oh, c'mon, I did, and it's okay.

Look, did I stumble in here on my phone, half asleep, needing to be up for work in a few hours, mostly uninterested in this debate, and deliver a crushing 10,000 word RP quote on ya? Yes.

Does it prove unequivocally that I am intellectually superior to all men? Likely.

But, my favorite thing about me is my humility. I'm a humble and generous soul.
Probably 1000 times more humble than you, actually.

😜

[TheCount]

Nice try at taking me out of context, I said nothing about "social justice", the full quote in context is as follows: Pretty rich, when you're taking Jefferson out of context. Doesn't stop you from pasting the same quotes into every thread you can find.

[Anti Federalist]

I have no problem with this at all.

The more states that tell the feds to fuck off, the better, even if they are doing so for stupid and self destructive reasons, as is Kalifornia in this case.

#CALEXIT

This makes it much easier for a state of people with their heads screwed on straight to tell the feds to fuck off with their gun laws, or tax extortion, or their green Nazism.

[timosman]

I’d love for some others to corroborate you. Would anybody else besides Swordsmyth here like to argue that social justice is valid and necessary?

I utterly despise and reject the concept. Yet your entire argument hinges on it.

Are we allowed to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens or is this a no-no?:cool:

[johnwk]

This is all absolutely gorgeous. And it has absolutely nothing to do with 90% of the anti-immigration rhetoric people are spewing.



Stop with your false narratives! There is a vast distinction between "anti-immigration" and anti-illegal immigration. Why are you willing to make hard working American citizens living in our nation's inner cites, some of whom are working two and three jobs to improve their station in life, tax slaves to support the economic needs of millions of foreigners who have broken our laws and invaded America's borders? Why do you hate black American citizens.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[undergroundrr]

Stop with your false narratives! There is a vast distinction between "anti-immigration" and anti-illegal immigration.


Hey Swordsmyth, johnwk here is okay with immigrant invaders turning America communist as long as they're LEGAL immigrants.

[Ender]

I have no problem with this at all.

The more states that tell the feds to $#@! off, the better, even if they are doing so for stupid and self destructive reasons, as is Kalifornia in this case.

#CALEXIT

This makes it much easier for a state of people with their heads screwed on straight to tell the feds to $#@! off with their gun laws, or tax extortion, or their green Nazism.

Exactly.

And, I'd advise everyone to read DamianTV's thread on the Grassroots forum with RP warning how the National ID is quietly tucked into the Immigration Bill.

'Police state' National ID Card Tucked In Immigration Bill
http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/police-st...in-major-bill/

[johnwk]

Stop with your false narratives! There is a vast distinction between "anti-immigration" and anti-illegal immigration. Why are you willing to make hard working American citizens living in our nation's inner cites, some of whom are working two and three jobs to improve their station in life, tax slaves to support the economic needs of millions of foreigners who have broken our laws and invaded America's borders? Why do you hate black American citizens?


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.





Hey Swordsmyth, johnwk here is okay with immigrant invaders turning America communist as long as they're LEGAL immigrants.

You never answered why you hate Black American citizens who are taxed to finance the economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America's borders?


JWK

[Swordsmyth]

Pretty rich, when you're taking Jefferson out of context. Doesn't stop you from pasting the same quotes into every thread you can find.

It is perfectly in context.

[Swordsmyth]

Hey Swordsmyth, johnwk here is okay with immigrant invaders turning America communist as long as they're LEGAL immigrants.

He didn't say how many legal immigrants he believes we should allow.

You just can't stop taking people out of context can you?

[Swordsmyth]

I have no problem with this at all.

The more states that tell the feds to $#@! off, the better, even if they are doing so for stupid and self destructive reasons, as is Kalifornia in this case.

#CALEXIT

This makes it much easier for a state of people with their heads screwed on straight to tell the feds to $#@! off with their gun laws, or tax extortion, or their green Nazism.

Unless they go ahead with CALExit this is only bad, besides the damage that the illegals do to our society they WILL lose to the feds on this issue and that will take the wind out of the sails of legitimate nullification movements all over the country.

[johnwk]

Why is the government allowed to dole money out to non-citizens and constantly rake in debt?:cool:


You just can’t make up the crap which happens in California!


In dealing with a deficit, it is absolutely stunning that Jerry Brown is in court trying to renege on pension benefits promised to current state workers, while he has had almost $50 million added to California’s state budget to assist legal and illegal entrants.


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

[TheCount]

It is perfectly in context.its about citizen warmongers and has nothing to do with immigrants.

[Swordsmyth]

its about citizen warmongers and has nothing to do with immigrants.

It is about people who were going to secede and would therefore be immigrants if they tried to move into the remains of the country.

[TheCount]

It is about people who were going to secede and would therefore be immigrants if they tried to move into the remains of the country.
That's the exact opposite of what the letter actually says.

[Swordsmyth]

That's the exact opposite of what the letter actually says.

No it isn't.

[Zippyjuan]

You just can’t make up the crap which happens in California!


In dealing with a deficit, it is absolutely stunning that Jerry Brown is in court trying to renege on pension benefits promised to current state workers, while he has had almost $50 million added to California’s state budget to assist legal and illegal entrants.


JWK



http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201


The 12-term Texas congressman spent the better part of a 25-minute address thinking aloud about the thorny subject. He talked about how Americans are more accepting of outsiders when the economy is good, but when trouble looms there is a search for scapegoats.

"I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

"Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."

[timosman]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201

C'mon Zippy, bring us something fresh.

[Zippyjuan]

C'mon Zippy, bring us something fresh.

Thank you for your informative contribution to the discussion.

[timosman]

Thank you for your informative contribution to the discussion.

I said fresh. :cool:

[johnwk]

You just can’t make up the crap which happens in California!


In dealing with a deficit, it is absolutely stunning that Jerry Brown is in court trying to renege on pension benefits promised to current state workers, while he has had almost $50 million added to California’s state budget to assist legal and illegal entrants.


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.




http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201

What does that have to do with what you quoted? ZIP !


As is usually the case with you, you add nothing to the discussion nor address what you quote. Have you ever had an original thought and be able to put it into your own words?


JWK




The unavoidable truth is, our social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[PierzStyx]

Your opinion is noted. But the fact is, Congress is specifically charged with protecting our borders from "invasions". Additionally, Congress may " ... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to protect us against invasions.


JWK

You know that equating immigration and invasion doesn't make you seem logical, right? It only makes you look ignorant, maybe even intentionally dumb.

And misquoting the Constitution to further your argument only drive the ignorance issue home. For example, to more fully quote the Necessary and Proper Clause:


The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States

The only powers the Congress has are to make laws in accordance with the powers given to it only. And the Tenth Amendment says that any power not given to the federal government is reserved to the states or people a sthe people are the source of all government power.


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.

That would include immigration as it is not a power delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution. No matter what the "law" says.

[PierzStyx]

Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

I would wonder if being consistently wrong would be embarrassing for you. But those who insist on being wrong are probably incapable of being embarrassed by their error.

I do this mostly so others won't be lead into error by your preponderance of lies.

Article 1, Section 9 has nothing to do with immigration. It is all about slavery and the slave trade.


A1 S9 Text: 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."

The context:


The Slave Trade Clause
By Gordon Lloyd and Jenny S. Martinez

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, is one of a handful of provisions in the original Constitution related to slavery, though it does not use the word “slave.” This Clause prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of “persons” (understood at the time to mean primarily enslaved African persons) where the existing state governments saw fit to allow it, until some twenty years after the Constitution took effect. It was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states where the abolition of slavery had been accomplished or was contemplated.

There is a sense in which the Clause is no longer constitutionally relevant since it expired in 1808. At the time the Constitution was adopted, there was no guarantee whether or when the federal Congress would act to prohibit the importation of slaves. So there is a legitimate inquiry about what took place in the political realm over the 20-year period between the adoption of the Constitution and 1808. During that time period, popular support for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself increased both in the United States and in other countries. There was more support for restricting the slave trade initially than slavery itself in this time period. In the 1790s, Congress passed statutes regulating the trade in slaves by U.S. ships on the high seas. The United Kingdom and other countries also passed legislation restricting the slave trade, increasing international pressure on the United States to likewise curb the practice.

In December 1806, President Thomas Jefferson’s annual message to Congress anticipated the upcoming expiration of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. His message said, “I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe.” Does it seem odd that a slave owner was supporting this legislation?

In 1807, the U.S. Congress passed a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves as of the first constitutionally-allowable moment of January 1, 1808. This act was signed by President Jefferson and entered into force in 1808, rendering this part of the Constitution irrelevant except as a historical curiosity.

This in itself is a fascinating exception to constitutional change, in which a provision came with a built-in expiration date, after which the powers of the federal government would no longer be restricted. Note also that the Clause itself does not grant Congress the power to restrict the slave trade, but Congress presumably used the foreign and interstate commerce powers it had been given in Article 1, Section 8, to do so.

In an important sense, there is a settled meaning of the Clause: it is no longer relevant in the same sense, for example, that the First Amendment is still constitutionally relevant. But the Clause, although constitutionally inoperative for over 200 years, still remains there for all to see and read. It is in the Constitution. And so the Clause, in a larger sense, has a continuing cultural and political constitutional relevance in the discourse of the morality and profitability of the international trade in human beings.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/the-slave-trade-clause-lloyd-martinez/clause/43




The final text of the slave trade provision was designed to disguise what the Convention had done. The clause read: "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."

It is important to understand that the clause did not require an end to the trade in 1808. Moreover, it reflected the assumption, held by almost everyone at the Convention, that the Deep South would grow faster than the rest of the nation, and that by 1808 the states that most wanted to continue the trade would have enough political power, and enough allies, to prevent an end to it. Ending the trade would require that a bill pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president. That process would give the supporters of the trade three opportunities to stop such a bill.

The slave trade provision was a significant factor in the debates over ratification, but its impact was complicated. Opponents of the Constitution, in both the North and the South, roundly condemned the clause. On the other hand, supporters of the Constitution–even those who were ambivalent or hostile to slavery–praised it.

Northern supporters of the Constitution were at a rhetorical disadvantage in this debate, but they nevertheless had to engage the issue. They developed two tactics. The first, best put forth by James Wilson of Pennsylvania, was intellectually dishonest but politically shrewd. He argued that the slave trade clause would in fact allow for the end of slavery itself. In speeches he made the subtle shift from the "trade" to slavery, and since most of his listeners were not as legally sophisticated as Wilson, he was able to fudge the issue. Thus, Wilson told the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that after "the lapse of a few years... Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders."

Since Wilson attended all the debates over this clause, it is impossible to accept this statement as his understanding of the slave trade clause. More likely, he simply made this argument to win support for the Constitution. Supporters in Massachusetts and New Hampshire made similar arguments. In New Hampshire, a supporter of the Constitution also argued that the slave trade clause gave Congress the power to end slavery. A more sophisticated response to the trade was to note that, without the Constitution, the states could keep the trade open indefinitely because the Congress under the Articles of Confederation had no power to regulate commerce, but under the Constitution it would be possible, in just twenty years, to end the international slave trade. These arguments led northerners to believe that the Constitution required an end to the trade after 1808, when in fact it did not.

Upper South supporters of the Constitution, such as James Madison, also made the argument that a ban on the trade was impossible under the Articles, and thus the Constitution, even if imperfect, was still a good bargain. Deep South supporters, like General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, simply bragged that they had won a great victory–as indeed they had–in protecting the trade for at least twenty years. In summing up the entire Constitution, Pinckney, who had been one of the ablest defenders of slavery at the Convention, proudly told the South Carolina House of Representatives: "In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but on the whole, I do not think them bad."

http://abolition.nypl.org/essays/us_constitution/3/





Clause 1. 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.

This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years.


https://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-9.html


Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808.

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-9


Clause 1: Importation of Slaves

"Clause 1: 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."

Explanation: This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.

https://www.thoughtco.com/constitution-article-i-section-9-3322344


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

Clause 1 [Explained]: The slave trade cannot be banned by Congress until at least 1808, but a tax of up to $10 can be put on imported slaves.

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-01-section-09/

[johnwk]

You know that equating immigration and invasion doesn't make you seem logical, right? It only makes you look ignorant, maybe even intentionally dumb.



:rolleyes:

When we are talking about 10-20 million foreigners entering the borders of the United States without our permission, that, my friend, is reasonably described as an INVASION, and Congress is charged with repelling "Invasions".


JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

[PierzStyx]

:rolleyes:

When we are talking about 10-20 million foreigners entering the borders of the United States without our permission, that, my friend, is reasonably described as an INVASION, and Congress is charged with protecting the United States from "Invasions".


JWK



No, it is not. Whether 1 person or 100 million people, immigration is not invasion. Numbers are completely irrelevant to the issue. You're committing a false equivalence fallacy.

If those ten million people are not members of an enemy military in active warfare with the USA then it isn't an invasion. And no matter of Orwellian doublespeak on your part where you intentionally alter the meaning of words in order to expand the power of the centralized state will change that. All it does do is reveal you as a Progressive who is the enemy of the US Constitution and an enemy of liberty and therefore of the people of the USA.

But since you insist on Socialism, if this is "our" nation then I have equal right to invite whomsoever I want into it. And I invite everyone because I believe in individual liberty and free markets. So there, problem solved.

Not that there is an "our" to begin with. At no time has the US ever had the cultural, lingual, racial, or ethnic homogeneity of any other country in history.

[timosman]

No, it is not. Whether 1 person or 100 million people, immigration is not invasion.

M'kay. I hope your butthole has the same capacity.:cool:

[PierzStyx]

M'kay. I hope your butthole has the same capacity.:cool:

Well, by the time Trump and his ilk are done with us, all of us are going to anal raped -either figuratively as we are stripped of more liberty but also quite literally as he expands the police state.

[undergroundrr]

M'kay. I hope your butthole has the same capacity.:cool:

-rep

Wow. I'm used to your pointless interjections polluting substantive discussion. But c'mon.

On the other hand, I guess it's an apt metaphor for what you and the worst of the trumpies have done to what JoshLowry, Bryan, and really Ron Paul himself built here.

[timosman]

-rep

Wow. I'm used to your pointless interjections polluting substantive discussion. But c'mon.

On the other hand, I guess it's an apt metaphor for what you and the worst of the trumpies have done to what JoshLowry, Bryan, and really Ron Paul himself built here.

Thank you for keeping the spirit of the site alive even if you misrepresent Ron Paul's positions.

[Swordsmyth]

I would wonder if being consistently wrong would be embarrassing for you. But those who insist on being wrong are probably incapable of being embarrassed by their error.

I do this mostly so others won't be lead into error by your preponderance of lies.

Article 1, Section 9 has nothing to do with immigration. It is all about slavery and the slave trade.



The context:
In order to give Congress the power to ban the slave trade without recognizing slaves as property they gave Congress the power to ban " The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit"

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...or-citizenship (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/28035-switzerland-s-new-immigration-statute-sets-high-hurdle-for-citizenship)



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by johnwk http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6581053#post6581053)

In addition, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=deskbar&q=site%3Alewrockwell.com+ron+paul+federal) but I do think it is a federal responsibility (http://www.vdare.com/archives/2007/09/06/republican-debate-giuliani-claims-his-sanctuary-policies-were-in-response-to-federal-failure/)to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty (http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty)


Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders (http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-future-that-works-despite-dubya-illegal-immigration-can-be-controlled)and get rid of some incentives for illegals. (http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-by-edwin-s-rubenstein-307)...Ron Paul

More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:





"It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possi- ble in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.








"Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of abso- lute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)



Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:





"They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)



There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that, to every liberal law, there were some reasonable limits.
We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom seekers to come, but without "extraordinary encouragements." (5)
What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of "free" food, "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards? It is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary. Jefferson would have proposed something better--a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the blessings of liberty to those who desired it, and conservative in its eco- nomic and political common sense.
Footnotes:
1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338.
2. Ibid., pgs. 338-339.
3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
4. Ibid., p. 121. 5. Ibid.



More at: http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is2...security.shtml



“The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.” (https://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/353951/thomas-jefferson/the-first-consideration-in-immigration-is-the-welfare)

Thomas Jefferson (https://www.quotesdaddy.com/author/Thomas+Jefferson)







No, it is not. Whether 1 person or 100 million people, immigration is not invasion. Numbers are completely irrelevant to the issue. You're committing a false equivalence fallacy.



If those ten million people are not members of an enemy military in active warfare with the USA then it isn't an invasion. And no matter of Orwellian doublespeak on your part where you intentionally alter the meaning of words in order to expand the power of the centralized state will change that. All it does do is reveal you as a Progressive who is the enemy of the US Constitution and an enemy of liberty and therefore of the people of the USA.

But since you insist on Socialism, if this is "our" nation then I have equal right to invite whomsoever I want into it. And I invite everyone because I believe in individual liberty and free markets. So there, problem solved.

Not that there is an "our" to begin with. At no time has the US ever had the cultural, lingual, racial, or ethnic homogeneity of any other country in history.

People who violate our laws and enter our territory against our will are invaders.

[timosman]

Let's have a debate on open borders again. We haven't had enough of those. Not all trolls are on our side yet. :cool:

[johnwk]

No, it is not.

Thank you for your opinion


JWK

[johnwk]

In order to give Congress the power to ban the slave trade without recognizing slaves as property they gave Congress the power to ban " The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit"



Quoting our written Constitution only hurts their heads when they try to figuring out how to spin its text. A suggestion: you may want to use the word "regulate" rather than "ban", or use "ban/regulate".



JWK

[Swordsmyth]

Quoting our written Constitution only hurts their heads when they try to figuring out how to spin its text.


JWK

They much prefer modern scholars' "interpretations".

[euphemia]

The bad thing about California is that they refuse to designate either citizen or non-citizen on driver's licenses, and they have an automatic "motor voter" provision where applicants for a drivers license are automatically registered to vote.

[johnwk]

They much prefer modern scholars' "interpretations".

What they believe in is a rubber ruler so they may stretch the constitution to accommodate their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice,

JWK




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[undergroundrr]

What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of "free" food, "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards?

The same thing I and everybody else on RPF thinks. No handouts. You're straw manning. Or whoever wrote that is. And they quoted Jefferson out of context.

Read further instead or relying on cherry picked agenda bon-bons from vdare - "If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship; but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements."

Maybe you never got to that part. Thomas Jefferson has the same opinion as me and everybody else who's realistic and reasonable on immigration.

And then it's really interesting what he says about "useful artificers."

"The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them."

It almost sounds like he wants the gov. of Pennsylvania to give them incentives. I would disagree with Jefferson on that.

[Swordsmyth]

What they believe in is a rubber ruler so they may stretch the constitution to accommodate their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice,

JWK




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



Anything it takes to flood us with barbarians to bring an end to the Constitution once and for all while giving them cheap labor.

[timosman]

What they believe in is a rubber ruler so they may stretch the constitution to accommodate their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice,

They flipped on this issue in the last 20 years. They are simply poverty pimps. We need more mouths not being able to feed themselves so we can be helping them. You taxpayers bend over and watch us. How does it feel? :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

The same thing I and everybody else on RPF thinks. No handouts. You're straw manning. Or whoever wrote that is. And they quoted Jefferson out of context.

Read further instead or relying on cherry picked agenda bon-bons from vdare - "If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship; but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements."

Maybe you never got to that part. Thomas Jefferson has the same opinion as me and everybody else who's realistic and reasonable on immigration.

And then it's really interesting what he says about "useful artificers."

"The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them."

It almost sounds like he wants the gov. of Pennsylvania to give them incentives. I would disagree with Jefferson on that.

He doesn't address the question of requiring them to follow our rules to come here in that quote but he was concerned about unlimited immigration's hazards:




“The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.” (https://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/353951/thomas-jefferson/the-first-consideration-in-immigration-is-the-welfare)

Thomas Jefferson (https://www.quotesdaddy.com/author/Thomas+Jefferson)

[undergroundrr]

He doesn't address the question of requiring them to follow our rules to come here in that quote but he was concerned about unlimited immigration's hazards:




“The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.” (https://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/353951/thomas-jefferson/the-first-consideration-in-immigration-is-the-welfare)

Thomas Jefferson (https://www.quotesdaddy.com/author/Thomas+Jefferson)


Not a Jefferson quote.

[Swordsmyth]

That's charlatanry. You show me where Jefferson wrote those words. Vocabulary... construction... I defy you to establish that those are the words of Thomas Jefferson. That's just making up crap Jefferson didn't write. You're a charlatan. Hey, let's just MAKE UP some Jefferson 'cos immigrants bad. Gawwww. As Dishwasher Don would say: zero credibiility.

In fact, find me an instance of Jefferson using the word "influx" in writings that have nothing to do with the physical movement of liquids.

Thomas Jefferson has several thoughts in his book “Notes on the State of Virginia”:

The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2015/12/09/obama-does-not-understand-immigration-and-the-constitution-n2091584

[euphemia]

What is really funny is that when I was little and living in California, you couldn't cross the border from Arizona into California with so much as a bunch of grapes. We had relatives in Arizona, and coming or going we had to eat the fruit before we reached the border or the border guards would confiscate it.

[undergroundrr]

Thomas Jefferson has several thoughts in his book “Notes on the State of Virginia”:

The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2015/12/09/obama-does-not-understand-immigration-and-the-constitution-n2091584

Not a Jefferson quote.

[Swordsmyth]

Find it, charlatan. Here, I'll help:

https://archive.org/details/notesonstatevir00jeffgoog
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Thomas-Jefferson-Notes-On-The-State-Of-Virginia.pdf
http://www.docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/jefferson/jefferson.html

You've enrolled one of the greatest men who ever lived in your moronic fraud. I hope TJ haunts your dreams.

Get off vdare and read some books.

That attribution appears to be in error, since I can't find any other source for the quotation that gives a source for it I will class it as "disputed".

However Jefferson did say the following:



"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

--Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258



"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation..."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140


"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements."



--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118




"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

[TheCount]

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

--Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258



"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation..."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140


"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements."



--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118


All of these are pro immigration.




"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28This quote is about warmongering citizens and voluntary secession as you yourself agreed. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513080-Trump-Administration-to-Send-Thousands-of-ICE-Agents-to-Target-Sanctuary-Cities&p=6502795&viewfull=1#post6502795)

[Swordsmyth]

All of these are pro immigration.

With limits, which is the same as my position.

This one says there must be rules that can only be as equitable as prudential considerations will admit:
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

--Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

This one says they must be assimilated, and that they should be discouraged from settling together in large masses, one of the only ways to do that is to limit how many come in from any given nation per year:
"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation..."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140

This one discusses they dangers of too many immigrants with a different political culture destroying our liberty:
"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements."



--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118


This quote is about warmongering citizens and voluntary secession as you yourself agreed. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513080-Trump-Administration-to-Send-Thousands-of-ICE-Agents-to-Target-Sanctuary-Cities&p=6502795&viewfull=1#post6502795)
I keep telling you it is about restricting the re-immigration of former citizens from the seceding states after the secession:
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28