Judge Nap - The Camp of the Saints

[PAF]

The Camp of the Saints

By Andrew P. Napolitano

October 25, 2018


In Jean Raspail’s 1973 dystopian novel, “The Camp of the Saints,” about 1 million poor folks from India make their way on hundreds of ships around the southern tip of Africa and up to the French Riviera. The international media use helicopters to follow the flotilla, and the news of the flotilla’s movements dominates the headlines for weeks.

As the flotilla gets closer to France, panic sets in, and fear becomes a political weapon. The government doesn’t know what to do. The president of France finally orders the French military to secure the borders and use deadly force to prevent the flotilla from landing.

Then, after pangs of conscience set in and animate him, the president tells senior military personnel to instruct their troops to use their own judgment and do the right thing. With the exception of some stereotypical holdouts, the military members take their arms and flee into the countryside.

The flotilla lands. The passengers have no desire to assimilate, and they murder people who do not welcome them. They change immigration laws and become a paradigm for other mass migrations. Across the West, pro-immigrant governments are established.

When the book was first published, it found favor in many nativist quarters. It is brilliantly written, and the standard English translation offers compelling reading and is hard to put down. It is also rabidly racist, portraying nearly all in the West as thoughtful, intelligent and honest and nearly everyone of color as avaricious, lazy and amoral.

Regrettably, the book has been seen in the West Wing of the White House.

I recount this brief summary of a French literary work because I fear its unrealistic ending and harsh, racist treatment of those seeking a better world may be animating Trump administration policies about the caravan of 7,000 folks from Latin America who are in Mexico and walking toward the United States.

Like the fictional French president, President Donald Trump has made unsubstantiated allegations that bad people are in the midst of the caravan. And like the fictional French president before his change of heart, Trump has called himself a nationalist.

Nationalism and its cousin nativism are dangerous attitudes that have come and gone almost cyclically throughout American history. They foster an arrogant aura about Americans who embrace them — we are more deserving than you because our ancestors got here before you or yours did — and they cause fear and hatred of foreign-born people.

They also lull one into the lazy mental habit of judging the moral worth of people not on the basis of their personal choices and fidelity to first principles but on the basis of their membership in groups marked by immutable characteristics of birth, such as people’s place of birth.


This habit rejects a founding American principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The quoted words above are not just Thomas Jefferson’s most famous musings, which made their way into the Declaration of Independence; rather, they embody natural law. And natural law teaches that human rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and they adhere in everyone, not just Americans.

I have argued in this column that the right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The courts protect natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them. That bar — called strict scrutiny — was crafted so as to make it nearly impossible for the government to interfere materially with personal freedoms, such as travel.

And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration — i.e., who can come here. It just gives it power over naturalization, i.e., who can become a citizen here.

The likely claim of the folks in the caravan will be political asylum. Political asylum requires the claimant to demonstrate an intolerable situation in the home country caused by the government — not by economic forces — and aimed at the person seeking asylum. Thus, the failure of the government in the country of origin to protect basic natural rights or to enforce basic criminal laws — for example, permitting criminal gangs to rule — is a valid basis for asylum, whereas loss of a job is not.


Once an asylum-seeker has so much as the tip of her shoe on American soil, she can file an asylum claim. The claim entitles her to a hearing before an immigration judge. Most of these hearings take six to eight months after the claim has been filed to reach a judge. In the Obama years, asylum claimants were set free until their hearings. The Trump administration has detained them and separated children from their parents. The detentions are lawful; the family separations are not.

Yet people who want to work should be allowed in. My colleagues at The Wall Street Journal have demonstrated indisputably that most of the work that immigrants will do is work most Americans eschew. Their work not only benefits them but also produces family stability and increases wealth, which finds its way into the stream of commerce.

The blanket rejection by force of everyone in the caravan violates the spirit and the intentions of the laws the president has sworn to uphold. Those laws mandate a careful examination of all who want to come here — on a neutral case-by-case basis — not a blanket prohibition.

We who call ourselves Americans are nearly all descended from immigrants. Yet when our forebears arrived here, they were met simply by prejudice and government indifference. The poor folks in the caravan are likely to be met by prejudice and government force.



http://www.judgenap.com/post/the-camp-of-the-saints

[Danke]

Let them all in. Diversity is our strength.

[PAF]

Let them all in. Diversity is our strength.

Cut the Welfare, by EO if necessary, and I'm good with that.

[shakey1]

Cut the Welfare, by EO if necessary, and I'm good with that.

That would seem to be the easiest first course of action.

[Anti Federalist]

Read it yourself and decide.

It's not War and Peace, only 103 pages.

Every platitude that Judge Nap brings up is addressed in the book, including what eventually happens when you import a hostile underclass to "do the work you won't do".

Read it here. (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDFs/Camp_of_the_Saints_2col%20.pdf)

[Jamesiv1]

Would be interesting to see what happens to the horde if Trump did issue an EO making it a felony to provide welfare to non-citizens.

[Anti Federalist]

The passengers have no desire to assimilate, and they murder people who do not welcome them.They change immigration laws and become a paradigm for other mass migrations. Across the West, pro-immigrant governments are established.

The Judge is being dishonest here.

That is not all they do, read the book yourself to see.

The new waves of migrants utterly and totally erase 1000 years of French history and people. If not outright murdered, French citizens have their homes and property seized, businesses stolen, (there is a chilling segment where the owner of a meat packing plant is murdered by the third world hordes he hired on the cheap, and his body slowly processed down the line into potted meat) and become, almost overnight, second class citizens in what was their own country.

The Bolshevik-Jacobin left in this country have openly stated, in writings and speeches, that is their plan for anybody left of the Old Order.

[jmdrake]

The Judge is being dishonest here.

That is not all they do, read the book yourself to see.

The new waves of migrants utterly and totally erase 1000 years of French history and people. If not outright murdered, French citizens have their homes and property seized, businesses stolen, (there is a chilling segment where the owner of a meat packing plant is murdered by the third world hordes he hired on the cheap, and his body slowly processed down the line into potted meat) and become, almost overnight, second class citizens in what was their own country.

The Bolshevik-Jacobin left in this country have openly stated, in writings and speeches, that is their plan for anybody left of the Old Order.

So because Judge Nap "merely" mentioned mass murder that is dishonest? :confused: I guess someone who read the book could say "AF is being dishonest because he left out that on page 97 there were ritual child sacrifices to the Hindu goddess Shiva."

Edit: And I haven't read the book and don't know if Shiva is mentioned. Just making the point that it would be impossible to mention everything in a 103 page book in a single article. Mass murder itself paints the picture that the author of the book thinks that immigrant hordes are very dangerous.

[angelatc]

Cut the Welfare, by EO if necessary, and I'm good with that.

That's the Libertarian position. But there are not nearly enough libertarians in office to make that a realistic solution at this point.

[angelatc]

The Judge is being dishonest here.

That is not all they do, read the book yourself to see.

The new waves of migrants utterly and totally erase 1000 years of French history and people. If not outright murdered, French citizens have their homes and property seized, businesses stolen, (there is a chilling segment where the owner of a meat packing plant is murdered by the third world hordes he hired on the cheap, and his body slowly processed down the line into potted meat) and become, almost overnight, second class citizens in what was their own country.

The Bolshevik-Jacobin left in this country have openly stated, in writings and speeches, that is their plan for anybody left of the Old Order.

Bill Greene the delegate feels the same.

[Anti Federalist]

So because Judge Nap "merely" mentioned mass murder that is dishonest? :confused: I guess someone who read the book could say "AF is being dishonest because he left out that on page 97 there were ritual child sacrifices to the Hindu goddess Shiva."

Edit: And I haven't read the book and don't know if Shiva is mentioned. Just making the point that it would be impossible to mention everything in a 103 page book in a single article. Mass murder itself paints the picture that the author of the book thinks that immigrant hordes are very dangerous.

I think he is being dishonest because he, at the critical juncture of the story, leaves out the most crucial point:

That the native French are not just murdered, they were "unpersoned".

Everything they were, everything they did, everything they created in 1000 year history (mentioned many times: "The Thousand Years Are Ended", a sort of anti civilization anthem that the modern day Jacobins adopted in the book) was erased, it ceased to be.

[jmdrake]

I think he is being dishonest because he, at the critical juncture of the story, leaves out the most crucial point:

That the native French are not just murdered, they were "unpersoned".

Everything they were, everything they did, everything they created in 1000 year history (mentioned many times: "The Thousand Years Are Ended", a sort of anti civilization anthem that the modern day Jacobins adopted in the book) was erased, it ceased to be.

You put a big difference between being "murdered" and being "unpersoned." Fine. I doubt most people do. The book is, of course, a work of fiction. That said, if believing that the "mass hordes" are going to murder everyone that disagrees with them isn't enough motivation to sway the reader to the author's viewpoint, the "unpersoning" is unlikely to do that as well.

[Anti Federalist]

You put a big difference between being "murdered" and being "unpersoned." Fine. I doubt most people do. The book is, of course, a work of fiction. That said, if believing that the "mass hordes" are going to murder everyone that disagrees with them isn't enough motivation to sway the reader to the author's viewpoint, the "unpersoning" is unlikely to do that as well.

Yes, I do.

YMMV of course.

It's one thing to be murdered, or even worse, subject to genocide or ethnic cleansing. Those are survivable, at a group level.

To be utterly washed away, or consumed in the manner of an amoeba, that is another, and is not survivable.

There is no coming back from that.

Or at least that is Raspiel's argument, with which I happen to agree.

[Anti Federalist]

You put a big difference between being "murdered" and being "unpersoned." Fine. I doubt most people do. The book is, of course, a work of fiction. That said, if believing that the "mass hordes" are going to murder everyone that disagrees with them isn't enough motivation to sway the reader to the author's viewpoint, the "unpersoning" is unlikely to do that as well.

Oh, one other thing to mention:

In the book, the invading horde did not murder the native people with any direct malice.

This is critical to understand the point the author is making.

No, the native French got killed if they were in the way, and there was no malice, there was no recognition, no hatred or compassion.

No more thought given than what you would spare to pull a weed.

The hatred and malice was reserved for rooting out the symbols, institutions, structures and traditions.

Oh, and the "useful idiots" that thought they would join hands with the invaders and "help" them build their new utopia.

Special contempt was reserved for condescending and double crossing native French like that.

[Anti Federalist]

Bill Greene the delegate feels the same.

Who?

:confused:

[angelatc]

Who?

:confused:

The rogue electoral delegate who voted for Ron Paul. He's well educated, a college professor, and clearly a Ron Paul supporter to the nth degree. He posted that he read the book, lives near the border and is a little afraid.

[Anti Federalist]

The rogue electoral delegate who voted for Ron Paul. He's well educated, a college professor, and clearly a Ron Paul supporter to the nth degree. He posted that he read the book, lives near the border and is a little afraid.

Oh, yeah yeah yeah, I gotcha...his name slipped my mind.

Hmmph...as well he should be.

[Swordsmyth]

Cut the Welfare, by EO if necessary, and I'm good with that.
Then you are a fool, they will vote to get the welfare back and more.

[thoughtomator]

Nap's spent too much time hanging around the media set, he's been pozzed.

[axiomata]

That's the Libertarian position. But there are not nearly enough libertarians in office to make that a realistic solution at this point.

Not even enough libertarians on a libertarian forum. More Trump supporters than Napolitano supporters is a bad omen.

[Anti Federalist]

Not even enough libertarians on a libertarian forum. More Trump supporters than Napolitano supporters is a bad omen.

Trump is basically in favor of the plan Ron Paul has presented. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527654-Why-caravan-migrants-wave-Honduran-flags-and-burn-tires-in-front-of-U-S-embassy&p=6698031&viewfull=1#post6698031)

I am opposed.

[Kilrain]

Cutting off welfare wouldn't actually solve the immigration problem, unless you also get yourself a massive surveillance and police state.

The Western world has an abundance of wealth, people from other parts of the world crave this. If they don't get it by government force (welfare), they're gonna take it by individual force (crime). Sadly, it doesn't matter if most immigrants are non-violent, since it only takes a tiny percentage of the population to turn society into hell on earth.

Imagine a neighborhood of 1,000 people. What do you think it will look like if just 10 (1%) of them are violent psychos?

[Swordsmyth]

Cutting off welfare wouldn't actually solve the immigration problem, unless you also get yourself a massive surveillance and police state.

The Western world has an abundance of wealth, people from other parts of the world crave this. If they don't get it by government force (welfare), they're gonna take it by individual force (crime). Sadly, it doesn't matter if most immigrants are non-violent, since it only takes a tiny percentage of the population to turn society into hell on earth.

Imagine a neighborhood of 1,000 people. What do you think it will look like if just 10 (1%) of them are violent psychos?
You wouldn't need a massive surveillance and police state on the other hand if you control your borders and limit your immigration.

I've been trying to tell people that just ending welfare isn't enough and that border/immigration controls enable you to avoid a police state but those that have drunk deep of the open borders kool-aid are slow to learn.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let them all in. Diversity is our strength.

Indeed. Only a racist would oppose massive immigration. Or some backwards redneck that is afraid they won't have a jerb anymore.

[Anti Federalist]

Indeed. Only a racist would oppose massive immigration. Or some backwards redneck that is afraid they won't have a jerb anymore.

I owe you a rep for the bump.

The French are living Raspeil's novel as we speak.

We're next.

[Anti Federalist]

And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration — i.e., who can come here.

Yes, it does.

Article Four Section 4 : The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, it does.

Article Four Section 4 : The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.


A1S8

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

A1S8
...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, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/ (https://i2i.org/where-congresss-power-to-regulate-immigration-comes-from/)


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.


"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

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 (http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtml)



"[N]o endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress (the immigrant who would cause) the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war" - "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338 (https://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtml)

To parse Jefferson's 19th century legalese here:

"The government should spare no expense to prohibit immigrants would turn the country upside down, promote internal warfare and cause damage to the native citizens."



From the very beginning, from before there was a United States, you were required to join a church, register your family name and everybody in your family and apply for "freeman" papers, when arriving the colonies.

The dates in May of 1634 and 1636 are chosen
because of some features of the migration process. Most passenger ships
did not leave England until spring, because of the bad weather in the
North Atlantic earlier in the year. Thus it would be impossible for a
passenger on one of these ships to have joined a church and then applied
for freemanship in time for the annual General Court of Election, which
in 1634 took place on 14 May and in 1636 on 25 May. Thus it is
assumed that all the men who appeared in the list of freemen on 25 May
1636 must have arrived in New England no later than 1635. (https://www.americanancestors.org/uploadedfiles/American_Ancestors/Content/Databases/PDFs/greatmigration/Great%20Migration_V6_R-SIntroduction.pdf)

To say that there was in early America no idea of who was coming or going, no records kept and no control over who showed up, is just not historically accurate.


All that and more at this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9

[Swordsmyth]

Nap proving he is controlled opposition yet again.

[TheTexan]

This is how civilizations are erased.

Did we learn nothing from what we successfully did to the indians.

[Anti Federalist]

This is how civilizations are erased.

Did we learn nothing from what we successfully did to the indians.

Brain diseased leftist whites, suffering from the alien culture's mind virus, are so "guilt" ridden they would just as soon be exterminated, than to live each day with their "guilt".

[Anti Federalist]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IMG_1610.jpeg?w=845&ssl=1